The Meaning Of Justified

[chessman]

So, I said “Because the OP is making the argument that James 2:21 is a proof text that OSAS=no using Abraham as an example.†Please bear with me just a moment and answer these few questions: 1. Are you making an argument that OSAS=no? 2. Are you using James 2:21 for evidence (proof) within your argument? 3. Is not (in verse 2:21) James using the O.T. Scriptural example of Abraham?

Yes
Yes, WITHIN my argument. As PART of my argument.
Yes.
​

Thank you for answering them.
Then technically and respectfully, my statement was NOT misrepresenting you. You just agreed that it’s an accurate assessment of part of your argument. It cannot be a misrepresentation, if it accurately reflects at least that part of it.
I understand you are using additional “proof†as PART of your argument. And I've already discussed my feedbak on that addtional part with you (what does James mean by “justified†versus “savedâ€). In fact posting every single incidence of “justified†in the Bible to show the Biblical meaning of this word, does not equal salvation.


But my specific point here in this post, is to clarify that my statement to [MENTION=88699]Jethro Bodine[/MENTION] was not a misrepresentation of your argument.

 

[chessman]

"You were supposed to bring the donuts

That's indeed extremely witty and funny. I do think it’s possible to discuss the OSAS doctrine with some ability for humor and intelligence left in tact.
And of course Peter’s reply to Jesus’ seven words would be “The donuts are right behind you, you told me to put them behind youJâ€

That does not mean we earn our salvation by what we do. We SHOW our faith as able to save by what we do.

I totally agree. But fundamentally, this very fact is why I see no Biblical basis for using James 2 to prove OSAS=no. “Showing righteousness†to man is not salvation. Never has been, never will be. “Salvation†is not really even the subject that James is talking about (other than in verse 21 concerning Abraham’s belief being counted as his righteousness between him and God).

 

[chessman]

Humm...All about the past? Here is the first "misrepresentation".

The reason I said that is your reply to my bringing up Eph 2 was:

Paul is obviously talking about a person PRE-salvation.

and

That was then...This is now

So again, I see no misrepresentation on my part of how you responded to me about my post to [MENTION=88699]Jethro Bodine[/MENTION]
I understand that you acknowledged Paul later (much later in verse 18) is talking about post-salvation. But he begins much prior to verse 18. He actually says “you have been saved†in verse 5 that I quoted.

But moving on to answer both your and Jethro’s original question as to why I do think Eph 2 is applicable to this topic an relevant to the post I responded to:

"But God... even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been savedâ€
​

1. First this passage actually has the word “saved†in it. So it’s certainly relevant to OSAS topic. Much more so (clearer) than "justified".
2. 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.
3. “By grace you have been savedâ€. It’s God’s grace that saves. Not our works to begin with.
4. If Paul would have said in verse 7 or later something to the effect “you have the ability to un-save yourselfâ€, fine. I’d believe it. [and by the way, just becuase there are warning for us not to sin elsewhere also does not prove OSAS=no]
5. Just because somebody has had some children that decided to break our rules of the house and leave the house, is not Biblical evidence that OSAS=no. [Which by the way I'm sure there were lots of warnings not to break the rules, and for good reason. That doesn't mean we stop being gracious to children]
6. The parable of the prodigal son is also not evidence OSAS=no. It doesn’t even begin to make logical sense. After all, the son returns home and is welcomed home. Now if the parable had described the son dying in his sin in the foreign country, I could see some amount of evidence. But even then, I’d have to compare the parable to the plainer Scriptures on this subject. After all, the parable is mainly meant to show God's love for his chrildren (and it does show that).

Originally Posted by chessman [ Your turn to answer. Does the Bible ever say that Abraham (after his name change) was un-saved? Doesn't the Bi

I thought it was implied. You know it doesn't. If you need it spelled out, No. … Now, I guess it's my turn. So what? what does this prove? … Again, no. And again, so what?

Why so rude? This is actually the first time you answered my question that I asked multiple times, very nicely.

But to answer your question; because if there were such a verse, then OSAS would be proven false. That’s my point.

 

[JLB]

a key to understanding how I read the various passages discussed is in terms of the true believer depending on the sustaining grace of God, and not his or her own efforts at law-keeping.

... the true believer depending on the sustaining grace of God.

From what I have read in these post's, the idea of continuing to have faith in God, is the main point of what Jethro is teaching here.

... depending on the sustaining grace, is another way of saying faith in God.


JLB

 

[farouk]

a key to understanding how I read the various passages discussed is in terms of the true believer depending on the sustaining grace of God, and not his or her own efforts at law-keeping.

... the true believer depending on the sustaining grace of God.

From what I have read in these post's, the idea of continuing to have faith in God, is the main point of what Jethro is teaching here.

... depending on the sustaining grace, is another way of saying faith in God.


JLB

Thanks.

My point would also be that it's a work of God in the believer's heart, and it's not something that gets turned on and off. 'He that hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ; (Philippians 1.6).

Blessings.

 

[JLB]

a key to understanding how I read the various passages discussed is in terms of the true believer depending on the sustaining grace of God, and not his or her own efforts at law-keeping.

... the true believer depending on the sustaining grace of God.

From what I have read in these post's, the idea of continuing to have faith in God, is the main point of what Jethro is teaching here.

... depending on the sustaining grace, is another way of saying faith in God.


JLB

Thanks.

My point would also be that it's a work of God in the believer's heart, and it's not something that gets turned on and off. 'He that hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ; (Philippians 1.6).

Blessings.

That is a beautiful and encouraging scripture you quoted.

Lets examine it more closely and see if we can agree.

3 I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, 4 always in every prayer of mine making request for you all with joy, 5 for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ; 7 just as it is right for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart, inasmuch as both in my chains and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers with me of grace. Philippians 1:3-7

that He who has begun a good work in you...

The way God has begun a good work in you, is how He will complete it, until the Day of Christ.

By grace, through faith. A living faith that obeys the Gospel message by repenting towards God.

A living faith that shows the excellence of the majesty and glory of Almighty God, as Paul goes on to say in his letter to the Philippians -

9 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, 10 that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, 11 being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

These things are evidence of a life that is living in Harmony with the Spirit of God and the faith of Jesus Christ.

Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel, 28 and not in any way terrified by your adversaries, which is to them a proof of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that from God.


striving together for the faith of the gospel.


JLB

 

[farouk]

JLB:

Excellent! Exactly!

 

[chessman]

[
Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel, 28 and not in any way terrified by your adversaries, which is to them a proof of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that from God.


striving together for the faith of the gospel.


JLB

Would you agree then that at least one good reason for various warnings to Christians to stay in accord with good works, is that others are watching?

 

[mondar]

Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2) [/COLOR]

That the word "justified" in these verses means "shown to be righteous", is a common interpretation among OSAS proponents. The way it has been explained to me is, when a person HAS "saving faith" he WILL do "good works" to "show" or prove or demonstrate or any other verb you want to use, his "true faith". What he does, doesn't actually save him, but only demonstrates what KIND of faith the person has.

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

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.

There are two points I want to touch on if you hold this interpretation of James and hold OSAS.

1) It is possible to outwardly prove to others that you are really, truly saved.
2) Once it has been satisfactorily shown that the person HAS "saving faith", he can NEVER backslide, or OSAS is false.

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

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.

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.

The standard OSAS line for people who revert back to their previous lives after conversion is "he was never really saved in the first place". The above interpretation of James 2 really destroys this argument because "never really saved..." assumes we CAN'T know, and this interpretation of James says we can.

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?[/QUOTE]

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[dadof10]

So, I said “Because the OP is making the argument that James 2:21 is a proof text that OSAS=no using Abraham as an example.†Please bear with me just a moment and answer these few questions: 1. Are you making an argument that OSAS=no? 2. Are you using James 2:21 for evidence (proof) within your argument? 3. Is not (in verse 2:21) James using the O.T. Scriptural example of Abraham?

Yes
Yes, WITHIN my argument. As PART of my argument.
Yes.
​

Thank you for answering them.
Then technically and respectfully, my statement was NOT misrepresenting you. You just agreed that it’s an accurate assessment of part of your argument. It cannot be a misrepresentation, if it accurately reflects at least that part of it.

OK. For my part, it really doesn't matter. I'm not "misrepresenting" your view on purpose, and I don't think you're intentionally doing it either. There are subtle points that are being made and sometimes people mis-UNDERSTAND, not misrepresent. The reason I'm making a big deal over it is to exaggerate this point, that people misunderstand points sometimes, there are no other ulterior motives.

I understand you are using additional “proof†as PART of your argument. And I've already discussed my feedbak on that addtional part with you (what does James mean by “justified†versus “savedâ€). In fact posting every single incidence of “justified†in the Bible to show the Biblical meaning of this word, does not equal salvation.

No, not exactly. Here's the definition from Thayer's:

1) to render righteous or such he ought to be
2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3) to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be


Do you agree with these definitions? Do you think James means #2 above, or do you have another definition that's more accurate.

But my specific point here in this post, is to clarify that my statement to @Jethro Bodine was not a misrepresentation of your argument.

As I said, there are subtle points here. The most obvious being that James is using Abraham and Rahab as examples of people who SHOWED their righteousness by their "works". IF, and only IF, you believe that James means definition #2 above, then you can say I'm using verse 21 as a part of my argument. If you hold James means #1 or #3 above, verse 21 could not be a proof text against OSAS because then "works" actually MAKE righteous. It depends how you interpret the word "justified" in James 2. I really don't remember what your position is. I think it's #2, but I could be wrong.

 

[JLB]

They might produce something that might even look like good works for a while.

Good works?

Now that is interesting.

In the vein of this discussion, would define what you mean by good works, seeing how you use the phrase; Some of these people get involved for a while, or and some go to a different Church.

If you could, please clarify what you mean by get involved and good works.

Thank you for your time.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Of course I would agree with the statement that a person with saving faith can never loose his faith.

Anybody,

Doesn't this and other scriptures have the implied premise that you can lose your faith in the hope of salvation once you have it?

"22...he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel." (Colossians 1:22-23 NIV)

Without the premise of the argument being 'you can lose your faith' the warning is meaningless.

 

[chessman]

1) to render righteous or such he ought to be
2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3) to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be Do you agree with these definitions? Do you think James means #2 above, or do you have another definition that's more accurate.

Yes. I feel that’s exactly what James means in verse 21. I even agreed with you that you could rightfully say Justified = “shown to be righteousâ€. However, Justified ≠ saved. Here’s why:

1. When I searched and posted every occurrence of justified in the Bible, I did a mental exercise and swapped “justified†with “shown to be righteous†in every verse. They all pretty much read the same way, as I recall. I have no issue with that portion of your argument.

2. I also think the very reason James mentions Abraham’s and Rahab’s actions (“worksâ€) is to point out or provide Biblical examples (from God’s infallible Word, O.T. Scripture they all believed in) of the type of visible actions that are consistent with salvation and therefore are indications (evince, exhibit, showing, declaration, pronouncement) to us humans that people that show their stated faith in these types of ways are saved. I have no problem with that portion of you argument either. I disagree, however, that we can extend our powers of observation to actually ("satisfactorally shown" as you say) know for sure someone else's salvation. (more on why later).

3. James is also contrasting those evinces with that of demon’s actions/words/works which are indications or evinces, for them (again using the infallibility of the O.T. Bible to prove his point), that they are not “savedâ€. One could say they are “shown to be un-righteousâ€. I have no problem with that portion of your argument either. But again, I would disagree that we can extend those type evidences to actually be someone else's judge of their salvation (more later on why).
​

Where I disagree with your argument is when you get away from the Biblical text and make your own assertion(s) without any text to back it up. For example:

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

This would be a good premise to valid logical argument to conclude OSAS=no IF you had any text(s) that backed up your assertion. The problem is, there are so many texts that contradict it (which you've mostly ignored such as Paul being the chief of sinners and we are not the judge of other's salvation, etc.) that it’s hard to believe it is a true premise. And you don't have any texts that do support it. But here’s some reasons (Scripturally based of course) as to why I disagree with your point #2 even within James 2 and other Scripture that I AM NOT taking out of context:

1. James’ two examples (Abraham and Rahab) had the power and infallibility of being God’s Word (not man’s) to prove to James’ readers that Abraham/Rahab were saved. For any given John Smith or Jane Doe, alive today, we really do not have the authority of God’s declaring that they are actually saved. We just have the “evince, indications, showing, etc.†from the definition of "justified" that we both agree with.

2. As I pointed out in Post #10, Abraham and Rahab are/were/always will be indeed saved so these particular examples cannot prove OSAS=no. How could they, since they are with the Lord now? If we did have Biblical texts that ever stated Abraham became unsaved, then that would be the Biblical proof necessary to show OSAS=no (and back-up your premise) without question. There are no texts such as that, however. I'd be gald to consider any Scripture that you can reference that actually states someone has lost their salvation. [note: warnings to stop sinning, BTW, are NOT the same thing as a Scripture that states someone has lost their salvation]

3. When you say “once it has been SATISFACTORILY shown…â€. Satisfactorily to who? Us? That just doesn’t make any sense to prove OSAS=no. We are not Jane Doe’s or John Smith’s judge in the first place. James 2:4 says we are not even supposed to try to be their salvation judges.

have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? (James 2:4 ESV)
​

I know that I’ve pointed this verse out before and you accused me of taking verse 4 "out of context". But, I’m not. And just throwing up the "context!" flag is not an argument against this verse. You said James 2:1-11 was all about “partialityâ€. Of course it is about “partiality†but that doesn’t mean it’s not also about being “judges" and "evil thoughts". That’s actually a large portion of James’ point in chapter 2 (it’s a whole chapter for a reason). It’s also consistent with other Scripture. That is that we are in fact NOT the judge other people’s salvation:
​

Romans 14:4 (ESV) Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
​

4. I see no contradiction whatsoever with James (in the same chapter and within the same context) saying that there are good “evinces, indications, showings†that we can use as a guide toward viewing people’s salvation. But none of us have, nor need any 100% proof positive test for actually judging anyone’s salvation (other than our own, which is subject not even mentioned/discussed so far). James (2:1-9) even points out that regardless of someone else's salvation we should not show partiality to people.

My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. (James 2:1 ESV) … But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. (James 2:9 ESV)
​

But the point is, James is not being contradictory with himself (verse 2:4) or with Paul (Romans 14;4) by saying; You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24 ESV); because he’s NOT suggesting that there’s a judgment test for anyone else’s salvation based on the works they do that actually determines or judges their salvation state. That’s your assertion, not James’.

James do not say:
You see that a person is [saved] by works….
​

In fact, Chapter 2 ends with one of those “For†statements. The preceding verses are there “for†a reason. That is, those verses justify James’ conclusion:

For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. (James 2:26 ESV)
​

James is saying, just what he has said. People that do not have faith in God will not have works that indicate, evince (Justify) their faith. But nowhere does he say that works actually saves anyone, nor does he say “justify†= “savedâ€, nor does he say:

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

5.Furthermore, the texts that do talk about salvation, in no way imply that salvation can be lost. In fact, many actually come right out and say that salvation cannot be “snatched†from Christ’s hand by any man. People can ignore this fact or even not like it. However, I’ve reviewed every single text of the Bible that has the word “saved†or “eternal lifeâ€, etc. in it and NONE describe salvation as something that can be lost (not even stolen or “snatchâ€).
​

My point is that Justified ≠ saved. When studying the caracteristics/attributes of salvation, I go to the verses in the Bible that have salvation or “saved†within them, not justification or justified. Since you agree that justified means "shown to be righteous" you shouldn't change the defintion to "saved".

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Chessman, you really seem to be complicating the issue.

James says the confession of faith that saves is the faith that acts in accordance with what it believes. He uses Abraham and Rahab as examples to illustrate the point.

The tie-in here with OSAS is, if it's true that the faith that saves is evidenced by what it does, what does that mean in regard to the people we know and/or hear about, that believe and act in accordance with that belief, but who then STOP believing and acting in accordance with faith in God.

The simple fact that this happens shows us OSAS is NOT true. But then OSAS immediately counters with "well, they were never saved to begin with". Okay, so much for the security of OSAS. Because, if this true, then it's IMPOSSIBLE to know that you have the security of Christ's keeping power, and won't know until Judgment Day because works in OSAS can't be used to validate a faith that they claim can never stop. The contradictory nature of the OSAS position is the one they said 'never was saved anyway' HAS to be saved because OSAS ultimately rejects James' argument that a dead faith can not save.


Security in Christ actually comes from the Biblical argument for security--the non-OSAS stance. Which is stay in your faith to stay in the keeping power and security of Christ. And know that you're doing that, and continuing to do that (thus giving you peace of mind and heart, and security in the hope you profess) by being careful to purposely keep your faith active in accordance with the works of one who really does has the love of God in them. That's Biblical security.

If you know the scriptures that is exactly the way the Bible says to know you really are at peace with God and really do have the sure hope of salvation and are not being deceived by a 'faith' that can't save a flea; a cold, dead faith that does nothing, because that's a faith that did not result in the indwelling Spirit and the change of nature it procures.

Want to know if you're saved and, thus, enjoy the security of that salvation? Begin to act in accordance with what the Bible says a person who has the love of God in them through a born-again experience should act, and if you find you can't do that soberly reassess your relationship with God and do what you gotta do to get the love of God in you. Don't buy into the OSAS lies that say 1) as long as you 'believe', whether you act like a believer or not, you are forever saved, and 2) works really aren't the way you tell if you're born-again and have the love of God in you, anyway. Both of these are completely anti-scriptural.


This is what it's all about:

How to have security--KEEP believing in Christ. He will not let you down. It's impossible for God to let someone down who is genuinely trusting in him. IMPOSSIBLE.

How to know you have that security--put your faith to work so you can see your faith and trust in God, the faith that saves, for yourself.

 

[chessman]

"22...he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel." (Colossians 1:22-23 NIV) Without the premise of the argument being 'you can lose your faith' the warning is meaningless.

That’s an interesting passage and I see your point. However, I certainly don’t see how it proves OSAS=no. To cut to the chase, a warning that we should continue in our faith and don’t lose hope does not necessarily mean that we would lose our salvation if we did not continue in our faith (or technically even that we will in fact not continue in our faith). On a personal level, I cannot image myself ever losing my faith, but I recognize that’s not Biblical evidence to other people or even me, as I might be wrong. Also on a personal level, have you ever patted somebody on the back and said, “don’t lose hope”? Could it be that is what Paul is doing here versus teaching OSAS=no?

But here’s how I see how it relates to OSAS (or not):

First, the word “salvation” does not even appear is these verses such that you are justified in building a doctrine about “salvation” from it. Especially one that conflicts with other Scriptures.

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. I also recognize that it doesn’t necessarily preclude the theoretical possibility the He cannot “un-reconciled” us later. But, since the mechanism that reconciled us to begin with (Christ’s death) is not going away, then there’s evidence that our reconciliation is likewise, not going away. Plus, if God/Jesus knows our future, then why would He reconcile us, only to later have to withdraw that reconciliation. God doesn’t make mistakes, we do!

If someone really wanted to understand the reason for Paul’s warning or caution (If you continue in your faith…do not move from the hope…, or any other warning) the logical thing to do would be to read on the entire context or elsewhere in Scripture and see what this warning is specifically for. And how the one portion of a verse is coherent with other Scriptures and not just assume Paul means you can lose your salvation from a verse that doesn’t even have “salvation” in it.

After all, this is the same person that has so clearly tied “salvation”, not even to our continuing “Hope”, but rather Christ’s death and also the “seal” of the Holy Spirit” (even within the portion of the verse that you left out). But elsewhere in:

Ephesians 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
​

or

1 Thessalonians 5:8 But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.
​

But even within the same partial verse that you quoted, Paul does say “your faith, established and firm” so it’s certainly worth studying how all this relates to each other.

What do you think he means by “established and firm”?

What do you think Paul means by “your salvation…sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” or “we belong to the day” and how would you reconcile Paul saying our salvation is “sealed” and we “belong” in other letters with your assumption that salvation is not in fact “sealed”? I’d honestly be interested in how you’d reconcile this apparent conflict with your assumption that we can lose our salvation.

But here’s how I reconcile your observation that this passage does say “if you continue in your faith… and do not move from the hope”.

First, I read the whole section and any other relevant passages from the Bible.

And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
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, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me. (Colossians 1:17-29 ESV)
​

So even within the preceding verses of Colossians 1, I find that:
“in Him all things hold together”. So if salvation is a “thing”, then it holds together because of Him, not me.

“He is preeminent in everything”, even my salvation.

I am “reconciled” through Him, not me or my works (yes I know that I have to believe and even continue to believe, but will I, is the only question).

My peace (our reconciliation from death) is through His blood and His cross, not mine.

I once was alienated and hostile in mind but AM NOW reconciled, and I don’t see Him taking that reconciliation away since He pretty much knows all things (even future things).

So what specifically is up in the portion of the verse that you mention?:

1. Greek experts say (even some that are not necessarily OSAS) (and I have no reason or qualification to argue against them) that the sentence/grammar structure here through the use of “the faith” and the indicative mood of the verb “faith” actually shows Paul’s meaning this (continuing in the faith) to be something that will happen. In the Greek (they say) it actually reads more like you will continue in faith. But, I’m no expert and it’s not even that critical one way or the other.

2. The “warning” in Colossians 1 is actually in verse 28 and I believe it relates to your point (actually answers your question, Why warn someone about something that cannot happen?) Strong faith, continuing in faith, is important and it does matter. A mature faith is, for lack of a better word, a better faith. Here, I’m not talking about salvation, but rather a growing and continuing to grow toward a more mature faith (better understanding of God’s Word even, better assurance, etc. etc.) I could go on forever but it’s too long of a post for most people, already, I’m sure many have long since stopped reading it, or even giving these idea possible merit.

3. But just on a practical/earthly basis, continuing in our faith gives us a firmer leg to stand on. Our continuing in our faith means our “house” is built on rock, not sand (Matt 7:24-27)

4. If we have a strong faith and our hope (yes even our hope in our salvation) is more secure the more we continue in our faith. It’s more “firm” and better “established” you might recall from verse 23.

5. When Paul says he is warning everyone (warning them to continue in the faith) he says it’s so that they may be presented being mature in Christ. But mature or immature, presented we are, either way. Paul’s already clarified that salvation itself is assured (not based on our maturity but rather Christ’s blood). It’s our faith and our hope that wavers sometimes, not Christ.

6. Also, when we are lacking in faith, we just simply are not showing Christ living in us to others that are watching us. We are not being good witnesses (there’s Biblical texts that supports reason for “warnings” that I believe I’ve already posted to another “warning” that you mentioned.

7. Also, when we are lacking in faith, we may miss opportunities to help others and therefore miss out on rewards in Heaven. But, those verses never say we are not in heaven to begin with.

Anyway, that’s how I understand Col 1:22-23.

 

[dadof10]

The reason I said that is your reply to my bringing up Eph 2 was:

and
So again, I see no misrepresentation on my part of how you responded to me about my post to [MENTION=88699]Jethro Bodine[/MENTION]
I understand that you acknowledged Paul later (much later in verse 18) is talking about post-salvation. But he begins much prior to verse 18. He actually says “you have been saved†in verse 5 that I quoted.

As I said above, It really doesn't matter. I don't have the time to cut and paste from the last post. Suffice to say, that verses 1-3 reference the believer BEFORE conversion, a fact you won't address.

But moving on to answer both your and Jethro’s original question as to why I do think Eph 2 is applicable to this topic an relevant to the post I responded to:

"But God... even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been savedâ€
​

1. First this passage actually has the word “saved†in it. So it’s certainly relevant to OSAS topic. Much more so (clearer) than "justified".
2. 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.
3. “By grace you have been savedâ€. It’s God’s grace that saves. Not our works to begin with.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Again, my point is that our actions SHOW THE QUALITY of our faith. Let me see if I can clear this up. At initial conversion, do you think we have to ACCEPT God's grace, or do you think God forces it upon us ala Calvin's irresistible Grace?

4. If Paul would have said in verse 7 or later something to the effect “you have the ability to un-save yourselfâ€, fine. I’d believe it. [and by the way, just becuase there are warning for us not to sin elsewhere also does not prove OSAS=no]

Poisoning the well...

5. Just because somebody has had some children that decided to break our rules of the house and leave the house, is not Biblical evidence that OSAS=no. [Which by the way I'm sure there were lots of warnings not to break the rules, and for good reason. That doesn't mean we stop being gracious to children]

Of course it's not biblical. It's an example to show that we can cast ourselves out, even if Scripture says God will never cast us out. It's a two way relationship, another point you won't address.

6. The parable of the prodigal son is also not evidence OSAS=no. It doesn’t even begin to make logical sense. After all, the son returns home and is welcomed home. Now if the parable had described the son dying in his sin in the foreign country, I could see some amount of evidence. But even then, I’d have to compare the parable to the plainer Scriptures on this subject. After all, the parable is mainly meant to show God's love for his chrildren (and it does show that).

Again, my point is that our relationship with God goes BOTH WAYS. He doesn't force us to love Him or stay in His good graces. We have free will and can cast ourselves out, AS THE PRODIGAL SON DID. His father even went so far as to give him his inheritance. This is how God treats us. If we want to leave Him, we are free to. God does not run a prison. You are mis-UNDERSTANDING my point. Everything I post is not "OSAS=no", sometimes I am simply responding to a specific point within your argument.

Originally Posted by chessman [ Your turn to answer. Does the Bible ever say that Abraham (after his name change) was un-saved? Doesn't the Bi

I thought it was implied. You know it doesn't. If you need it spelled out, No. … Now, I guess it's my turn. So what? what does this prove? … Again, no. And again, so what?

Why so rude? This is actually the first time you answered my question that I asked multiple times, very nicely.

As I said above, I thought my "no" answer was implied. We both know there is no verse in Scripture that shows Abraham is not saved. And, the rudeness goes both ways, I just don't complain about it.

"I can only speculate (which James says is evil), so i try not to. I admit, it's hard not to be judgmental of people. Even you.

James 2:4 (NIV)
4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?"

"But you know what, just don't bother if you cannot reply without misrepresenting my case, statements, thoughts or opinions. As i've said to you at least 6 times. I pretty much know my own opinion and don't need you misrepresenting it."

"That's just stupid. I never said that. You did. It's one of those cases where i'm judging your motives here. But as you say, i just LoL.'

This is a pretty common tactic, attack the credibility of your opponent, then act indignant and cry "foul" (or "rude") when it comes back. Why don't we just stick to the points and let the arguments about "misrepresentation" go?

 

[mondar]

Of course I would agree with the statement that a person with saving faith can never loose his faith.

Anybody,

Doesn't this and other scriptures have the implied premise that you can lose your faith in the hope of salvation once you have it?

"22...he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel." (Colossians 1:22-23 NIV)

Without the premise of the argument being 'you can lose your faith' the warning is meaningless.

A person who never had any faith can make a profession of faith will certainly move from that profession and this may not continue in his profession of faith. A person can fall from the faith, but faith that is given by God cannot fall from a person.

One the other hand, since no person has the ability to come to Christ (Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.) and thus no person can ever generate his own faith. Rather, faith is something given to the believer (Php 1:29 because to you it hath been granted in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer in his behalf:). It is not given to us because we wanted it. We did not want it because no man can come to Christ. Faith was given to use "in behalf of Christ.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

"22...he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel." (Colossians 1:22-23 NIV) Without the premise of the argument being 'you can lose your faith' the warning is meaningless.

That’s an interesting passage and I see your point. However, I certainly don’t see how it proves OSAS=no. To cut to the chase, a warning that we should continue in our faith and don’t lose hope does not necessarily mean that we would lose our salvation if we did not continue in our faith (or technically even that we will in fact not continue in our faith).

There are more passages. And they speak more directly to salvation:

15 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NIV)

1) He's speaking to 'brothers and sisters', those who have received the gospel, and are taking their stand on it, and 'are saved'. This not a group of 'just think they're saved' people.

2) The condition for being saved by 'this gospel' is holding firmly, in faith, to the word that they received. IF they don't do that, their believing will be in vain.

On a personal level, I cannot image myself ever losing my faith, but I recognize that’s not Biblical evidence to other people or even me, as I might be wrong.

I know this staying power of the Holy Spirit, too, but still the Bible warns those of us who have the confidence of salvation to be humble:

"20 Granted. But they (Israel) were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off." (Romans 11:20-22 NIV)

With the Israelites being the example of unbelief, we know from this passage that this is about salvation, not the benefits of salvation. For the same fate awaits the person who has faith now, but fails later as the fate of unbelieving Jews. This is indeed about salvation itself.


Long, long post. It'll take me a while to get through it with my schedule of brain surgeries and all.

 

[Elijah674]

Of course I would agree with the statement that a person with saving faith can never loose his faith.

Anybody,

Doesn't this and other scriptures have the implied premise that you can lose your faith in the hope of salvation once you have it?

"22...he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel." (Colossians 1:22-23 NIV)

Without the premise of the argument being 'you can lose your faith' the warning is meaningless.

A person who never had any faith can make a profession of faith will certainly move from that profession and this may not continue in his profession of faith. A person can fall from the faith, but faith that is given by God cannot fall from a person.

One the other hand, since no person has the ability to come to Christ (Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.) and thus no person can ever generate his own faith. Rather, faith is something given to the believer (Php 1:29 because to you it hath been granted in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer in his behalf:). It is not given to us because we wanted it. We did not want it because no man can come to Christ. Faith was given to use "in behalf of Christ.

But who does the Holy Spirit work on if not everyone? All of God's creation! And only these who accept the agreement & remain faithful unto death will be JUSTIFIED. That is what Eccl. 12:13-14 'Conclusion' means.

--Elijah

 

[Jethro Bodine]

A person who never had any faith can make a profession of faith will certainly move from that profession and this may not continue in his profession of faith. A person can fall from the faith, but faith that is given by God cannot fall from a person.

God does indeed give the ability to know that the gospel is true. That's what the gift of faith is:

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1 NASB)

From here it is our responsibility to believe in that which God has shown us to be true. IOW, place our trust in that which we now know, by God's gracious gift of faith, to be true. THAT is what must endure to the end, your believing and trusting in that which God has graciously shown you to be true through the enabling of faith to know is even true in the first place.


Many, many people know the gospel is true because of God's gracious gift of faith at work in the world, but then reject that which they have been shown to them as being true. But very few put their trust in that which God has shown them to be true.

"14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”" (Matthew 22:14 NASB)

This is the difference between those who have heard God's testimony of the truth sent into the world via the Holy Spirit, and who took false comfort in merely possessing that knowledge and did nothing with it, or stopped doing something with it, versus those who heard the truth and took it to heart, placing their trust in it, bringing it to fruition, and persevering in that trust in God to the very end.

How do we know which we're doing? By whether or not the fruit of the Spirit is at work in us to do good. That's James' argument. The faith that saves is the faith that can be seen in what it does. But OSAS ultimately denies this and insists that simply being called is the security of God's gospel. I wish that were true.