James 2 And OSAS

[Deborah13]

but does not have works

What is James' definition of works?

demonstrated

and demonstrated to whom.....other men?

 

[Deborah13]

It seems like you have to choose between the two, OSAS or sola-fide. You can't interpret James 2 the standard Protestant way and keep both.

We shouldn't feel too bad about our problems with James. Martin Luther was so upset with James that he cut the whole book out of his Bible and put it in the appendix. He couldn't see how James could such things in the light of the cross. Luther taught grace and faith salvation.

If we think that the things James said can disprove OSAS then we are saying that James is teaching 'works' salvation. There is no way of getting around that fact. So James is teaching old covenant to believers? No

I see James as teaching to old covenant Jews that all their works are nothing without knowing Jesus. That their knowing God (religiously) is dead faith, as even the demons believe. Head knowledge compared to heart knowledge.

I think we need to remember that not all scripture is directed at us as an individual. James as any good preacher will speak to both the believer and the unbeliever, to the saved and the unsaved.
Can we really think that James was teaching 'justified by works' and yet the Pharisees killed him by throwing him off a roof because he would not denounce his teachings? Justification by works was right up their alley.

James had an extremely hard job. Here he was trying to teach 'saved by grace through faith' to dyed in the wool, old covenant Jews in Jerusalem. Remember when he told Paul to pay for the sacrifices for four men and Paul also participated if I remember correctly. So was James teaching a mixture of law and grace. No, he and Paul where doing what needed to be done to convert the Jews. 'When in Rome...' Paul even states that he becomes whatever he needs to in order to bring the gospel of the people. That was pretty much what I did when I went to church with the Mormon lads I was witnessing too and that is what saved by grace believers do when they stay in their denomination church in order to be witnesses to others in that church.

James has to be read with the cross always before us. To say that James is preaching against OSAS is to say that James is preaching 'justification by works' and didn't understand grace and the cross.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

On what basis is the non-OSAS group seeking to condemn other believers?

Condemn them? No. Just simply showing what the Bible says about those who claim the name of Christ, but have no evidence of that claim in what they do, if it applies. When you share what the Bible says does it always automatically equate to condemning those you share it with?

The basis of works?

No. But on the basis of a faith that can't, and doesn't, produce works. But to most in the church the only word they can hear in that is 'works' and that it means 'works salvation'.

The basis of the insufficiency of Christ as a Savior?

No, but on the faith to trust in the sufficiency of Christ as Savior.

Any of these categories will prove insufficient to damn any believer to hell upon examinations.

Faith is the category that will determine whether the person who claims to be in Christ will be saved on the Day of Wrath. That faith is identified by what it does, not what it says. James says the faith that can't be seen in what it does is the faith that can not save. Do you want to argue his point?

And any claimant will fail the test themselves if their claims reside on any basis listed.

Well, since the basis you provided is not what the argument is about there is no failure according to that basis.

Sins are not counted against believers. 2 Cor. 5:19

Except the sin of unbelief. What provision of forgiveness has been made for rejecting God's provision of forgiveness? What is this forgiveness that exists outside of trusting in the body and blood of Christ?

All our works are as filthy rags which doesn't change after salvation.

All too typical in the church...to only be able to see 'works' as meaning 'trying to be justified by works', and unable to see what the Bible does say about works being the required companion of faith for that faith to be validated as being the kind that can save a person. Or was James lying when he asked rhetorically of the faith that doesn't act, "can such faith save him"? Are you in disagreement with James and believe that an inactive faith CAN save a person?

And to ague that Christ is insufficient is the real argument...

Christ is so sufficient that I don't even have to believe in him to be saved by him?

...trying to turn believers away from God in Christ and make the person their own Savior/God, holding salvation in their own hands.

How does it make me my own God to earn the wages of unbelief? Explain.

 

[smaller]

James has to be read with the cross always before us. To say that James is preaching against OSAS is to say that James is preaching 'justification by works' and didn't understand grace and the cross.

When 'works for justification/salvation' believers use James they never EVER have any quantifiable measures of 'what works' and 'how many' or anything of substantiation other than it's mandatory for salvation, leaving the question open ended for constant manipulations. That also keeps the crowds coming back to the pews.

Always leave them guessing.

James said no different than any of the other Apostles. If we as believers don't love, what good is our faith?

Such faith is as James said, DEAD. Or as Paul said, making us as nothing. Or as John said even harsher, as LIARS AND MURDERERS.

Is faith against LOVE? No. Love is the 'expression and proof' of faith.

So why believers want to ETERNALLY KILL OR BURN ALIVE OTHER BELIEVERS should be looked upon with fierce eyes because their intentions are obvious. But they will plaster it over with 'deep concern for your eternal state of being.'

I detest such manipulations. It is the foundation of the fracturing of Christianity and it started as soon as Paul died:

Acts 20:
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

There, in Acts 20, is Paul's PROPHECY BY THE HOLY SPIRIT and after his departing is your 'historical church' that spewed eternal torture and/or eternally killing upon the FLOCK.

It didn't take them long to over run and manipulate believers with fear and threats.

Know them as Jesus said, by their FRUITS.

If their fruit is to eternally kill you or burn you alive forever as a believer and you don't get the fact that THAT AIN'T FRUIT then I'm pretty sure you don't know fruit. (not speaking to you personally here D)

s

 

[Deborah13]

I see James as teaching to old covenant Jews that all their works are nothing without knowing Jesus. That their knowing God (religiously) is dead faith, as even the demons believe. Head knowledge compared to heart knowledge

@dad10 and [MENTION=94584]chessman[/MENTION],

This is what I see,

James talking to believers, righteous men, he shows them Abraham. His works counted as righteousness. Abraham didn't stop at the little things in faith he was willing to totally trust God even to the sacrifice of his own son.
Jesus told the Pharisees that they did well in their tithes and offering even down to their herbs but that they forgot the more important things, basically things of love towards others. They needed to go beyond what they were doing and have complete and utter faith.

James talking to unbelievers, the unrighteous, he shows them Rahab and how she obtained righteousness. She had heard about the God of the Jews, as many in Jericho had, but she was the only one who took from her head to her heart and stepped out in faith. Head knowledge does not saved, heart knowledge responds in acts of faith.

James was not teaching 'works salvation' just the opposite.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Again, you can't have it both ways. Either James means we can prove we have a "saving faith" by our actions, which means OSAS is false IF we can "show" even one person who "showed" his faith then backslid (which is pretty common), or:

James is teaching our "works" actually make or declare us righteous before God.

It seems like you have to choose between the two, OSAS or sola-fide. You can't interpret James 2 the standard Protestant way and keep both.

Why can't 'shown to be righteous' be retained in the passage, preserving sola-fida, and OSAS discarded?

I know from our other discussions that our point of difference is in the meaning of 'sola fida'.

I know in my own life I did things deserving death. There is no amount of work I could have done to atone for that, except the work of believing in the blood of Christ and being justified freely by the love and mercy of God. Therefore, legal justification for the one who can't pay the price of the sin that deserves death can only come by the blood of Christ. And we access that blood by our faith in that blood. That is what sola fida means to us Protestants--faith in the blood of Christ for legal justification, all by itself.

From here that faith, that justifies all by itself, must be signified by a change of nature, or else it's clear that faith is not of the kind that can save, and effect the change genuine faith in Christ effects, but which we claim did. And to no longer have the change that saving faith effects in a person is to signify an abandonment of the faith that effects that change.

 

[smaller]

Condemn them? No. Just simply showing what the Bible says about those who claim the name of Christ, if it applies. When you share what the Bible says does it always automatically equate to condemning those you share it with?

Believers who seek to cast doubt on our Savior being able to 'save' or seek to remove our justifications from IN HIM to 'of our acts' are ill willed and ill intentioned. I will still call them believers regardless, no different than the High Priest of Israel during Jesus' time was inside a ravenous wolf. God still used him and he was still a child of God, as all of Israel are.

AND as all are who call upon Jesus to save them. Believers regardless. Just some get drawn into some really dark dark pools by the nature of the subject matter, being spiritual pitted against darker forces, unseen.

It's an ugly little arena sometimes.

No. But on the basis of a faith that can't, and doesn't, produce works. But to most in the church the only word they can hear in that is 'works' and that it means 'works salvation'.

Zero works proponents ever have anything solidily quantifiable other than they seek to eternally kill or burn alive forever other believers in any vague and innocuous ways they can find to heap upon another believer.

Did any of you ever hear of 'giving the benefit of the doubt' instead?

Seriously. Why this quest to insert DOUBT?

Some people get their jollies out of threatening people and thinking they are somehow another believers 'eternal judge.'

I am not fond of such pettiness if you can tell. Wizard of Oz theology remains unimpressive.

No, but on the faith to trust in the sufficiency of Christ as Savior.

yeah, faith plus. If you don't 'do your job' then yer so up the creek without a paddle huh?

lol

What is 'your job' anyway?

Did any of us come to the Table of our Savior with ANYTHING WORTHY of our salvation?

Not that I remember.

Does that somehow magically change afterwards? NOW we have the 'ability' to 'earn our way through the Pearly Gates?' When did that happen?

When did Christ ever leave us in any work, good or bad?

A couple of the 'sectarian members' here make the claim that 'we leave Him' as if that is even possible.

It's not and it's entirely not only ridiculous, but non-existing as a possibility. IF Christ never 'left us' how then did we leave Him? Obviously Christ never left us then DID HE?

I detest illogical statements. 'He NEVER LEFT US, but we left Him.' Unreal that passes for logic.

Faith is the category that will determine whether the person who claims to be in Christ will be saved on the Day of Wrath. That faith is identified by what it does, not what it says. James says the faith that can't be seen in what it does is the faith that can not save. Do you want to argue his point?

If the standard is LOVE then I am satisfied that is sufficient proof.

NOW, what standard do you want to raise as 'proof of love?'

Here, I'll give you the easiest most liberal one in the book that EVERY LAST BELIEVER will qualify for, easily, if the STANDARD OF WORKS IS LOVE:

Eph. 5:
28 In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies.
For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself.
29 No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church.
30 And we are members of his body.

Yes, the reality is we are ALL, as believers most thorougly in LOVE with OURSELVES aren't we?

Benefit of the doubt? I have no doubts whatsoever that every last believer is at a minimum in DEEP DEEP love of their own hide.

Is that STANDARD OF LOVE good enough for any of you 'works for salvation believers?'

That STANDARD should be sufficient for every last one of us.

I'll stop here and wait for the ante to be raised or the whining to start.

Well, since the basis you provided is not what the argument is about there is no failure according to that basis.

You are looking for a basis to cause another believer to eternally fail and then be either burned alive forever or eternally killed.

SO WHAT IS YOUR BASIS if not one of the 'very broad categories' I already listed.

For a refresher:

Sin,
Insufficient Personal Works
Insufficient Savior

Except the sin of unbelief.

I don't see that listed as 'an exception' in 2 Cor. 5:19 or the avalanche of other statements about the ENTIRE SUFFICIENCY OF CHRIST'S ATONEMENT FOR SIN, as it pertains to believers:

IF a person, even for a moment, BELIEVED, and were then BLINDED by the DEVIL would you eternally damn them for that?

You see NONE of you are really able to see the 'cause' of blindness in returning to unbelief and you only want to see and blame those who are BLIND.

Might as well just stick yer leg out and trip the blind. No different in my eyes.

What provision of forgiveness has been made for rejecting God's provision of forgiveness? What is this forgiveness that exists outside of trusting in the body and blood of Christ?

Oh, you want to run 'trust' up the flag now? That you have 'sufficient trust?'

The litany is nearly endless of the ways people come up with to damn other believers.

It's one of the most sickening experiences of faith that there is.

All too typical in the church...to only be able to see 'works' as meaning 'trying to be justified by works', and unable to see what the Bible does say about works being the required companion of faith for that faith to be validated as being the kind that can save a person. Or was James lying when he asked rhetorically of the faith that doesn't act, "can such faith save him"? Are you in disagreement with James and believe that an inactive faith CAN save a person?

ACCORDING TO WHO'S MEASURES?

Every denomination you see has 'their formula' to make sure 'you and they are right' and everyone else WRONG.

May they all stay divided and damning each others to the END.

I'm sure Jesus will be quite proud of all those efforts.

NOT.

I thought you had a head on your shoulders for awhile, but that sight is fading fast.

s

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Deb, I must ask this again:

You probably believe (correctly) that acts of faith signify the presence of saving faith. But when the actions of faith disappear action is no longer the signature of saving faith?

If you answer, 'yes', how so?

Not being confrontational, just helping you see some of the inconsistencies of the OSAS viewpoint.

 

[chessman]

[MENTION=88699]Jethro Bodine[/MENTION]
In all the suffle of this now 400+ post thread, maybe you missed this very important question. Would you mind just quickly listing your top 2 or three passages that teach OSAS=no since you seem to agree that it's not James 2.

Then where are these other Scriptures that you mention? I’m not saying there are not any, just very interested in which ones, exactly, that you meant. It would be a great new Thread to start. (_________) teaches OSAS = no

 

[Deborah13]

One should look at the context

Yes, and here it is in Context.
John 6:64-66

New King James Version (NKJV)

64 But there are some of you who do not believe.†For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.â€
66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

 

[Deborah13]

No. But on the basis of a faith that can't, and doesn't, produce works. But to most in the church the only word they can hear in that is 'works' and that it means 'works salvation'.

That is what this whole thread is about trying to prove through James' teaching that OSAS can't be true because one must do works in order to have saving faith.

Jeez Jethro, I thought you didn't believe that works could save you? I thought you believed Eph, 2:8-9. I must have been wrong. Sorry.

 

[Deborah13]

James is teaching our "works" actually make or declare us righteous before God.

this is what this thread is about, it appears to me. Salvation by grace through + works.

James is not teaching any such thing!

 

[gr8grace]

4 Questions


Those who teach conditional salvation often avoid specifics. How would they answer the following questions:


i) What sin causes loss of salvation?


A theft? A swear word? A lie? Ten lies? 50 lies? No specific uniform answers are available, indicating the unsound foundation on which this error is built.


ii) How does loss of salvation become known to an individual?


Again, solid answers are not there, only nebulous suggestions.


iii) How is salvation recovered?


If salvation is through believing, how does one ‘believe again’? No one who has had Christ revealed to his soul could ever ‘believe again’. Interestingly, some cults who teach baptismal regeneration and conditional salvation do not insist on rebaptism once a ‘backslider’ has been ‘restored’. In other words, baptism is essential for salvation first time around, but not the second time


iv) Where in scripture is there an example of a true believer losing his salvation and then being saved again?

 

[Deborah13]

Are you in disagreement with James and believe that an inactive faith CAN save a person?

What faith saved Rahab. Believing that God was the one true God and that her salvation could only be found in Him. Because of the belief she stepped out in faith. It was her faith that saved her and through that faith she acted. We do not hear that she ever did one other act of faith only this one that saved her from death.

James teaching is clearly given to the unbelievers in the audience that needed to move their head knowledge to heart knowledge.

PS, not her faith that saved but God by grace through her faith

 

[Deborah13]

action is no longer the signature of saving faith?

I almost missed this post, no quote or mention and short and sweet.

I would say look at my post about Rahab. below.

What is the measure of works that show faith?

Only one, faith that makes a person ask Jesus into their heart. Who's works are these, "God's work".
John 6:28-29

New King James Version (NKJV)

28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”


This is the only work that saves. Believing in the Son.

From that point on all other works of faith are the manifestation of the Son in us that we cannot claim as our own.

 

[dadof10]

You're right. I did miss this in the barrage of posts these last couple of days.


Why? Well, I can't really argue with what you say. I guess I back away from using James 2 as a gauge to measure other people by because of the difficulty of discerning character (that which truly characterizes a person in all situations), as opposed to Abraham's actions which could not be misunderstood, or faked.

I know what you mean. In a previous post I said to someone "once we reach that threshold (of someone showing their true faith)...". After I wrote it I asked myself what that "threshold" would be. Three homeless shelter visits, twelve chapters of Scripture read, seventeen curse words avoided and one instance of not frequenting a strip club???? Sheesh. If we look at James, he gives heroic examples of people showing their faith. Abraham was willing to lose his son, Rahab was certainly risking her life by fraternizing with spies. But then the first "good deed" he lists is simply not walking by someone in need. So, I don't know. All I know is James says we must do good deeds.

As you said, I think it's more of a character or lifestyle issue. Those who live their lives for Christ and refrain from sin are "showing" their faith. It's like the old Potter Stewart quote: He wouldn't define pornography but he said "I know it when I see it." Same can be said in this case.

We recognize the presence of that faith--the faith that can save--by what it does. OSAS, even though it gives lip service to James, ultimately puts his teaching on the sidelines if necessary to validate saving faith. That's bothersome to me.

Me too. It seems inconsistent. When I run out of time or a thread is moving fast, I usually skim the posts, then go back and read them later. I missed this quote from you. I meant to comment on it.

It's when a person consciously and willing refuses to repent, that is when he has removed himself from the grace of salvation. And even then, it is the Lord who makes the determination who has truly sinned beyond reach of his grace, and who has not.

Very well put. It takes into consideration that all is Grace, that we can remove ourselves from Grace and that ultimately it is God who judges us. From your posts here, I don't think we are too far apart on this topic, and I see that now. I didn't see it when we were on the other threads, due to my pride and love of argument. I apologize.

You're right, we're not very far apart at all. You're saying the same things I am, that "...all is Grace, that we can remove ourselves from Grace and that ultimately it is God who judges us".

And I must confess that in our other discussions I could see that if I tried harder I could be more cooperative and give your argument the space it deserves and possibly reconcile our beliefs and find peace. I admit my pride wouldn't allow me to do that. So I apologize to you.

Fresh starts are always good...

 

[dadof10]

Let’s start here, if that’s okay:

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? (James 2:14 ESV)
​

How do you answer James’ 2nd rhetorical question here? Can that faith save him? (Yes or No)
i.e. that "type" of faith (faith without demonstrated works)?

Actually, the words are "can faith save him?", there is no "that" or "type" of faith.

The answer is an obvious "no". I mean it's hypothetical. James is teaching "faith without works is dead", and uses a man walking by someone in need without helping as an example. What would your answer be?

 

[dadof10]

Again, you can't have it both ways. Either James means we can prove we have a "saving faith" by our actions, which means OSAS is false IF we can "show" even one person who "showed" his faith then backslid (which is pretty common), or:

James is teaching our "works" actually make or declare us righteous before God.

It seems like you have to choose between the two, OSAS or sola-fide. You can't interpret James 2 the standard Protestant way and keep both.

Why can't 'shown to be righteous' be retained in the passage, preserving sola-fida, and OSAS discarded?

I know from our other discussions that our point of difference is in the meaning of 'sola fida'.

I know in my own life I did things deserving death. There is no amount of work I could have done to atone for that, except the work of believing in the blood of Christ and being justified freely by the love and mercy of God. Therefore, legal justification for the one who can't pay the price of the sin that deserves death can only come by the blood of Christ. And we access that blood by our faith in that blood. That is what sola fida means to us Protestants--faith in the blood of Christ for legal justification, all by itself.

From here that faith, that justifies all by itself, must be signified by a change of nature, or else it's clear that faith is not of the kind that can save, and effect the change genuine faith in Christ effects, but which we claim did. And to no longer have the change that saving faith effects in a person is to signify an abandonment of the faith that effects that change.

If you define "justified" in James as "shown to be righteous", then OSAS is false. If you define "justified" in James as "made/declared righteous" then sola-fide is false because James is using the word in the same way Paul does. This definition puts righteousness onto the believer on the basis of their works. Gotta get back to work, lunch break over. I'll explain in more detail later.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

action is no longer the signature of saving faith?

I almost missed this post, no quote or mention and short and sweet.

I would say look at my post about Rahab. below.

What is the measure of works that show faith?

Only one, faith that makes a person ask Jesus into their heart. Who's works are these, "God's work".
John 6:28-29

New King James Version (NKJV)

28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”


This is the only work that saves. Believing in the Son.

From that point on all other works of faith are the manifestation of the Son in us that we cannot claim as our own.

How can anyone bypass what you are saying here as though it was not here?

 

[gr8grace]

action is no longer the signature of saving faith?

I almost missed this post, no quote or mention and short and sweet.

I would say look at my post about Rahab. below.

What is the measure of works that show faith?

Only one, faith that makes a person ask Jesus into their heart. Who's works are these, "God's work".
John 6:28-29

New King James Version (NKJV)

28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”


This is the only work that saves. Believing in the Son.

From that point on all other works of faith are the manifestation of the Son in us that we cannot claim as our own.

How can anyone bypass what you are saying here as though it was not here?

Because most people here do not want to hear the truth and have a solid biblical answer. Deb usually has solid biblical answers.