The Meaning Of Justified

[Deborah13]

I really don't know, Allen. James uses three examples, two pretty heroic and one pretty ordinary. I suppose its more of a lifestyle instead of counting good deeds. Like I said before. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

Can you know it when you see it, without them declaring they are a Christian?

 

[Deborah13]

then reject Christ, we lose it.

Ok here's another word that needs to be defined. What is your definition of reject? How do you determine who has rejected Christ?

 

[chessman]

I don't know that much about Abraham's bosom or whether it still exists after the resurrection. I'm traveling now so I can't look it up. Do you think it still exists?

I know of no Scripture that would indicate a change of state and/or location for Abraham from pre-resurrection to post-resurrection. I didn't mean to add any additional discussion/debate/study of what “Abraham’s bosom” means or does not mean by using this term from Jesus' parable of "Abraham’s bosom" other than to just ask you if you thought Abraham is with the Lord now? I.e. “saved”?

Let me ask the same question another way: Do you think Abraham is with the Lord now?

 

[dadof10]

I really don't know, Allen. James uses three examples, two pretty heroic and one pretty ordinary. I suppose its more of a lifestyle instead of counting good deeds. Like I said before. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

Can you know it when you see it, without them declaring they are a Christian?

That was sort of a joke, Deb. A takeoff of that SCOTUS Justice's opinion on porn. He said he couldn't define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it.

I can't really define "saved behaviour" but it seems pretty obvious. A person really wouldn't have to say "I'm a Christian, that's why I'm in this homeless shelter". His words would let us know without any purposeful declaration. His actions would show it too. I'm sure you've met people like this.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[dadof10]

then reject Christ, we lose it.

Ok here's another word that needs to be defined. What is your definition of reject? How do you determine who has rejected Christ?

IDK. Stop believing in Him? Start believing in myself instead? What do you think? How would you define "reject Christ"?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Deborah13]

I'm sure you've met people like this.

Well, first good joke.

I do know someone like that. You would believe she is saved even if you got to know her, like say working together. She is one of my best friends.
But in fact she got involved in a cult, I think through someone she works with at the office.
She told me one day, "You are going to be so happy, I have been talking to Jesus." I was surprised because she just wouldn't talk about God at all and I was thrilled until I found out that her salvation really didn't have anything to do with Jesus, she was going anyway because her salvation is within herself.
I've read the material, it's a cult that's been around since the 70's.
There are people who are sitting in our churches who are not saved and there are people not in churches who are saved. There are people who act more like Jesus than some Christians do.

 

[Deborah13]

then reject Christ, we lose it.

Ok here's another word that needs to be defined. What is your definition of reject? How do you determine who has rejected Christ?

IDK. Stop believing in Him? Start believing in myself instead? What do you think? How would you define "reject Christ"?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

To me it would not believing He was the Savior, the only way to be saved, and my own personal Savior. That He did not die for mans sins and arise from the dead. And when He did this, He did not conquered death and satan, pay the penalty for our sins, etc. That He is Not the Son of God, etc.

I think only God can reveal these things to man in a way that brings about faith in a Savior, Jesus. One might hear but until saved, not see.

So to me one would have to "un-see", the Savior.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro:

...but you somehow assume that those who end up continuing to live and die in sin were once believers? Why?

Because the Bible says we can do that. We can assume they were believers because we have plain Biblical teaching that says righteous behavior is the sign of salvation. And not only that but that we are to strive to show the surety of our salvation that way. So, we have every Biblical right to measure salvation by behavior. Whether it ends some day, or not.

Just because they once professed, does this make them true, born again believers?

No. But we need to look at the point dadof10 is making.

His point is we Protestants say that salvation is recognized by what it does, and that salvation is eternal and irrevocable (OSAS). But when someone who shows the signs of salvation falls away--and we know this happens--we say they were never saved to begin with (to preserve the OSAS argument).

That leaves us no choice but to conclude that we really can't know anyone is saved by how they act because if/when they fall away we insist they weren't really saved to begin with. So, OSAS actually ends up being the doctrine that has no assurance of salvation because your behavior really is no guarantee that you are saved (despite what the Bible says).

Non-OSAS is actually the doctrine that has the assurance and surety of salvation, not OSAS, because non-OSAS measures the surety of salvation by how it acts...up to and until you stop doing those things, because of unbelief. It's actually the more sensible doctrine. It's actually the doctrine that doesn't make James a liar, because he says we can know we have the faith that saves by what we do, while ultimately OSAS can't say that because it never really can rely on works as the indicator of salvation--as soon as you stop doing right you get labeled as never having been saved to begin with.

For me the promise at the end of Romans 8 to the believer is very clear.

Blessings.

This?

"17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." (Romans 8:17 NIV)

There's another one of those nagging if's. There's lots of Biblical evidence that says the faith that does not endure to the end is the faith that can not save. That lack of endurance being the absence, or the end, of a sincere trust in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sin. But if we do endure in our trust in the blood of Christ, our salvation is the surest thing in all the universe.

It seems that our faith is the surety of our salvation. Believing that can be seen in what it does is what makes salvation secure.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

then reject Christ, we lose it.

Ok here's another word that needs to be defined. What is your definition of reject? How do you determine who has rejected Christ?

Read Galatians, and Hebrews.

They were turning away from trust in Christ's blood to placing their trust in something else to justify them.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I really don't know, Allen. James uses three examples, two pretty heroic and one pretty ordinary. I suppose its more of a lifestyle instead of counting good deeds. Like I said before. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

Can you know it when you see it, without them declaring they are a Christian?

The fruit of the Spirit, specifically love, which binds them all together, is the signature of the indwelling Spirit, who is the sign and seal and symbol of our salvation. Especially in regard to our enemies. That to me is perhaps the identifying mark of the righteous person--how they treat their enemies (and the Church):

"27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." (Luke 6:27-36 NIV).

This to me this is what divides the 'do good' atheist and unbeliever from the genuine child of God, and distinguishes between the fake, look-a-like tares from the wheat.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I really don't know, Allen. James uses three examples, two pretty heroic and one pretty ordinary. I suppose its more of a lifestyle instead of counting good deeds. Like I said before. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

I'm trying to find an answer to this and this is what I've found.

1 John 4:6

"We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood".

 

[chessman]

Because the Bible says we can do that. We can assume they were believers because we have plain Biblical teaching that says righteous behavior is the sign of salvation.

Just because they once professed, does this make them true, born again believers?

No. But we need to look at the point dadof10 is making.

His point is we Protestants say that salvation is recognized by what it does, and that salvation is eternal and irrevocable (OSAS). But when someone who shows the signs of salvation falls away--and we know this happens--we say they were never saved to begin with (to preserve the OSAS argument).

That leaves us no choice but to conclude that we really can't know anyone is saved by how they act because if/when they fall away we insist they weren't really saved to begin with. So, OSAS actually ends up being the doctrine that has no assurance of salvation because your behavior really is no guarantee that you are saved (despite what the Bible says).

Non-OSAS is actually the doctrine that has the assurance and surety of salvation, not OSAS, because non-OSAS measures the surety of salvation by how it acts...up to and until you stop doing those things, because of unbelief. It's actually the more sensible doctrine. It's actually the doctrine that doesn't make James a liar, because he says we can know we have the faith that saves by what we do, while ultimately OSAS can't say that because it never really can rely on works as the indicator of salvation--as soon as you stop doing right you get labeled as never having been saved to begin with.

I counted 16 occurrences of things humans do in just this one post: “assumeâ€, “lookâ€, “sayâ€, “recognizeâ€, “showâ€, “knowâ€, “sayâ€, “choiceâ€, “concludeâ€, “knowâ€, “insistâ€, “behaviorâ€, “measureâ€, “actsâ€, “stop doing thingsâ€, “doâ€
That’s a lot of human acts involved in discussion of salvation (a gift from God, not of ourselves). The whole point of OSAS is that our salvation rests in God’s hands not ours.


I understand we are specifically discussing the literal/visible acts of people’s salvation (not how they get their salvation to begin with). Fine. But who ever said that how we view anyone else’s behavior is actually what saves them to begin with? Nobody. And certainly not James. If behaviours don't save someone (and they don't, see Galatians and Hebrews), then viewing those behavious, sure doesn't provide any 100% accurate sign of their salvation. Jame's main point is that viewing peoples' behavious is a bad idea, to begin with.

And I’ve made the point and used the Scriptures of James and Peter to show they both believe that looks can be deceiving muultiple times. Yet you and dadof10 keep trying to pry one verse in James 2, into saying it's not a bad idea, but rather that it's "the sign" that God is somehow looking for and we can judge that sign just as well as God. James never says that God is looking for "the sign" and tells us we should either.

It seems to me you’ve clearly not understood James’ major theme in James 2 to begin with.

Humans CANNOT judge a book by its cover with respect to their salvation. They can SHOW behaviours (good or bad) but none of that is what amounts to their salvation to begin with. There just simply indications to us.

James starts and ends Chapter 2 with this observation:

My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing [assuming he’s a brother] and say, “You sit here in a good place,†while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,†or, “Sit down at my feet,†have you not then made distinctions among yourselves [incorrectly he clarifies later] and become judges [we are not their judges to begin with] with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen [not us] those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you,[answer is yes] and the ones who drag you into court? (James 2:1-6 ESV) Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?
​

God does not judge a man’s salvation by the clothes he wears, yet we humans fallaciously do that sometimes to our harm! “making distinctions among ourselves = “evil thoughtsâ€.

Yet that’s your and [MENTION=3759]dadof10[/MENTION]’s premise (point #2) for using James 2 to “prove†OSAS=no

2) Once it has been satisfactorily shown that the person HAS "saving faith", he can NEVER backslide, or OSAS is false.

Ya’ll are tyring to rhetorically "sit people in the good seats†based on the “clothes†they are wearing.

Just notice how similar your statement here is to James’ example above:

We can assume they were believers because we have plain Biblical teaching that says righteous behavior is the sign of salvation.

My brothers, show no partiality [assuming they were believers] as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing [righteous behavior] comes into your assembly, …have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges [the sign] with evil thoughts? (James 2:1-4 ESV)
​

James points out the only thing that really matters to God (i.e. salvation) is:

“Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousnessâ€â€”and he was called a friend of God. (James 2:23 ESV)

​

Now, I suppose if we had a 100% accurate brain scan or something and could hook it up to everyone’s brains and measure their honest beliefs about God/Jesus, then that might be “the sign†that you are trying to make James describe. God can do that type of thing, but we cannot. Nor is James describing such a "sign".

We can simply assume they are/were believers. And treat them as if they were, if they say they are. but the plain fact is, only God knows for sure.

For me the promise at the end of Romans 8 to the believer is very clear.

This?

"17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." (Romans 8:17 NIV)

There's another one of those nagging if's. There's lots of Biblical evidence that says the faith that does not endure to the end is the faith that can not save. That lack of endurance being the absence, or the end, of a sincere trust in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sin. But if we do endure in our trust in the blood of Christ, our salvation is the surest thing in all the universe.

It seems that our faith is the surety of our salvation. Believing that can be seen in what it does is what makes salvation secure.

I’m confident [MENTION=41474]farouk[/MENTION] meant what he said. The ending verses of Romans 8 are:

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:37-39 ESV)
​

Are we doing Bible Study here on this subject or not?

It's actually the doctrine that doesn't make James a liar, because he says we can know we have the faith that saves by what we do, while ultimately OSAS can't say that because it never really can rely on works as the indicator of salvation

I’d suggest that you re-read all of James (it’s not that long) and re-assess what He’s actually saying given the whole context of his message. But of course, that’s your choice.
You say:

Read Galatians, and Hebrews. They were turning away from trust in Christ's blood to placing their trust in something else to justify them.

I agree with your overall assessment of Galatians and Hebrews. And what was that “something else†they were placing their trust n…behaviors, behaviors, behaviors. James DOES NOT disagree with Galatians or Hebrews, either. James is talking about all the “assumptions†we humans make and he talks badly about us trying to do that very thing.

 

[smaller]

If any believer is 'toying' with their self earned justifications, Paul had this to say about his own righteousness. IF one is supposedly 'justified' by anything of themselves they might think they have 'some' righteousness in order to earn such justifications?

Does righteousness and justification go hand in hand?

Romans 4:5
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

The line is abundantly clear. Our salvation is not of works, but of faith.

Fact is we all, both saved and unsaved do works, both good and bad. No person works entirely one or the other. To think that is the case is ridiculous. Everyone regardless of faith does works good and bad. Works can not therefore be the measure of FAITH.

For any supposed righteousness of his own Paul advises same to be 'a gift' of Grace:

Romans 5:17
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Righteousness is not something we have, but are given, as a GIFT. IN theology this is termed 'attributed' Perfection. It is not 'our own' or something that comes from us or ourselves. It is something we are given a SHARE OF by attribution. We 'submit' ourselves or 'resign' our own righteousness to and in favor of His:

Romans 10:3
For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Anyone who says 'I have my own' righteousness doesn't logically have much of same by comparison to Gods do they?

Who's RIGHTEOUSNESS is needed for JUSTIFICATIONS? You would be right if you say 'I need Gods Righteousness, NOT my own.'

And by faith, that is what we have by attribution. From Grace to Grace. The question is then, DO WE HAVE IT NOW? And the answer to that is NO!

Galatians 5:5
For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

There is no use 'waiting' for what we already have is there? Part of the HOPE of FAITH is we AWAIT our eternal habitation/clothing. Our NEW body that is not subject to our current weakness, corruption and dishonor that we are all 'factually' planted into.

All believers who have ever lived from the time of Christ have been IN WAITING for our finalized Perfection. Everyone who has died, died apart from that reality. We WAIT to be FOUND.

Philippians 3:9
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Paul knew this was not possible until AFTER we are resurrected from our current vile corruptible BODY.

James is often used to 'justify' works to salvation.

James actually speaks very forthrightly about WHY we struggle so much over these issues. Let's take a look at James' depiction of the STRUGGLE that factually goes on within each of us and why we CAN'T AND DON'T have 'our own' righteousness or justifications by 'works.'

KEEP IN MIND JAMES IS SPEAKING TO YOU!

James 4:
1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

Uh, yeah, hello BELIEVERs above!!!

Now, along comes some believers (supposedly so) and are seeking to eternally burn you alive or eternally kill you.

WHY do you put up with such for even a minute?

Are you seriously that blind? That you would give space in your heart and mind to KILLERS?

lol. IF you do, you DESERVE every bit of doubt that should come upon you for your own ANYTHING.

When I look in the mirror, I see a man that will be just so much dust in the wind in a few short years. I have nothing.

yet everything BY FAITH.

s

 

[Randy]

Well were sanctified by faith in Jesus. The forgiveness of our sin wasn't by any good works we might do. Jesus entered the true sanctuary in heaven by His blood. (atonement)

We put our faith in action when we called on the Lord.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I counted 16 occurrences of things humans do in just this one post: “assume”, “look”, “say”, “recognize”, “show”, “know”, “say”, “choice”, “conclude”, “know”, “insist”, “behavior”, “measure”, “acts”, “stop doing things”, “do”
That’s a lot of human acts involved in discussion of salvation (a gift from God, not of ourselves). The whole point of OSAS is that our salvation rests in God’s hands not ours.

How does this mean that the faith that does nothing can save a person? James says we can identify the faith that saves by what it does, namely if it upholds the requirements of the royal law of scripture. Why does the church insist James is wrong?

How is it that loving others, because God first loved us by forgiving our sins, amounts to a works salvation? I'm fascinated that anyone would think that. Explain.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well were sanctified by faith in Jesus. The forgiveness of our sin wasn't by any good works we might do. Jesus entered the true sanctuary in heaven by His blood. (atonement)

We put our faith in action when we called on the Lord.

But how is it that faith does not have to continue to be put into action for that faith to be validated as able to save?

How does purposely striving to do that, as the Bible tells us to do, somehow a works salvation? Explain.

Faith is no longer required to have active, visible consequence in us after we accept the gospel? Really? Paul speaks about our continuing obligation to walk by the Spirit after we're born again.

 

[John 8:32]

Well were sanctified by faith in Jesus. The forgiveness of our sin wasn't by any good works we might do. Jesus entered the true sanctuary in heaven by His blood. (atonement)

We put our faith in action when we called on the Lord.

But how is it that faith does not have to continue to be put into action for that faith to be validated as able to save?

How does purposely striving to do that, as the Bible tells us to do, somehow a works salvation? Explain.

Faith is no longer required to have active, visible consequence in us after we accept the gospel? Really? Paul speaks about our continuing obligation to walk by the Spirit after we're born again.

We are in agreement on this Jethro.

 

[chessman]

How does this mean that the faith that does nothing can save a person?

It doesn’t. I didn’t say that a faith that does nothing saves a person, nor did I say that you have said that.

James says we can identify the faith that saves by what it does, namely if it upholds the requirements of the royal law of scripture.

What Scripture do you exegete here, to hold this doctrine?

If the faith that saves is an inward belief in God, how in the world could we identify that without some sort of mind reading machine?

I’m not sure where you are getting evidence to make the above statement from Scripture since it’s not James 2:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works [Here James clearly does NOT mean “justified†to equal “salvationâ€, else he turns right around and contradicts himself in verse 23, not to mention other verses in James and Paul, Peter, etc.] when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see [given the context, James means to explain and emphasize just what he says “you Seeâ€] that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousnessâ€â€”and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:21-24 ESV)
​

So basically James is using Scripture to prove his point. We know (i.e. we have that “sign†or “proof†you seem to be looking for in Abraham’s case, that Abraham was/is saved) because 1) Scripture tells us it’s so, NOT because Abraham’s works made it so and 2) yes because his actions were consistent with a saved person’s actions. That’s all James means by all this discussion. But verse 21 is not meant to describe some sort of mind-reading technique or trick of the trade to determine anyones' personal salvation.

That’s really the only fair way to view James here in light of all the other Scriptures that teach no “works†component to salvation and James clear topic of visible works in context of Chapter 2.

How is it that loving others, because God first loved us by forgiving our sins, amounts to a works salvation?

I don’t understand your question here.

But my goal here is simply Bible Study and making sure ALL Scripture (James 2 in this case) has no errors or contradictions within it.

Do you feel it’s our role to be judges of other people's salvation?

 

[dadof10]

I'm sure you've met people like this.

Well, first good joke.

I do know someone like that. You would believe she is saved even if you got to know her, like say working together. She is one of my best friends.
But in fact she got involved in a cult, I think through someone she works with at the office.
She told me one day, "You are going to be so happy, I have been talking to Jesus." I was surprised because she just wouldn't talk about God at all and I was thrilled until I found out that her salvation really didn't have anything to do with Jesus, she was going anyway because her salvation is within herself.
I've read the material, it's a cult that's been around since the 70's.
There are people who are sitting in our churches who are not saved and there are people not in churches who are saved. There are people who act more like Jesus than some Christians do.

Good point. If people "act like Jesus" without believing He is God, does that mean they are "showing true faith"? No. Belief in Christ matters, I think that's what James means when he says the word "faith". James (and the rest of the NT writers) means faith in Christ, not mere belief in God or a God-type being or belief in anything. The "showing" or proving, is centered in faith, which is what the person is "showing".

 

[dadof10]

then reject Christ, we lose it.

Ok here's another word that needs to be defined. What is your definition of reject? How do you determine who has rejected Christ?

IDK. Stop believing in Him? Start believing in myself instead? What do you think? How would you define "reject Christ"?

To me it would not believing He was the Savior, the only way to be saved, and my own personal Savior. That He did not die for mans sins and arise from the dead. And when He did this, He did not conquered death and satan, pay the penalty for our sins, etc. That He is Not the Son of God, etc.

OK, so if after "showing true faith" a person falls into the apostasy you describe above, would you say this person LOST his salvation? If he can SHOW it, he certainly HAD it, right? And if he acts the way you describe above he certainly doesn't still have it, right?

Once he "shows" saving faith, the excuse "he was never saved to begin with" can't be logically used. He MUST HAVE HAD IT, then lost it.

I think only God can reveal these things to man in a way that brings about faith in a Savior, Jesus. One might hear but until saved, not see.

So to me one would have to "un-see", the Savior.

Do you think this is possible?