The Meaning Of Justified

[chessman]

As I said above, It really doesn't matter.

Misrepresentations do matter. That post was specifically to address the fact that you directly accused me of misrepresenting your arguments. You directly accused me of doing it to you twice, so I clarified the situation. But I do agree, with you here:

Why don't we just stick to the points and let the arguments about "misrepresentation" go?

The best way to avoid any discussion about misrepresentations is just never to make any misrepresentations in the first place. But I will either admit my mistake if I’ve made a misrepresentation of someone else’s opinion/statements or incorrectly interpreted Biblical passages and/or defend my posts when someone states that I’ve misrepresented them, yet I have not.
For example:

verses 1-3 reference the believer BEFORE conversion, a fact you won't address.

I mentioned Eph 2:5-6 in response to [MENTION=88699]Jethro Bodine[/MENTION] requesting a Scripture that says we cannot stop calling on the name of the Lord for forgiveness and still be saved (post #121). This Scripture (specifically verse 5) helps answer that question, in my opinion. And I have read, I understand, and I have considered verses 1-3 and 18 and the rest, so I’m not taking it out of context.
I have addressed your criticism toward my point here both in my original post (I actually put “past tense†in quotes where appropriate) and even had to clarify it later by restating it when you first accused me of not recognizing past tense verbs within Eph 2 and now a third time. Therefore, it seems odd that you would say I have not addressed it. I've done so THREE times.

And this issue is important (verb tense in passages that speak of our salvation) to the OSAS study, obviously. It’s also obvious that you feel it’s important since you highlight “BEFORE†conversion above and say I'm refusing to addres it. I certianly agree verses 1-3 are BEFORE conversion. I even said that eariler.

I didn’t post verse 1-3. I mentioned verses 5-6 is applicable to our potential to “lose†our salvation or not. I’m not saying that it says “Thou are Once Saved and truly, truly shall Always be Saved†or anything like that. It’s just part of this rather complex and controversial issue that Eph 2:5’s “by grace you are savedâ€, clearly has the verb tense used in present tense, indicative mood:

Thayer’s says : εἰμί has the force of a predicate
Strong’s says: εἰμί The first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb

It seems that you agree with this particular point (correct me if I’m wrong):

I'm not disagreeing with you.

so I’ll move on from that discussion and back to your OP argument for James’ method for us to be able to establish/distinguish someone else’s state of salvation.

James 2 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? (James 2:20 ESV)?
​

I mean, really. Your OP argument specifically relies upon verses James 2:21-24 to try to confidence people in this forum that James is teaching a method to actually/literally determine someone else’s state of salvation (past tense and present tense). That he’s establishing some sort of “test†is not even what James is talking about in verses 21-24. Clearly he’s saying people’s faith, apart from works, is useless. But he doesn’t even say that means they are therefore not saved. Obviously, I agree with James. Faith apart from works is useless. It doesn’t do them or anyone else one lick of good. But James is not saying that if we see no works in people that we know for sure they are not saved. He’s not even saying that if we see good works in people that we know they are saved. After all, Judas for example showed “Good works†yet Peter showed “bad works†at times. It’s NOT James’ point that peoples’ good works is a 100% foolproof test of someone’s salvation state.
He uses the power of the O.T. Scripture to prove Abraham and Rahab were saved, sure. I agree they were saved and are still saved. But, I believe it because God’s Word tells me so, not because I saw it on U-tube or heard about it on CFNet. And I do agree James goes on to say:

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar

and even that he means these people’s works justifies to us that their specific actions (and by implication similar actions in people we see today) are indications to us they have a “true faithâ€. I just simply so no evidence that James means that these evidences from people’s good works: 1) saves them in the first place or 2) are 100% accurate tests that we can rely on to judge their salvation by. And therefore, to decide whether OSAS is good doctrine or not, I don’t use James 2. So that’s my take on your argument in a nutshell.

I understand that your specific OP argument is that James 2 implies that we have a test (a “justificationâ€) for determining the truthfulness of someone else’s salvation. But that’s not even the definition for “justification†that you use. You use Thayer’s 2) or “â€shown to be righteousâ€.

Since salvation is an issue between God and man, not man-to-man and God is Spirit I don’t know of any test we have access to unless it’s purely spiritual.

Romans 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
​

It seems that there’s our test. But I’m just not sure we have a way to determine if someone really does have or ever did have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them.

But moving on:

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 to try to discuss this some anyway, I don’t find “Irresistible Grace†in the Bible. So the phrase would need some clear definition as to what each word specifically means.

I searched and “irresistible†is not even in the Bible at all. So people would have to agree to what this term means.

“grace†is there hundreds of times from the O.T. to John’s Gospel, all of Paul’s Epistles, Hebrews, James, Peter, Jude even Rev. So a study of “grace†would be intense, to say the least. But just because we happen to be on the subject of James, I found this passage that uses “grace†and “made†in the same verse (with either God’s providence or irony depending on your view in verse 1):

What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? …Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us� But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.†Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you. (James 4:1-10 ESV)
​

So, my opinion is that God MAKES His Spirit to dwell in me yet when I’m humble He gives (not forces) more grace yet when I’m proud He opposes that pride in me. The more humble I am, the closer I feel to God.

One thing I know personally and feel generally is true is that the Protestant crowd could use a good dose of confession and repentance. Not for renewing our salvation, of course (in my opinion) but I know personally that when I confess my sins and ask for forgiveness, I do feel closer to God as a result. As to whether I could go on without any confession and repentance and therefore become un-saved (i.e. toss away God’s Spirit that He MADE dwell in me)? I doubt it. I don’t see any Biblical evidence for it, anyway. And frankly (though not very good apologetic evidence for others), I just don’t feel like that’s a possibility with me personally. I can really only speculate about others.

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). But again, that’s why I don’t like the dichotomy you’ve set up and implied Calvin supported it that way.

I rather like to use the phrase “effective callâ€. I do feel that the Bible teaches God’s will be done. And He has made His Spirit dwell in me. And I felt that Spirit call me out of my trespasses and sin (still do). I, as a teenager, once yielded myself (my free will) to that call and take that to be my spiritual “re-birthâ€. I’ve never experienced anything like it since and cannot adequately describe the experience in words even now.

I can say for sure that I resisted it (God’s grace that is) for some time, choosing not to accept Christ as Lord in my life, that is. Which is another reason I don’t like the ter “irresistible Graceâ€. But whether I could have continued on and resisted His call indefinitely and forever and if I had, God’s Spirit would have just given up on me and left me, I don’t know. I doubt it, however. It’s not really like God to lose at something He intends to happen. But, I suppose it’s theoretically possible. I’d have to evaluate Scriptures that says’ God doesn’t finish what He starts. I just don’t know of any like that.

 

[chessman]

It'll take me a while to get through it with my schedule of brain surgeries and all

You mean you're a Hollywood actor, donut maker and Brain Surgeon all in one? You must not play golfJ

 

[Deborah13]

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.

Well, I read every word of your post. Thank you for taking the time involved in this.

The Lord showed me what you say in #5. It is very humbling when it hits you square in the eye. What ever made me think I could undo what the Lord had done!

7. Also, when we are lacking in faith, we may miss opportunities to help others

 

[mondar]

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.

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.

 

[Deborah13]

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.

Dad, so if a child of ours leaves our home in rebellion we in turn because of their foolishness, cast them out of our FAMILY? I don't see that in a parents heart. We may not be able to let them live in our physical, temporal home because of their behaviors but do we cast them out from our family? If someone asks is that child ours, would we say, no, I never knew them? If that child were to in rebellion say, "I no longer want to be a part of this family", would that change the fact that they are or how we as a parent see that child as far as their position in the family? We could not just say, they were never born to us into this family, could we?

I could never see myself doing that. My child is my child and will be forever, no matter what they do, they are still mine. If I can love my children in that way, only God could give me that kind of love for them. If I, as a human can love my children in such a way, how much greater is God's love for His children, us.

If we could do the things that God can do and know the things that God knows about each of us, would we not know how to change the heart of a rebellious child?

The prodigal son realized his mistake but as you noticed, he received his inheritance but did it actually run out as far as his position with his father? Must not have because when he came home he was still his father's son. No where does the story imply he was not still his father's son. To the contrary the father kept watch for his son, like he knew he'd be back.
The lamb that wandered from the flock (family) the shepherd went and found him and carried him back.
The one in the pit was lifted out.
Our Father has His ways that are above our ways.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It'll take me a while to get through it with my schedule of brain surgeries and all

You mean you're a Hollywood actor, donut maker and Brain Surgeon all in one? You must not play golfJ

You left out double agent.

http://youtu.be/1MWq6L19eNo

 

[Mitspa]

G1344
δικαιόω
dikaioō

Thayer Definition:
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


Rom 5:1

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Rom 5:2
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

 

[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.

In fact the closest/clearest discussion of someone’s salvation is actually in the “…” portion of this verse that you left out. That is:

I had included it and then changed my mind to keep the quote short.

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!

You're doing what so many people do. Wherever they see 'salvation' they see 'forever saved'. It's the circular reasoning of the OSAS argument.

The question is whether or not the salvation that you may surely have can be forfeited through an end of the trust in Christ that secured it for you in the first place. Actually, the argument for me is, can a person who once believed really do that? The Bible makes it clear what will happen if you do that. What were debating is if it's really possible for a genuine faith to shrink back and lose what it originally secured.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

G1344
δικαιόω
dikaioō

Thayer Definition:
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


Rom 5:1

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Rom 5:2
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

I don't think anybody is arguing the 'we have' part of salvation. What is being debated is can you lose what you presently have (the promise of salvation) by a return to your unbelief?

The Bible says what will happen if you do that. The question is, "can a genuine believer really do that?" I know the staying power of the Holy Spirit, but why does the Bible warn genuine believers to not do something they can not do (that is, stop believing in Christ)? Lot's of rationalizing, but little in the way of convincing scripture to show we can't stop believing.

I can't help but to think your post, too, is another example of the circular reasoning of many OSAS adherents--that anywhere you see 'salvation' that means irreversible and unable to be forfeited. But that's what we're trying to nail down--whether the salvation we surely have through faith in Christ's blood can be forfeited by us not continuing to trust in the blood of Christ. Simply pointing out where the Bible says we are saved doesn't tell us whether that can end if we stop believing, or if it's possible to stop believing.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

Well, I read every word of your post. Thank you for taking the time involved in this.

The Lord showed me what you say in #5. It is very humbling when it hits you square in the eye. What ever made me think I could undo what the Lord had done!

Deborah, or anybody:

God gave you the spiritual vision to see that the gospel is true. Did he also do your trusting in what he showed you to be true, too?

Can you see the difference between 'faith', and 'believing'?

The Bible says 'faith' (knowing something really is true) is the gift of God. Jesus said 'believing' (placing your trust in what you now know to be true) is the work of man--the required work of man to be justified...and what I'm trying to show, the work that must continue to stay justified before God in heaven.

 

[Mitspa]

G1344
δικαιόω

dikaioō
Thayer Definition:
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


Rom 5:1

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Rom 5:2
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

I don't think anybody is arguing the 'we have' part of salvation. What is being debated is can you lose what you presently have (the promise of salvation) by a return to your unbelief?

The Bible says what will happen if you do that. The question is, "can a genuine believer really do that?" I know the staying power of the Holy Spirit, but why does the Bible warn genuine believers to not do something they can not do (that is, stop believing in Christ)? Lot's of rationalizing, but little in the way of convincing scripture to show we can't stop believing.

I can't help but to think your post, too, is another example of the circular reasoning of many OSAS adherents--that anywhere you see 'salvation' that means irreversible and unable to be forfeited. But that's what we're trying to nail down--whether the salvation we surely have through faith in Christ's blood can be forfeited by us not continuing to trust in the blood of Christ. Simply pointing out where the Bible says we are saved doesn't tell us whether that can end if we stop believing, or if it's possible to stop believing.

Well all we have to do is look to the scriptures, for the way one turns from "the law of faith" is to turn back to the "law of works" FOR THE LAW IS NOT OF FAITH. So then one who is justified by Gods Righteousness, and then turns from the "way of righteousness" back to the law, has rejected faith.

2Pe 2:20

For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2Pe 2:21

For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2Pe 2:22

But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.


Gal 5:4
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

So any honest discussion of what it means to reject faith, or to lose ones faith, should start here.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

G1344
δικαιόω

dikaioō
Thayer Definition:
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


Rom 5:1

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Rom 5:2
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

I don't think anybody is arguing the 'we have' part of salvation. What is being debated is can you lose what you presently have (the promise of salvation) by a return to your unbelief?

The Bible says what will happen if you do that. The question is, "can a genuine believer really do that?" I know the staying power of the Holy Spirit, but why does the Bible warn genuine believers to not do something they can not do (that is, stop believing in Christ)? Lot's of rationalizing, but little in the way of convincing scripture to show we can't stop believing.

I can't help but to think your post, too, is another example of the circular reasoning of many OSAS adherents--that anywhere you see 'salvation' that means irreversible and unable to be forfeited. But that's what we're trying to nail down--whether the salvation we surely have through faith in Christ's blood can be forfeited by us not continuing to trust in the blood of Christ. Simply pointing out where the Bible says we are saved doesn't tell us whether that can end if we stop believing, or if it's possible to stop believing.

Well all we have to do is look to the scriptures, for the way one turns from "the law of faith" is to turn back to the "law of works" FOR THE LAW IS NOT OF FAITH. So then one who is justified by Gods Righteousness, and then turns from the "way of righteousness" back to the law, has rejected faith.

2Pe 2:20

For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2Pe 2:21

For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2Pe 2:22

But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.


Gal 5:4
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

So any honest discussion of what it means to reject faith, or to lose ones faith, should start here.

I tried that. It didn't go much of anywhere.

The Galatians, by Paul's own observation, were born-again, Spirit-filled believers, yet he warns them of turning from their faith in Christ to reliance on the ceremonial law to be justified and be severed from Christ.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...for the way one turns from "the law of faith" is to turn back to the "law of works" FOR THE LAW IS NOT OF FAITH.

...Or just turns back to nothing.

Those who do that manufacture their own 'gospel' that I've noticed effectively nullifies the expected and obligatory obediences of saving faith.

 

[Elijah674]

Jethro:

...but you somehow assume that those who end up continuing to live and die in sin were once believers? Why? Just because they once professed, does this make them true, born again believers?

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

Blessings.

Sure does! It could be stated NO PLAINER than... Heb. 6:1-6. Or 2 Peter 2:19-22 Were 'made Partakers of the Holy Ghost', and 'it is happened...

--Elijah

 

[chessman]

You're doing what so many people do. Wherever they see 'salvation' they see 'forever saved'. It's the circular reasoning of the OSAS argument.

"so many people"? Actually, everybody put’s their definition to the words they use in their truth statements (doctrines). You too. Wherever you see "salvation", for example, you see "saved, but with the possibility of losing that salvation". That’s just natural for all of us.

It’s when you (we) go on further and make actual truth statements and logical conclusions from the term “salvation†(in this case) that reasoning can become circular.

Placing meaning/definitions to words like “salvation†is really nothing more than defining our terms. We have to define our terms to even be able to communicate with each other (and God with us).

When we read "salvation" or "saved", every human has to decide what definition they tie to this term. As Christians, we should get our definitions from the Biblical sources as much as possible. (Which is why I looked at every instance of “justified†in the bible and Hebrew/Greek dictionaries to decide on its proper meaning prior to building any doctrine while using the term “justifiedâ€).

If we do not have the God inspired Scripture(s) as the rule that defines (or decides) how we can properly use terms like “salvationâ€, or “justifiedâ€, then there’s no use even trying to come to a conclusion about doctrines or truth statements using these terms.

Just for an example, when an LDS person says “salvationâ€, their meaning of this term is NOT even close to the Biblical meaning. And you’ll go round and round in circles discussing “salvation†with them unless you use other terms that you both can agree to their meaning (if you can even find any). They don’t even agree with us on the definition of Christ, so it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ever communicate effectively and logically with them because nobody agrees on the terms that are being used.

i.e. without Scriptural proof, people can pretty much contort terms like saved, salvation, justification, etc. to mean whatever definition you want to throw into the term’s meaning (NOT that I am saying you are doing that). I’m not saying that of you! I’m just clarifying (and actually agreeing with you) that we ALL place meanings (potentially different meanings) into the words that we use.

But that’s why I’ve been dialoging with you in particular. It seems to me, based on the posts of yours that I’ve read, that you and I both do have the same definition of “saved†correct, Biblically speaking. Justification as well. You see our salvation as a gift from God, just as I do and we accept that gift through our faith in Christ. If someone wants to call that “worksâ€, fine. But my point is, our “salvation†is NOT because we somehow have become sinless by “working†our way out of that sinful situation that we were in.

What were debating is if it's really possible for a genuine faith to shrink back and lose what it originally secured

I agree. From what I’ve seen that’s what you and I have been doing specifically. And I find it interesting and I’ve actually grown stronger in my faith (actually i mean belief) that OSAS is true because I’ve looked at and studied your best cases (Scriptures that is) that you’ve mentioned that you feel teach that our “faith can shrink back†to the point we “lose what it originally securedâ€. I’ve not found a single one that proves your case, however. But I do see your points within the texts that you claim are doing just that.

As I’ve said, most all of the one’s that you’ve mention don’t even have the word “saved†in them (as James 2 does not either). And when you state something like the following without the text to back it up, that’s actually where the potential for “circular reasoning†posts is found. (not that I’m saying that is what you’ve done) Anyway:

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.

You are using 1 Corinthians 15 for your basis/proof of this truth statement and the implication that OSAS cannot therefore be true. Great. I’ve looked at it (and I even see your point) and my next post will address whether your conclusion above (or the implication that means OSAS = no) is in fact what Paul is saying in that passage. You might very well be correct. OR you might not be correct, and you’re simply placing definitions into this text for “believed in vain†or “hold firmly†that are not Biblically supportable. I actually don't think you are, BTW, but I do think you're not following Paul's logic within this passage (more later). But your right, this text does have thwords “saved†and “if†in it. So maybe you are right with it's conclusions based on these words. Let's see.

If I'm wrong Uncle Jed or Granny can spank me

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You're doing what so many people do. Wherever they see 'salvation' they see 'forever saved'. It's the circular reasoning of the OSAS argument.

"so many people"? Actually, everybody put’s their definition to the words they use in their truth statements (doctrines). You too. Wherever you see "salvation", for example, you see "saved, but with the possibility of losing that salvation". That’s just natural for all of us.

You missed my point.

What OSAS people do is quote a scripture that says we are saved and say, "see? Salvation is forever." But that is the very thing we're trying to decide--whether or not the salvation we have really is unconditionally forever. But I don't use the word 'salvation' as proof that salvation is conditioned upon a continuing faith in Christ. That's not implied in the word anymore than 'forever' is implied in the word.

It seems to me, based on the posts of yours that I’ve read, that you and I both do have the same definition of “saved†correct, Biblically speaking. Justification as well.

I'm confident of that as well.

You see our salvation as a gift from God, just as I do and we accept that gift through our faith in Christ. If someone wants to call that “worksâ€, fine. But my point is, our “salvation†is NOT because we somehow have become sinless by “working†our way out of that sinful situation that we were in.

Besides the circular reasoning thing, OSAS seem to only be able to see this thing in the vein of 'works'. This is NOT about earning your salvation. This is about having the FAITH you started out with to the very end in order to be saved on the Day of Wrath.

Works only come into play as the signature, or the evidence, of the faith that is enduring to the end and can save the person on the Day of Wrath. Surely you can appreciate the difference in that and the damnable 'works' gospel.

What were debating is if it's really possible for a genuine faith to shrink back and lose what it originally secured

I agree. From what I’ve seen that’s what you and I have been doing specifically. And I find it interesting and I’ve actually grown stronger in my faith (actually i mean belief) that OSAS is true because I’ve looked at and studied your best cases (Scriptures that is) that you’ve mentioned that you feel teach that our “faith can shrink back†to the point we “lose what it originally securedâ€. I’ve not found a single one that proves your case...

I thought maybe you'd recognize the language ('shrink').

"
23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
Christ or Judgment

26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.


32 But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, 33 partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. 34 For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one. 35 Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.

37 For yet in a very little while,
He who is coming will come, and will not delay.
38 But My righteous one shall live by faith;
And if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him.

39 But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul."

(Hebrews 10:23-27, 32-39 NASB)



Gotta get back to other job as double knot spy (for the Obama administration, lol).

 

[chessman]

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.

I agree that Paul is clearly speaking to “brothersâ€. It’s very plain Paul is talking to Christians that have “the gospel†and therefore are saved. However, I also think Paul recognizes that non-Christians could very well be reading his letter just as Atheists read the Bible today. After all he also says “you have believed in vain†so he could be addressing this passage to two different groups of people (saved and un-saved). Those “holding firmly†and those “believing in vainâ€. My first observation is that might very well be what Paul is doing here (distinguishing between what’s applicable to a brother and what’s applicable to a non- brother. But that’s just one possible way to see this text and I suppose people could justify this passage either way (exclusively being to the “saved†or addressed to both saved and “un-savedâ€). And he does, after all, announce this statement to “brothersâ€, so you may be right with #1. But my main point here is to clarify the conditional statement Paul makes in this passage regardless of whether he means it being applicable for just the saved or to both the saved and the un-saved, so I’ll just move on from your argument #1 to #2 and assume you are right about #1. Just pointing out that I would assume you would agree with me that “if†someone had “believed in [the gospel] in vain, that they were in fact never saved to begin with. So this passage’s apparent teaching of OSAS=no could just be that simple.

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.

But I DO NOT agree that is technically what Paul here is saying here.
Here’s why:
1. Paul tells us clearly what “the gospel†or “this gospel†is that he is reminding them of (here and many other places in Paul’s writings. Paul says: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,…(1 Corinthians 15:3 ESV) My point is there’s no “IF†condition specifically within Christ dying for our sins within this Gospel. And I’m not saying that you’ve said there is! But my point is, clearly Christ’s dying for your sins is not Conditional on anything man can do. So within the definition of “the gospelâ€, as Paul defines it, it’s not inherently conditional.
2. But you’re right, something is conditional here. What is it? Paul does state an obvious “condition statement†within verses 1-2. I write computer code (or did) for a living so I’m familiar with the logic of conditional statements. IF X then Y else Z is a language that I speak (it’s called an If, then, else module of code). Computer software would never work without them, lot’s of them. The computer has to know what to do (what to output) under all conditions of the input. For IF, THEN, ELSE statements are the most common line/syntax within most all computer languages. But what’s not exactly clear in these verses is just exactly what the X is and what Y is and what Z is. So let’s see if we can tell:
3. Of course you know this, I’m sure, but this passage shows why it’s sometimes quite difficult to translate Greek into English especially when there is no punctuation marks in the original text and we therefore have to try and gleam the English equivalent punctuation for parenthetical statements or even where one sentence ends and another begins from the original Greek text.
4. In fact you might notice that the NIV and original KJV is THE ONLY translations that begins verse 2 with a new sentence (capital letter) and ends verse 1 with a period. The NKJ corrects this mistake, as even the original ends verse 1 with a semi-colon???, for some reason. Maybe they were having trouble with it, I don’t know. And some use a dash with the last part of verse 2 (whatever that means). But the punctuation of these two verses is “all over the map†between the various translations. I’ve been told it’s quite a difficult passage to translate from the Greek. I don’t really know but my argument here doesn’t rely on any punctuation (other than there’s no agreement on what it should be).
5. Also the NIV is the only translation that says “otherwiseâ€. Other translations say …unless you believed in vain. Why the NIV is the only one to do this, I really don’t know. But it’s quite obvious that for this particular passage, the NIV actually gets the punctuation wrong. There’s’ no way these two verses could be three independent sentences. I still carry a print copy of the NIV and used it for many years. But the more I study it, the more I find mistakes in its translations and subtle “issues†with it. I think sometimes the authors try so hard to be new/different/unique either to avoid copyright laws or just to sell more copies that they stretch to far from the original texts for no good reason. You might notice the NIV just inserts “sisters†here which is NOT in the original text, for example. I’m sure they just assumed that’s what Paul meant, but when dealing with these precise doctrinal issues, It’s best to just use the more literal translations.

I could use any translation here so I’ll just pick the LEB and simply remove the verse numbers and punctuation, in an effort to determine what Paul means by the X,Y and Z within this “conditional†statement, assuming there is one here.

Now I make known to you , brothers, the gospel [defined in verses 3 and following and elsewhere by Paul] which I proclaimed to you, which you have also received, in which you also stand, by which you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the message I proclaimed to you, unless you believed [the gospel?] to no purpose.
​

So here, I feel it’s clear that everything I underlined is basically equivalent to “the gospel†which I’ll call X and insert it back into this passage in an effort to understand Paul’s conditional IF, THEN, ELSE statement.

Now I make known to you brothers X X I proclaimed to you X you have also received in X you also stand by X you are also being saved if you hold fast to X unless you believed to no purpose.

Next I’ll break this down into “lines of code†like any good software programmer would do for clarity:

Now I make known to you brothers X
X I proclaimed to you
X you have also received
in X you also stand
by X you are also being saved
if you hold fast to X
unless you believed to no purpose.

The first line of this code is just like a declaration statements of a variable in computer code [which is literally what made me think of this software code clarification technique]. Paul is basically just stating X equals the Gospel. So I have defined X = the gospel as well. Now let’s see how Paul’s logic works out:

X I proclaimed to you
X you have also received
in X you also stand
by X you are also being saved
if you hold fast to X
unless you believed to no purpose.

So I see the first three lines basically equating to the progression of the Gospels’ power within people. Paul first “proclaims†it to them, they “received†the Gospel and they (those that accept it, that is) “stand†in the Gospel which results in their salvation. Up to here, I assume even an OSAS=no person would agree that’s the path to salvation we all take.
But this technically conflicts with your interpretation:

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.

Paul doesn't say their believing "will be" in vain. He says they "believed" in vain!. that "belief" never was worth anything, according to Paul. Paul does NOT say it was worth something, then became "vain". You are assuming that into this text!

What is the conditional IF, else path however going on here?

If you stand by X you are being saved if you hold fast to the gospel that is, else (Otherwiese, unless) you are not being saved.
And as someone that believes in OSAS, I totally agree with Paul here.

It does NOT say you are being un-saved nor your believing has become vain.

I don’t see how people can rightfully interpret this passage to teach OSAS=no (unless they just assume there are people that have once “believed to a purpose†then stopped believing and their beleif then losses it's purpose . This text does NOT say this. It simply says you either “stand†in the Gospel and that saves you else you are not saved. Which is correct, of course. Even Satan has had the Gospel proclaimed to him, he’s heard it (even seen the Gospel). He just doesn’t “stand†by the Gospel for his salvation. Never has, never will. And there are people like that, and I'm sure there were in the chruch at Corinth.

What this passage actually says is If you have received X and you stand by X you are saved else you are not saved. I does NOT say, just hearing the Gospel is enough to save someone. You have to “stand†by the gospel for it to save you. People then go on to just assume that means once you “stand†you can sit down. But that’s not in the text. In fact, by Paul’s us of the word “vainâ€, actually precludes that's what he means here. Think about it, being fair minded about it.

“vain†here is the adjective εἰκῇ (eikē) which has the meaning “for nothingâ€. So nothing, means nothing (not even a temporary, something).

But even if someone does not buy this logic; clearly NOWHERE, in these verses does Paul say you were once saved, then you moved to being un-saved or even that you “stop believing†you are no longer saved. He says you are un-saved if you have not stood in the Gospel. Not mention that it would conflict with Paul’s statements elsewhere that are much clearer than this passage about Salvation being permanent.

Also evidence here is actually what Paul means by using the Greek word “believeâ€. What does that mean? It’s not “faithâ€, for sure./FONT]

ἐπιστεύσατε (episteusate) Just look it up! Matthew, Mark and Luke all use it to describe how the Pharisee “believed not†in Him. And Paul’s 1 Cor’s is the only other usage of this word in the Bible. It's not the same word as "faith". All occurrences have this negative connotation to it (un-belief of the heart, that is)

 

[chessman]

You missed my point.

No, I got your point. My point is that both sides of this opinion on OSAS can participate in a bit of circular reasoning. For example:
What do you mean by the definition of “destruction†here? do you think that Hebrew’s means “un-saved�

39 But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction

 

[reba]

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

 

[Deborah13]

Also evidence here is actually what Paul means by using the Greek word “believe”. What does that mean? It’s not “faith”, for sure.

ἐπιστεύσατε (episteusate) Just look it up! Matthew, Mark and Luke all use it to describe how the Pharisee “believed not” in Him. And Paul’s 1 Cor’s is the only other usage of this word in the Bible. It's not the same word as "faith". All occurrences have this negative connotation to it (un-belief of the heart, that is)

I think this post is every well done. I did not know this about the Gk word and definition I quoted. Thanks for taking the time.