The Meaning Of Justified

[chessman]

Wow a whole page of posts! Different views stated informatively no harassment! Pardon me while I faint.... thanks guys!

It's that British accent from 007J It’s just sounds so nice to the ears.

 

[dadof10]

Hello dadof10, I remember you from a while back. You always seemed like an articulate chap.

Hi Mondar. I remember you, too. I hope you've been well.

I am not sure I will be staying around, but would like to interact a little here. At this point in your OP, I agree that the term "justified" "justification" and the similar nouns and verbs speak of either to "make righteous, or to "count as righteous." The term (as any word) has a range of meaning that is dependent on the context. I have no idea where an OSAS person would get the definition of "shown to be righteous" from. I have not seen that in lexicons.

This is the definition from Thayer's:

2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered.

I thought this was actually your argument, if I remember correctly. Don't you think that James means "shown to be righteous" in Chapter 2?

So at this point, I would agree with your understanding of James 2. I am not sure why that surprises me, but it pleases me. I especially cheer when you write "What he does, doesn't actually save him, but only demonstrates what KIND of faith the person has." But I do not want to come here and just be a cheerleader.

It pleases you because we went round and round about this a couple of years ago. I believe that justify doesn't ONLY mean "shown to be righteous", but also that obedience to God actually MAKES us righteous.

Let me try to make a positive statement of what I think is a good reading of that passage.
We are not infallible judges, so I am not sure what you mean by the term "prove." If I understand you above, you say that a persons does, demonstrates what kind of faith he has." I would agree that there are two kinds of faith in this passage. In verse 17 James speaks of a faith that is dead, or a dead faith.
Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself

I don't think there is any "judgement" going on here, unless you think James is teaching it. He says "I, by my works, will show you my faith". Obviously James thinks he's able to demonstrate or show that his faith is "saving faith". Is he asking others to "judge" him, or is saying that they can SEE his true faith by his deeds?

That dead faith is alluded to in verse 14
Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?

Then of course verses 15-16 are a demonstration of the difference between saving faith, and faith that does not save, a dead faith. James seems to be illustrating the observable difference.

Right, an "observable difference". We can observe what kind of faith a person has within them, by their actions. Observing isn't judging.

Of course I would agree with the statement that a person with saving faith can never loose his faith. On the other hand, the person with the dead faith, was never really saved in the first place. As verse 14 says, can that faith save? The expected answer is "no." Dead faith does not save.

This is what the OP is about. I don't think you can hold both positions. IF you think that we can show our true faith, it means that you actually HAVE saving faith that others can see. Therefore, if a person has shown they have true faith, then apostacize, the excuse "never saved in the first place" is illogical, because he has shown that his faith is true.

I must admit some confusion here because I would disagree with the premise that truly saved people can revert back to their previous lives. They will continue in the faith. I would agree with OSAS people that those how fall away were never saved in the first place. ITs like 1 john 2:
1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us.
Those who fall from the faith, may have been among us, and even worshiped with us, but there were never really of us.

I don't think a person "showing" their "saving faith" is rare at all. All "born-again Christians" I have ever run across have shown their love for Jesus by CONSTANTLY (nauseatingly so, to some) speaking His Name, reading Scripture, helping at homeless shelters (as in James 2:15-16), volunteering within the community, refraining from sin, changing their "evil ways", etc. Most (all?) newly born-again Christians perform most of these "works" and thus, "show" their "saving faith".

It is also not rare for some who show this faith, to revert back to their previous lives. Some people take years, others months, but there are those who perform all the "works" I listed above (and then some) then, after a certain amount time has past, revert to apathy, or worse, atheism.

To put it another way, most of the backsliders who "saved" Christians would consider "never really saved...", have, in the past, "showed" or PROVED they really were saved and simply lost this salvation.

I would just like to get some thoughts from those who hold this interpretation of James and OSAS. How can you reconcile a "shown to be righteous" interpretation of James 2 and the fact that some of the people who do show it, backslide?

If I can ask a question here, when James was speaking of the dead faith, was the person with the dead faith fellowshipping in a congregation in the early Church or not?

Yes, I think so. He starts out by calling them "brothers".

I am going to admit something to the shame of protestants. I hope this is not seen as too negative by some, or too shocking. Some people have drifted through some of the protestant Churches I have been in and they sound as Pelagian as can be. Some of these can be so far off the understanding of God's Grace that they cannot be considered real protestants. I am dead serious that they sound unOrthodox with their Pelagian theology. Some of these people get involved for a while, they look really good, and then they leave Church and some go to a different Church, some do not go to a Church at all. They might produce something that might even look like good works for a while. They might deceive some in the congregation that they are good Christian's on fire. When some of these people fall away, I am not shocked. Of course some of them go on, learn truth, and increasingly serve God.

I think of the parable of the seeds. Some of the seed grows for a time, but it does not take root.

Do these people "show" their true faith, in your opinion?

Its obvious that we are not infallible judges of who is saved and who is not. But that does not mean that a true faith can never be identified by works. We can identify a persons faith by his works, just not infallibly identify a persons faith by his works. I do not see that James is saying anything different.

Me either. What I do see is James saying it's possible to recognize a "true faith" and that it's something pretty common, so much so that he EXPECTS everyone to have "saving faith" demonstrated by "works". Once we accept this premise, the only question is, "what does "true faith" look like"? As I've said before here, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

I should make an effort to come back and see if you reply. I will not have time in the next week, and may loose this post in the shuffle. Good talking with you. Later.

You to. I really hope you can find the time to come back. I really enjoy your insights, even though I disagree with a lot of them. ;) I'm running out of time lately myself. I'll respond when I can. Nice talking to you too, chap...

 

[reba]

The cleaning up of this thread has left an ache in my heart... along with a resolve to not let things get out of hand to that degree again.... We are brothers and sisters in the Lord..

2.4: No Trolling. Do not make an inflammatory remark just to get a response. Address issues not personalities. Respect where people are in their spiritual walk, and respect all others in general. Respect where others are in their spiritual walk, do not disrupt the flow of discussion or act in a way that affects others negatively including when debating doctrinal issues, in the defense of the Christian faith, and in offering unwelcome spiritual advice.

Keep the above portion of the Terms of Service in mind as you post.

 

[Guest]

The cleaning up of this thread has left an ache in my heart...

View attachment 3289

 

[dadof10]

Chessman, I really don't have the time lately to respond to every point raised in your last post. There are three relevant points I want to hit on, though.

Originally Posted by dadof10
do you think we have to ACCEPT God's grace, or do you think God forces it upon us ala Calvin's irresistible Grace?

That’s another example of you setting a false dichotomy. I just don’t know how to answer questions like that. It’s like “Have you stopped beating your wife?â€. There’s just no good answer to a illogically worded question. I DO NOT mean to get started on another “Your rude/I’m rude discussionâ€. But I do think the way you state the question is not in a good logical form for any discussion of it.

Just right off the bat, what about a third option: God doesn’t force His Grace upon anyone (it’s an offer/gift) AND we can either accept it or not? What makes you think we either HAVE to accept God’s grace or, if we reject it, that fact means God FORCED it upon those that do accept it? It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

But as for the term “irresistible graceâ€. I don’t like it, other than it does work well for the “I†in TULIP. Because it immediately (and rightly so) makes people think we don’t have any free-will choice in our salvation (or lack thereof). Not to mention, that it’s not in the Bible. Obviously we have free-will. It’s personally evident and Biblical. God judges us based on the very fact that we make choices in life (including the one to choose Him as Lord or not).

1) First of all, I don't think we "have" to accept Grace. Isn't that the same as saying God forces His Grace on us? Why would I ask you to choose between two of the same options? You cut out the first part of my sentence (for the life of me, I don't know why) that said "At initial justification...". In other words, to be justified, do we have to accept Grace... That being said, I agree with the red above. Now for my point.

You made the case that Eph. 2:5-7 bolsters your case because: "If God (even while we were originally dead in our trespasses) made us alive by Christ’s grace, then the idea or assumption that He's unable or un-willing to do the same thing IF we were to revert back to “death in our trespasses†(apostatizing ourselves right out of His grace, that is, even if possible) doesn’t seem to be any more gracious of an act on His part than the original grace. I’m just saying that fundamentally, God MAKES us alive out of sin, eithe way. I don’t see any merit, Biblically speaking, for our ability to thwart God’s will. Either originally or the “second time aroundâ€, even if that were possible.

Now, both the first (initial justification) and second time around, we are "in our sins", correct? I mean, before we are justified and when we apostacize after initial justification, our souls are ostensibly in the same un-justified state. It's your contention that God "MAKES us alive out of sin, either way". It's also your contention that we have free will and are even judged by our free will choices, even the decision to "choose Him as Lord or not".

According to Eph 2, God justified us "when we were dead in our trespasses" at INITIAL justification, and it depends on our free will choice to accept Him and His justification. Do you think our free will ends there? Do you think that after initial justification we have to STAY FAITHFUL by acts of our free will, in order to remain justified, or that God overrides our free will after we are saved in order to keep us "saved"? Must we cooperate with God's Grace?

You mentioned “I don’t see any merit, Biblically speaking, for our ability to thwart God’s will. Either originally or the “second time aroundâ€, even if that were possible.†This seems to fly right in the face of free will, which you said we have. This seems contradictory, so could you please tell me how a person can have free will and yet not be able to “thwart God’s willâ€? The only way to reconcile these two points is to believe that it’s NOT God’s will that all are justified. Is this your point (the “L†in TULIP)?

2) Do you think we can, by our own free will, cast ourselves out? Certainly God will never cast us out, but, in your opinion, do we have the ability, given us by God, to reject Him, even after we are justified? If you believe in free will, it seems consistent to believe that we can reject God if we choose, even after conversion.

3) Now, concerning this notion that it is "judgmental" for us to RECOGNIZE a person's "saving faith".

James says we can show and be shown, true faith. We both agree that's what James means in Chapter 2. Do you think James means we are to "judge" another person's soul, or does he mean we can RECOGNIZE the faith a person HAS, or do you see a third option? What does James mean by "I, by my deeds, will show you my faith", if he doesn't mean it's possible to do just that, “show…faith�

There is a huge difference between judging and recognizing. If I see a guy jump out of a Fedex truck, in a Fedex uniform with a package in one hand and a hand-held computer in the other, walking toward a business really fast, I recognize him as a Fedex courier. I can SEE that he HAS training from Fedex. If I had a question concerning shipping a package, I would walk up to him and ask, KNOWING he could answer it. By his actions, he has SHOWN his "true training". I have made NO judgments, only observations and recognition.

My point is, when you try and draw a parallel between our recognizing that a person has shown his "true faith" and our judging a person’s soul, this argument falls flat. We are not judging, unless you want to make the case that James is teaching us to be judgmental, because HE TELLS us that we can show and be shown "true faith".

 

[chessman]

I don't think we "have" to accept Grace.Isn't that the same as saying God forces His Grace on us?

No they are not the same statements. If I would have said "we do have to accept Grace" that would be like forcing us. But that's not the way the Bible defines Grace nor what I said. I said we don’t have to accept Grace.

Now, once we do accept it, it becomes effective to us. Very, very effective. That’s the point. Because God makes us alive, it’s much more effective than if we were in control of making ourselves alive.

To borrow a phrase that explains my position (which I happened to feel is the Biblical position) that explains the relationship of Grace to eternal salvation (eternal life); We are able to walk away from the offer, but not the deal.

We are able to reject God’s Grace (which is why I do not like the term Irresistible Grace) , but once we accept it we HAVE eternal life. God picks up the tab and then ensures the deal remains in effect. You might notice that all the verses in the Bible that talk specifically about having eternal life or salvation, use the verb tense that shows it's permanent.

Now, both the first (initial justification) and second time around, we are "in our sins", correct? I mean, before we are justified

That’s my main point and feedback to your OP. You seem to think “justified†means “savedâ€. They do not mean the same thing. Nor does Grace mean “forcedâ€. Plainly the Bible (everywhere it uses the term Grace) speaks of it as a gift of God. Plainly as well, everywhere the Bible uses “justified†it does mean “shown…†That’s not the same thing as “savedâ€. Grace is not the same thing as “made aliveâ€,either. Being made alive is the effect (outcome if you will) of Grace. Yet you seem to use all these terms interchangeably, as if they all mean the same thing.

I said: "If God (even while we were originally dead in our trespasses)made us alive by Christ’s grace… and you come back (in effect re-wording my statement )t :

Now, both the first (initial justification) and second time around, we are"in our sins", correct? I mean, before we are justified…

I mean just think about that for a minute. “Before we are justifiedâ€. You mean like before we ever come out of the womb? As soon as we begin performing deeds (either good or bad) we start “justifyingâ€who we are. And that’s sinful fallen creatures. And even once we are saved,we STILL have deeds that someone could use to justify us as un-saved on occasions. However, because we are God’s, we are still saved. But my point is, justified does not mean saved.

Now I used the term “made us alive by Christ’s graceâ€, that also is not the same thing as “initial justificationâ€. You are the one that rephrased my statement into something different that you go on to argue against with your FedEx employee example, assuming you can just replace "saved" with "justified".

My exact point can be made using your FedEx employee example. You’re right. We are justified to assume that person has FedEx training. However, we cannot extend that to knowing they are saved. After all, he could infact be an undercover 007 agent, dressed up and acting like a FedEx employee. James is not giving us a foolproof test forsomeone’s future salvation so much as he is simply saying someone that is saved, will not be sitting around doing nothing. Christians should (and will) act like Christians. James is telling us not to have dead works. Demons will act like demons,etc. But your OP argument assumesJustified means saved. It does not mean the exact same thing.

For example you say:

According to Eph 2, God justified us "when wewere dead in our trespasses"

Excuse me, but Eph 2 never even uses the term “justifiedâ€. I still cannot figure out if you are doing this on purpose, or if you just honestly aren’t seeing there’s a difference in “justifiedâ€versus “savedâ€. But either way, that’s my basic feedback to your OP argument. You ask a couple of questions after this mischaracterization of Eph 2 and my points about it, that build upon that mischaracterization, so I feel it’s best just not to address them, since they are not my points or Eph’s points.

I like your FedEx example, though. Let’s just say FedEx people looked like saved people and UPS people look like un-saved. James says you can (with the emphasis on human ability) justify that a person is saved, if they are driving a FedEx truck and you can justify people are un-saved if they are driving a brown truck. But what he’s not saying is God needs or has to look at the truck they are driving to tell if they are saved or not. God “looks†at the heart of people for their belief in Christ. Our actions are mostly sinful.

This [free-will choice in accepting God’s offer versus thwarting God’s will] seems contradictory, so could you please tell me how a person can have free will and yet not be able to “thwart God’s will�

That’s easy. It is God’s will that we choose him freely. He’s not made us as robots. But once we do accept His offer,the result IS eternal life for us. And He actually sustains that part of the deal. As Paul says, we all still continue to sin even though we are right in the middle of that deal. God’s great and able to give and sustain life, not us.

Is this your point (the “L†in TULIP)?

No. Limited atonement is a whole separatesubject. Related, I suppose, butcertainly not the same as we’ve been discussing.

My point is, when you try and draw a parallel betweenour recognizing that a person has shown his "true faith" and our judging a person’s soul, this argument falls flat.

I agree. You cannot have James saying don’t be judging a person’s soul in one breath, then saying here’s your test for udging someone’s soul in the next breath. And he’s not saying that. But doesn’t your argument rely on the word “justifyâ€to determine just that (someone’s soul, their inner relationship/believes about Christ)?

 

[JLB]

In fact the closest/clearest discussion of someone’s salvation is actually in the “…” portion of this verse that you left out. That is: And you, (who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds,) he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, (Colossians 1:21-22 ESV) So, if “reconciled” here means basically “saved” then Paul is saying that HE HAS NOW reconciled us via Christ’s death. It doesn’t say He might reconcile us or that he might in the future take back that reconciliation.

The clearest/closest discussion of someones reconciliation is found, not in the part he left out of the verse he quoted, but rather in the next verse -

23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

This is the point Jethro has made all along.

A faith that does not continue, is a faith that can not save.

If a person could not "be moved away" from the hope of the Gospel, then Paul would not have mentioned it.


JLB

 

[chessman]

and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard

So you feel Paul means by "moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard" to mean un-saved?
First, then why didn't he just say "moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard [an thus loss your salvation]? People just assume that's what he means. That's my point/rebuttal to this argument. I understand that's @Jethro Bodine 's argument. And I even see how someone could assume that's what Paul means. I've never said it was "wacho" or anything. I fully understand his point and it does make a little sense. I just don't think that's exactly/precisely what Paul means here since it conflicts with other statements he makes and he could have said it much clearer if that's what he meant.

Second, Hearing the Gospel is not what saves you. So that actually cannot be what Paul means here. Paul clarifies in 1 Cor 15 that you must not only hear the gospel but honestly, inward, fully, stand firm in the Gospel for it to count toward your salvation.

Thirdly, He says moved away from “hope”, not salvation. Our “hope” obviously wavers at times. We all do (at least I do and I’ve been told by many others they do as well) at times have less “hope” in our salvation than at other times. In general, we do progress toward greater and greater hope. Three steps forward, one step back sort of thing. Even Paul, Abraham, Peter, Thomas, etc. etc.

For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.
(Colossians 1:29 ESV)


So losing one’s salvation cannot precisely be equivalent to “moved away from the hope of the gospel”. I think “And you, … he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, is a much clearer way so say “saved” than “moved away from the hope of the gospel” is to save un-saved.


This is the same person that has said:
· Romans 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
He doens't say "saved" by our un-wavering hope. We are saved by Christ's life, not ours.

 

[Mitspa]

In fact the closest/clearest discussion of someone’s salvation is actually in the “…” portion of this verse that you left out. That is: And you, (who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds,) he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, (Colossians 1:21-22 ESV) So, if “reconciled” here means basically “saved” then Paul is saying that HE HAS NOW reconciled us via Christ’s death. It doesn’t say He might reconcile us or that he might in the future take back that reconciliation.

The clearest/closest discussion of someones reconciliation is found, not in the part he left out of the verse he quoted, but rather in the next verse -

23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

This is the point Jethro has made all along.

A faith that does not continue, is a faith that can not save.

If a person could not "be moved away" from the hope of the Gospel, then Paul would not have mentioned it.


JLB

Well again I would ask those who are setting this standard of "continued faith" by putting these scriptures together as in a way as to form a certain standard of continued faith. Do these people ever have periods of doubt or do they ever struggle in faith? Are they allowing some "unbelief" for themselves and teaching others a standard they do not keep? If so it is not a true biblical standard but is a tainted standard that does not relate to the truth of the gospel.

 

[JLB]

So losing one’s salvation cannot precisely be equivalent to “moved away from the hope of the gospel”.

Ok, What do you think the hope of the Gospel is, if it is not salvation?


JLB

 

[JLB]

The problem I see with the OSAS theory in this scripture -

5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, 8 whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 9 receiving the end of your faith--the salvation of your souls.

Salvation comes when Jesus Christ returns.

The hope of salvation is the resurrection, whereby you receive an incorruptable, immortal body that will never die.

The end of your faith, is the salvation of your soul, not the beginning, the end of your faith.

Those who endure to the end will be saved. That is to say the end of your faith.

Until then we have the hope of salvation.

22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance. Romans 8:22-25

Again, as Paul says -

if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.


The end of our faith is salvation -

as it is written,

28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.


JLB

 

[JLB]

So to use it in a way as to question ones salvation is a very false use of the scripture.

So the clear balance is not to use it to condemn others, but to encourage and admonish others to continue in the faith, using the exact phrase of the scripture that Paul wrote under the annointing of the Holy Spirit to do just that.

If indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel.

That is the wording, that is what I will lay out there to encourage and admonish everyone, myself at the top of the list, to continue in the faith.

As it is written -

The end of your faith is the salvation of your soul!


JLB

 

[dadof10]

I would really appreciate it if we could all please tone down the rhetoric. This thread has been shut down once and I think we are all making good points, which I would like to continue reading. I know at times I can be the worst of the offenders, so I'm not coming at you all from above, but as a co-perpetrator. I'm just asking because I am learning much about the other side. Thank-you.

 

[Mitspa]

Well as I said those who are building these false standards cannot defend them.

Defend what?

Paul's writings?

This is Paul's Gospel of Grace through faith.The end of your faith is the salvation of your soul!

Not the beginning of your faith, not the middle of your faith, not 3/4's of the way through, BUT THE END OF YOUR FAITH IS THE SALVATION OF YOUR SOUL.

That is the Gospel!

The balance is to continue in the faith.


JLB

My point was and is that even in the struggles of our faith, we are not forsaken in those times we have doubts, to present the scriptures in a fashion that would set this unbending standard of a faith that does not have moments of struggle is to present the scriptures in an way that is not sound in doctrine. To ignore that these warnings of turning from faith to law, is the context of these warnings, is also to present them apart from their intended purpose.

 

[reba]

I would really appreciate it if we could all please tone down the rhetoric. This thread has been shut down once and I think we are all making good points, which I would like to continue reading. I know at times I can be the worst of the offenders, so I'm not coming at you all from above, but as a co-perpetrator. I'm just asking because I am learning much about the other side. Thank-you.

Cleaning up

Added:

The ToS we have all agreed to states :
2.4: No Trolling. Do not make an inflammatory remark just to get a response. Address issues not personalities. Respect where people are in their spiritual walk, and respect all others in general. Respect where others are in their spiritual walk, do not disrupt the flow of discussion or act in a way that affects others negatively including when debating doctrinal issues, in the defense of the Christian faith, and in offering unwelcome spiritual advice.

Lets try and respect the OP and stay on topic....

 

[JLB]

The balance of truth is found in the scriptures.

It is good that you grasp one thing and also not let go of the other ; for the one who fears God comes forth with both of them. Ecclesiastes 7:18 NAS

Paul in Galatians, teaches us of his fight against the forces that would add to His Gospel of Grace through faith, by saying you must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.

Likewise on the other hand, in his letter to the Colossians, he admonishes them to continue in the faith, lest you be moved away from the hope of the Gospel.

In Romans 8, he starts off with -

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

Meaning, if you do walk after the flesh,you can expect condemnation.


He goes onto say -

24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.

We are to persevere, to continue in the faith, and keep ourselves with all diligence.

For without faith, it is impossible to please God.

Finally Paul ends chapter 8 with -

38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

However, do you believe this?

We can see this ebb and flow of this balance of admonition and encouragement throughout the writings of Paul.

To be overbalanced one way or another is what is what I would advise against.

As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God!


JLB

 

[chessman]

So losing one’s salvation cannot precisely be equivalent to “moved away from the hope of the gospelâ€.

Ok, What do you think the hope of the Gospel is, if it is not salvation?


JLB

exactly what it says. The hope of the gospel.

 

[JLB]

My point was and is that even in the struggles of our faith, we are not forsaken in those times we have doubts,

I totally agree.

However, it is where we are at the end of our life that is important.

It is the end of our faith that is the salvation of our soul.

JLB

 

[JLB]

So losing one’s salvation cannot precisely be equivalent to “moved away from the hope of the gospelâ€.

Ok, What do you think the hope of the Gospel is, if it is not salvation?


JLB

exactly what it says. The hope of the gospel.

The hope of the Gospel, is the hope of salvation.

The hope of salvation comes at the end when Jesus Christ returns and we are resurrected.

16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. 1 Corinthians 15:16-19

and again -


28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. Hebrews 9:28


JLB

 

[dadof10]

I would really appreciate it if we could all please tone down the rhetoric. This thread has been shut down once and I think we are all making good points, which I would like to continue reading. I know at times I can be the worst of the offenders, so I'm not coming at you all from above, but as a co-perpetrator. I'm just asking because I am learning much about the other side. Thank-you.

Cleaning up

Added:

The ToS we have all agreed to states :
2.4: No Trolling. Do not make an inflammatory remark just to get a response. Address issues not personalities. Respect where people are in their spiritual walk, and respect all others in general. Respect where others are in their spiritual walk, do not disrupt the flow of discussion or act in a way that affects others negatively including when debating doctrinal issues, in the defense of the Christian faith, and in offering unwelcome spiritual advice.

Lets try and respect the OP and stay on topic....

Thanks...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2