James 2 And OSAS

[jasoncran]

danus,. I often use adam Clarke and oddly he quotes the jewish Talmud. oddly and he manages to line it up well.take a gander at romans 10 and ponder what partial blindness is. when I quote jews either I quote ones whom go back to the rabbis that are in heaven as these did believe and teach. the law and tanach and teachings were given by oral ways and while not all of it is good but some of it is astounding how they missed jesus. certain things he did that were a teaching he did do albeit not the way they wanted it or thought. ie the messiah shall give out mannah when he comes. jesus kinda did do that but it was from heaven.

 

[francisdesales]

You seem to be under the misconception that God places one's good deeds on one side and one's bad deeds on the other side and weighs them, thus, your earlier comment about 50.001% v 49.999%. That is not the case.

As it pertained to my observation prior you cited that not everyone who says LORD LORD, will be saved and that presumably from the Matt. 7 acct. here:

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


as if that was some dead sure kill on OSAS. And I observed that 'all' in fact 'work iniquity.'

Where exactly does the Bible state that one must be absolutely perfect? Again, you seem to be under a misperception that Judaism and/or Christianity demands absolute perfection, when this is certainly not the case. All sin, that is clear, but God knows who regrets that sin and who does not. Neither Judaism nor Christianity see the need for such perfection that you attempt to establish through your non sequitar.

Handle the facts as you please but by all means handle the facts.

Yes, you should. And don't cut out what Matthew 25 states. The fact remains that men are judged by their actions.

Oh? End of what time? Their time? Earths time? Anyone's time?

Another distraction...

You know we are not allowed to discuss your particular sects doctrines on 'end times,' in this forum anyway.

My sect? is that your feeble attempt to ignore the historical reality of the development of the Christian Church??? It would be more correct to apply the term to you and your "group", probably in existence for what, a decade or two, maybe??? Keep up the dreams if you will. if you want to discuss theology, do so, but drop the poor attempts at putting me down, history doesn't support your "claim". Stop whining about what the ToS states, there is a place to discuss this sort of thing openly, but you have decided against it.

if you want to continue discussing this, try not to get personal.

 

[Danus]

ok, so how does one endure to the end if one need do I then? im sorry. I never said that one has to be all perfect but once again one can choose to sin and knowingly hate another. if that is the case then why did jesus warn us about holding grudges if no Christians would or could do that to his or her eternal damnation. plain wording.

I understand. But you ask a great question. How does one endure? We endure through Christ. We place our faith and our trust in Christ Jesus daily. We lean totally on Christ.

That's the message of salvation and the very heart of God's commands. Christ is God. Letting go of our self will is to surrender to Gods will for us.

 

[jasoncran]

ok, he is talking to a bunch of Christians. while im not advocating legalism, but its like this if one is saved, then why do I need to be told to endure? if its already done or to overcome if its already done?

remember the blotting out thing.he that overcomes .. I will not blot out. what does that mean? yes our faith overcomes. I accept that but It does also he that is faithful to the end shall receive a reward.

 

[francisdesales]

i know but he is a reformer. calvin was the first to postulate the idea of eternal security.

No he was not. Calvin did not develop anything new.

Excuse me???? Which Church Father posited double predestination or individual eternal security??? I would like a citation, if you have one.

 

[Danus]

i know but he is a reformer. calvin was the first to postulate the idea of eternal security.

No he was not. Calvin did not develop anything new.

Excuse me???? Which Church Father posited double predestination or individual eternal security??? I would like a citation, if you have one.

I could easily say Paul, But even he got it from God first. Would you like me to quote Paul? I'm sure you know where to find it.

 

[francisdesales]

i know but he is a reformer. calvin was the first to postulate the idea of eternal security.

No he was not. Calvin did not develop anything new.

Excuse me???? Which Church Father posited double predestination or individual eternal security??? I would like a citation, if you have one.

I could easily say Paul, But even he got it from God first. Would you like me to quote Paul? I'm sure you know where to find it.

Double predestination from Paul? Where? Individual security guarnateed no matter what you do?

Sorry, I do not know which passage you are speaking of, but I would appreciate learning what you are speaking of - I am here to learn, so I would appreciate you telling me.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Why not?

Because salvation is a gift. If you did lose your salvation wouldn't you have to do something to get it back and doesn't the Bible say we are saved by faith and not of works? So, in other words you can only get your salvation back by doing works, which the Bible clearly says you can't do.

Paul is comparing being saved by faith v works of the law - the Mosaic Law is not the standard of salvation, since it would leave out the Gentiles. So, no, the Mosaic Law does not save, it cannot help us do the will of the Father. Only the Holy Spirit can do that, and He is available to all, Greek and Jew.

The problem is expanding the defintion of initial salvation to eternal salvation that cannot be lost. The Bible doesn't support that idea - we are judged based on what we do. We are freely given the grace of redemption and justification, but do we maintain that? Do we live it? Do we continue to believe? Let us hope so. Let us not presume it.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I don't understand how one can lose their salvation. I can see how someone was not truly saved in the first place.

Religion my friend. Religion turns people into Hitler doctrine. They can't lose their salvation, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Although they might beat it into your head to sit up straighter.

this is what "we" mean by emotion. The appeal to "the other side" as Hitler...

Give me a break. Religion is the proper worship of God, the relationship between God and man. Can that be abused? Everything can be abused by man, it doesn't mean we toss the baby out with the bathwater..

Define salvation, then we can determine whether we can lose it or not. That would move things in the right direction.

Regards

 

[Guest]

Define salvation, then we can determine whether we can lose it or not. That would move things in the right direction.

Salvation is God the Father loving us first before we loved him. Who is God the Father and what is he capable of?

 

[farouk]

i know but he is a reformer. calvin was the first to postulate the idea of eternal security.

No he was not. Calvin did not develop anything new.

Excuse me???? Which Church Father posited double predestination or individual eternal security??? I would like a citation, if you have one.

f: Protestants are usually not particularly interested; this is why they tend to look to and quote from the Bible, Sir.

 

[chessman]

..

Define salvation, then we can determine whether we can lose it or not. That would move things in the right direction.

Regards

Those that differ on OSAS, differ over the definition of what saved is, not what "once" or "always" means. We all pretty much agree what those two terms mean. But a OSAS=no person will pre-define saved to mean something they can do, not do then, then potentially do over again. Then they interpret a verse a portion of a verse that SEEMS to confirm their presumption of "saved" when it's not even clear that's what is being defined. The problem is the real Biblical definition of "saved" is what God says, not what man presumes.
Isaiah 12:2 (NIV)
2 Surely God is my salvation;
I will trust and not be afraid.
The Lord, the Lord himself, is my strength and my defense;
he has become my salvation.â€


Note how clear this message and definition is. I'm confident James used this definition. That's why he could say: James 2:5 Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?

God does the choosing. Yes, those that receive salvation (the kingdom) love Him. But it God's promise, not ours. We renege on promises all the time, like ToS 2.5. But God doesn't renege.

 

[smaller]

Where exactly does the Bible state that one must be absolutely perfect?

You cited 'Lord Lord' as the dead sure elimination factor of OSAS. I pointed out the fact that the workers of iniquity are the ones told to depart. And the likewise fact that we all sin. So obviously you are going to resort to other methods of escape from hearing that statement, and as such OSAS is certainly not eliminated by that statement.

As to your question above:

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Again, you seem to be under a misperception that Judaism and/or Christianity demands absolute perfection,

Yes, it does. Without The Perfect Spirit of Christ within NO ONE is getting into heaven, period.

Does the term "through Him, with Him, in Him ring a bell?" It should.

when this is certainly not the case. All sin, that is clear,

Yes, I think that is without question in the 'not deceived' believers and probably at least 1/2 of those who aren't even Christians.

but God knows who regrets that sin and who does not.

Then you are back to the partial sheep/partial goat situation, and differentiating the two when in fact everyone who regrets still does goat works and sins.

And all the regrets in the world will not make a sinner sinless.

Neither Judaism nor Christianity see the need for such perfection that you attempt to establish through your non sequitar.

Argumentum ad populous/numerum? Tell me it isn't so.

Yes, you should. And don't cut out what Matthew 25 states. The fact remains that men are judged by their actions.

Said that from the start. Every last sheep does in fact also do goat works. There is no avoiding this honest conclusion.

Using Matt. 25 to eliminate OSAS doesn't work or compute either as it doesn't.

And if by works, then as little as providing a cup of water to a child is sufficient for entry to heaven.

Matthew 10:42
And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

Kinda puts a dent in the pomp and ceremony crowd.

My sect? is that your feeble attempt to ignore the historical reality of the development of the Christian Church???

The Christian Church? That's a classic. Which one might that be? There is not a one that is the same as another.

It would be more correct to apply the term to you and your "group", probably in existence for what, a decade or two, maybe???

Correct by age of existence? That's a classic two. And certainly not 14 million Mormon's could be wrong either could they?

Keep up the dreams if you will. if you want to discuss theology, do so, but drop the poor attempts at putting me down, history doesn't support your "claim".

Many a fine theologian does not rest their findings on history FD, as history shows us some very very ugly things.

Stop whining about what the ToS states, there is a place to discuss this sort of thing openly, but you have decided against it.

I have no interest in doing a one on one. So what?

if you want to continue discussing this, try not to get personal.

Now FOUR dead end debate postures?

I think you'll find me quite to the point and when that happens there are adverse reactions. Nothing new.

s

 

[smaller]

ok, he is talking to a bunch of Christians. while im not advocating legalism, but its like this if one is saved, then why do I need to be told to endure? if its already done or to overcome if its already done?

remember the blotting out thing.he that overcomes .. I will not blot out. what does that mean? yes our faith overcomes. I accept that but It does also he that is faithful to the end shall receive a reward.

I got sick of living a life of constant condemnation Jason.

Sooner or later it will wear you down or eliminate faith altogether.

Constant vacillation in and out of salvation ain't no picnic life in faith either.

s

 

[smaller]

i know but he is a reformer. calvin was the first to postulate the idea of eternal security.

History will show different tales to every observer. There is just as much an historical case that can be made that Calvin was very very late to that party.

s

 

[dadof10]

James is obviously saying that we can demonstrate our true faith to others and they can actually "see" it in us. Once this happens, if this person backslides, OSAS is proved false.

You are consistent with your definition of OSAS.
You don't see things as I see them.
Let me explain.

A man was a homosexual, got saved, and was on fire for Jesus.
After 5 or 6 years, he was growing into one of the leaders of the church.
Then one day, he told everyone he was going to live with his ex-boyfriend and left the church.
He found a church that excepted his lifestyle.
I never heard from him again.
Was he really saved?

Only God knows a man's heart. At some time in his life, he may repent and come back to God, such as the prodigal son.
Jesus told the story of the lost sheep, he left all the others to find the one that was lost.
This is OSAS belief.
If we truly belong to God but become overcome by the flesh or the temptations of the devil, then God will persue us and bring us back.
He will not lose any of his sheep.

Now at this point, you need to dispute my interpretation of OSAS or possibly consider I may be on the right track.

First, thank you for engaging me on this topic, Allen. As I said in the OP, I think if a person holds that in James 2, "justified" means "shown to be righteous", it is not consistent with OSAS. Most people here seem to want to argue only OSAS and not it's relation to "shown to be righteous". I'm not complaining, these threads go where they will, I only started the thread, I don't own it.

As to your example above, I can't judge the man either, or "know his heart", as you said. I wonder what HE would say to the question "are you saved?" Knowing a few homosexuals, I would guess, (only GUESS), he would answer "yes", especially since he is going to a Christian (?) church. The ones I know don't think their "lifestyle" is sinful.

You seem to think this man was NOT saved: "Only God knows a man's heart. At some time in his life, he may repent and come back to God, such as the prodigal son."

When you say this man "got saved" do you mean he was actually justified? If so, do you know this by his deeds? Do you think he was "never really saved in the first place"?

More to the point, when the prodigal son was out gallivanting around, living in sin, what were his "works" showing? It is clear that James says we "show" our faith by our works, whether you think this is to God or man only. I posted James 2 and some commentary on why I think he means "shown" to man, not God alone. Do you agree or disagree? Gotta get to work...

 

[jeff77]

If there is only one right answer here and wether you hold the "yes" position or the no position on OSAS don't you think that if you truly love and truly believe in Jesus and care about telling other people about him, don't you think he would forgive you if you had it wrong and accept you into heaven anyway?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

ok, he is talking to a bunch of Christians. while im not advocating legalism, but its like this if one is saved, then why do I need to be told to endure? if its already done or to overcome if its already done?

remember the blotting out thing.he that overcomes .. I will not blot out. what does that mean? yes our faith overcomes. I accept that but It does also he that is faithful to the end shall receive a reward.

I got sick of living a life of constant condemnation Jason.

Sooner or later it will wear you down or eliminate faith altogether.

Constant vacillation in and out of salvation ain't no picnic life in faith either.

s

You misunderstand if you think that to not believe the OSAS argument means you believe a person vacillates in and out of salvation when they sin.

There's no reason for the 'seven times' sinner to think he has been re-saved every time he repented. Remember, those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet (John 13:10 NIV).

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.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If there is only one right answer here and wether you hold the "yes" position or the no position on OSAS don't you think that if you truly love and truly believe in Jesus and care about telling other people about him, don't you think he would forgive you if you had it wrong and accept you into heaven anyway?

Had what wrong, the truth about OSAS? If that's what you mean, I say it doesn't matter. Too many people in the church think correct doctrine is how you please God and how you validate the reality of your salvation. No, godly character is how we know we have passed from death to life. Which is what James is teaching. The faith that is ultimately acted out in obedience consistent with the claim that faith makes is what validates that faith as able to save.

I actually appreciate dadof10's argument about the implications James' teaching has to OSAS doctrine. I'm undecided about OSAS, personally, but if someone can get me past the three or four 'if' conditions in the NT for continued faith in order to be saved (as if it may not continue) I may well become decided about the issue.

 

[farouk]

... why can't they rejoice in the fact that the Lord will accomplish His work in the believer?

Blessing Deb

Deborah13: Exactly; Paul says: 'He that hath begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ' (Philippians 1.6).

Blessings.