The Meaning Of Justified

[JLB]

For the record, I like 'refusnik'.

Wow, what a coinseedense Jethro, just as soon as I finished cyfering all my naughts, i was goin to get Granny to teach me up sum Russian.

JLB

 

[dadof10]

For the record, I like 'refusnik'.

Wow, what a coinseedense Jethro, just as soon as I finished cyfering all my naughts, i was goin to get Granny to teach me up sum Russian.

JLB

:biglol

 

[dadof10]

I knew a guy who had a lukewarm relationship with God, I think he even went to church. He lost his son in a terrible accident (a garbage truck ran him over), and after that became a vitriolic anti-God crusader. He said he didn't "blame God", but changed his mind about the existence of God because "how could a loving God take my son in such a horrible way? Either he doesn't exist, or he's evil, and I want no part in him." I don't know whether he ever said, before his son was killed, that he would "never apostatize", but there have been cases where "saved Christians" went through some horrible event, and came out the other side questioning God's existence, even going so far as to fully apostatize, like my acquaintance.

While this was indeed a terrible thing to lose one's son, I believe that a more thorough devotion to scripture would have taught the man that to die (in earthly form) is to gain and a reason to rejoice. Not easy to understand, but what I have learned through reading scriptures.

And so true. I tried to give him some hope, speaking of the resurrection, but all it did was alienate us (which is why he is an acquaintance instead of a friend). Sometimes all we can do is pray.

 

[dadof10]

And so true. I tried to give him some hope, speaking of the resurrection, but all it did was alienate us (which is why he is an acquaintance instead of a friend). Sometimes all we can do is pray.

Yep. My understanding is that we will be reunited with loved ones in heaven. A lot to look forward too, Praise the Lord!

Yeah, we get to look forward to a lot of "I told you so"'s...IF we make it...

 

[mondar]

... Now, I think you believe that James' teaching here is that WE are to posess this "kind" of faith, and when we do, we will "show" it by OUR works. That's the meaning of "justified" in James 2, right? If I have your view wrong, please correct me.

Well, lets fill it out a wee bit more (Yes, I am a Scottish wannabee). James is talking about our claim to have faith. That claim is just because it can be shown by works. So in James, the term justify is what works does to the claim of having faith. James is talking about the nature of faith. Paul is talking about God's acquittal of our guilt as a divine judge. With Paul, works does not justify (Rm 4:5) because Paul is using the term in the sense of our divine acquittal. To the extent of my knowledge, Paul never defines the nature of faith, but only the nature of the doctrine of justification, that it never on the basis of works.

So then, I think we agree that that the meaning of "justify" in James 2 speaks of works justifying the claim to have faith.

If a person who has "shown" his "saving faith" (a possibility according to James) apostatizes, we can never say "he was never saved in the first place" because he has SHOWN he was actually saved. This is the only logical possibility, if you interpret "justify" in James 2 as "shown to be righteous".

The problem here is that I do not believe a person who has "shown his saving faith" can apostatize. The reason for this is that the source of faith is not in any person. John 6:44 tells us that "No man can come unto me...." We cannot come up with saving faith on our own. Faith is not the work man produces for God, but it is the work of God in man.

Notice how faith is the work of God in man.... 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:
Faith then, is granted to man by God. In Ephesians 2:8 it is part of the "gift of God." Grace, salvation and faith are all the gift of God in that passage.

So then, if God is the source of faith and not man, then man cannot loose faith because he never got it by himself in the first place. So then, the true believer cannot apostatize because God is able to deliver us from apostasy.
Joh 6:37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

The same power that God uses to draw us (John 6:44) is the same power that he uses to keep us. It would be great if I could claim that strength in myself, but I am far too weak. But where I am weak, God is able. He kept Jonah from fleeing to Tarshish, he drew Paul unto himself, and he has the power to keep all his own, that he gives to the Son.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...I do not believe a person who has "shown his saving faith" can apostatize. The reason for this is that the source of faith is not in any person. John 6:44 tells us that "No man can come unto me...." We cannot come up with saving faith on our own. Faith is not the work man produces for God, but it is the work of God in man.

The faith that God gives people, so they can then place their trust in that which they now know to be true, is indeed a gracious gift from God. We have no capacity whatsoever to know that the gospel really is true by ourselves. God gives the capacity to know the gospel is true. From there the 'work' of salvation is to place your trust in what you now know to be true. Most people do not do that. Many are called (shown what the truth is through the power of faith via the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit), but few are chosen (place their trust in the truth) and are saved.

Notice how faith is the work of God in man.... 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:
Faith then, is granted to man by God. In Ephesians 2:8 it is part of the "gift of God." Grace, salvation and faith are all the gift of God in that passage.

Faith is the gift of God. No question about it. But does God also do the 'believing', the placing of one's trust in Christ, in that which was revealed to us through the gift of faith, for us also?

The same power that God uses to draw us (John 6:44) is the same power that he uses to keep us.

True enough. But just as I had to do the 'work' of placing my trust in what God supernaturally showed me is true, so I must also continue to trust and believe in that which God showed me is true. Just knowing something is true (faith) is not enough to be saved by that faith. You must place your trust and believe in that which you know to be true...and continue to trust in what I know to be true to the very end.

 

[dadof10]

... Now, I think you believe that James' teaching here is that WE are to posess this "kind" of faith, and when we do, we will "show" it by OUR works. That's the meaning of "justified" in James 2, right? If I have your view wrong, please correct me.

Well, lets fill it out a wee bit more (Yes, I am a Scottish wannabee). James is talking about our claim to have faith. That claim is just because it can be shown by works. So in James, the term justify is what works does to the claim of having faith.

OK. I think we're on the same page here. If a person claims "I have faith", then performs "good deeds", this claim is justified. It is proven that his claim is true, that the person HAS (possesses) true faith. If this is what you mean, I agree.

If a person who has "shown" his "saving faith" (a possibility according to James) apostatizes, we can never say "he was never saved in the first place" because he has SHOWN he was actually saved. This is the only logical possibility, if you interpret "justify" in James 2 as "shown to be righteous".

The problem here is that I do not believe a person who has "shown his saving faith" can apostatize. The reason for this is that the source of faith is not in any person. John 6:44 tells us that "No man can come unto me...." We cannot come up with saving faith on our own. Faith is not the work man produces for God, but it is the work of God in man.

Notice how faith is the work of God in man.... 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:
Faith then, is granted to man by God. In Ephesians 2:8 it is part of the "gift of God." Grace, salvation and faith are all the gift of God in that passage.

So then, if God is the source of faith and not man, then man cannot loose faith because he never got it by himself in the first place. So then, the true believer cannot apostatize because God is able to deliver us from apostasy.
Joh 6:37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

The same power that God uses to draw us (John 6:44) is the same power that he uses to keep us. It would be great if I could claim that strength in myself, but I am far too weak. But where I am weak, God is able. He kept Jonah from fleeing to Tarshish, he drew Paul unto himself, and he has the power to keep all his own, that he gives to the Son.

I guess it would depend on your idea of what "justifying the claim of faith" looks like to you. It's obviously possible to "show" you are justified to others at some point in time, to show that your claim of faith is justified, as you put it. Have you ever known anyone who has crossed this threshold, in your opinion? Reading between the lines, it seems as though this "justifying the claim" is pretty common, even EXPECTED of all true believers. I have known a few people who have "shown" that their claim was just, then apostatized.

It seems as though you are saying that NO apostate has ever crossed the threshold of "justifying their claim of faith" to others. My experience is totally the opposite.

The only way I see to reconcile James 2 and OSAS is if you can stretch the meaning of "shown" to encompass the entirety of a person's life. In other words, James means we can only "justify our claim" IF we hold out until death. I don't think this squares because James clearly says Abraham and Rahab "justified their claim" at a point in time before death, and tells us we MUST do the same.

 

[mondar]

It seems as though you are saying that NO apostate has ever crossed the threshold of "justifying their claim of faith" to others. My experience is totally the opposite.

The only way I see to reconcile James 2 and OSAS is if you can stretch the meaning of "shown" to encompass the entirety of a person's life. In other words, James means we can only "justify our claim" IF we hold out until death. I don't think this squares because James clearly says Abraham and Rahab "justified their claim" at a point in time before death, and tells us we MUST do the same.

dadof10, the text of James 2 does not make any propositions on the issue of apostasy. Any exegesis of James 2 is not going to produce any definitive statement on apostasy. The only thing we can then discuss is anecdotal stories of some guy that apostatized or was never saved in the first place. The truth of it is that neither of us can infallibly look into the soul of another person. The issue would need to be settled on the basis of other passages.

In using personal anecdotes, we are coming from two different theological perspectives and would look at different things. I wonder what does an apostate look like to you. How would you determine who was once a true believer and who went apostate? I might look at both of those questions differently.

I would look at it more like this..... I know of people who left Reformed theology, and espoused other theologies. Yet when I listen to them misrepresent Reformed theology, I wonder if they ever had it right in the first place. They might claim to have once been a believer, and later claimed something else, but when they misrepresent certain doctrines, it raises doubts as to their original authentic conversion. I am guessing when you look at what apostasy is, you would look at different criteria?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I know of people who left Reformed theology, and espoused other theologies. Yet when I listen to them misrepresent Reformed theology, I wonder if they ever had it right in the first place. They might claim to have once been a believer, and later claimed something else, but when they misrepresent certain doctrines, it raises doubts as to their original authentic conversion.

"...even what they have will be taken away." (Luke 19:26 NASB)

I noticed this, too. But the Bible says that when a person rejects the gospel, they don't get to keep the knowledge they had about it.

One person in particular amazed me at how much they did not know about the gospel that I know they once did. Amazed. It was scary.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Mondar, the other thought I have to go along with what you said is I'm beginning to think in terms of whether faith can persevere or not, and not so much on whether it saved the person to begin with.

In the case of the apostate, you suggest their doctrine kept them from having a genuine conversion to begin with. I suggest their doctrine kept them from having a faith that could endure to the end. It could save them...it just couldn't endure to the end, having been uprooted or choked out by the various things that do that to faith.

 

[dadof10]

It seems as though you are saying that NO apostate has ever crossed the threshold of "justifying their claim of faith" to others. My experience is totally the opposite.

The only way I see to reconcile James 2 and OSAS is if you can stretch the meaning of "shown" to encompass the entirety of a person's life. In other words, James means we can only "justify our claim" IF we hold out until death. I don't think this squares because James clearly says Abraham and Rahab "justified their claim" at a point in time before death, and tells us we MUST do the same.

dadof10, the text of James 2 does not make any propositions on the issue of apostasy. Any exegesis of James 2 is not going to produce any definitive statement on apostasy.

Right. AGAIN, I'm not looking at James 2 to prove apostasy, ONLY that Scripture teaches we can show to others that our faith is true.

The only thing we can then discuss is anecdotal stories of some guy that apostatized or was never saved in the first place. The truth of it is that neither of us can infallibly look into the soul of another person. The issue would need to be settled on the basis of other passages.

Or logical thought. We won't "settle" this on the basis of "passages", because you and I can both throw verses around that "prove" our side beyond any doubt (at least, I can ;)). That's why I appealing to common sense and logic here, not Scripture.

In using personal anecdotes, we are coming from two different theological perspectives and would look at different things. I wonder what does an apostate look like to you. How would you determine who was once a true believer and who went apostate? I might look at both of those questions differently.

Maybe, but James says it's possible to recognize that a person HAS true faith. He doesn't write like this is some magical power that only a few people have, or that it has to be done "infallibly". He only states that this is the norm. People with true faith will show it by their actions and we can see it and recognize that the faith being "shown" is "saving faith" not "said faith".

I would look at it more like this..... I know of people who left Reformed theology, and espoused other theologies. Yet when I listen to them misrepresent Reformed theology, I wonder if they ever had it right in the first place. They might claim to have once been a believer, and later claimed something else, but when they misrepresent certain doctrines, it raises doubts as to their original authentic conversion. I am guessing when you look at what apostasy is, you would look at different criteria?

I feel you. There is not a more misrepresented and misinterpreted religion around than Catholicism, especially by "ex-Catholics" who "know" what the Church teaches and make it their life duty to "straighten out" the rest of us poor, misguided sops.

I don't look at these people as "apostates", though (even though the definition allows for simple rejection of doctrine). I don't think they have rejected Christ, which is how I would define "apostate", in this conversation anyway. When I talk about a person apostatizing, I don't mean switching Christian churches, I mean rejecting Christ outright. We might also have different ideas of what "showing true faith" is, but I gotta get to work now. Talk to you later.

 

[mondar]

I would look at it more like this..... I know of people who left Reformed theology, and espoused other theologies. Yet when I listen to them misrepresent Reformed theology, I wonder if they ever had it right in the first place. They might claim to have once been a believer, and later claimed something else, but when they misrepresent certain doctrines, it raises doubts as to their original authentic conversion. I am guessing when you look at what apostasy is, you would look at different criteria?

I feel you. There is not a more misrepresented and misinterpreted religion around than Catholicism, especially by "ex-Catholics" who "know" what the Church teaches and make it their life duty to "straighten out" the rest of us poor, misguided sops.

I don't look at these people as "apostates", though (even though the definition allows for simple rejection of doctrine). I don't think they have rejected Christ, which is how I would define "apostate", in this conversation anyway. When I talk about a person apostatizing, I don't mean switching Christian churches, I mean rejecting Christ outright. We might also have different ideas of what "showing true faith" is, but I gotta get to work now. Talk to you later.

How easily we can talk past each other. I observe that there is a very different starting point for the two of us. You use the phrase "rejecting Christ outright" to define apostasy. Being Reformed, I would probably define apostasy as "leaving the gospel" but not necessarily Christ. If a person were truly reformed Presbyterian or reformed baptist, and then converted to Mormonism (a polytheistic religion that claims Christ as one of the Gods) I would have to wonder about the doctrine of the Perseverance of the saints (A reformed doctrine).

Each definition of apostasy would fit our own theological frameworks, and we have two different starting points for saying who is saved. From your perspective (correct me if I do not get this right), someone might be baptized as an infant into the Church (initial justification) and attend mass as a youth, and then go to college and become an atheist. Certainly I can see your point if I begin with your starting place in theology. Then your statements would be obvious and logical. Of course, coming from my Reformed Baptist perspective, I would not look at either your infants or our own as justified, or as believing the gospel. Even if an adult were baptized, I would still question his faith in the gospel. Of course reformed theologies do not see baptism as related to justification (no matter if infant baptizing Presbyterians or Reformed Baptists). Neither would we see a baptized youth who was raised in our own Churches as necessarily saved. Apostasy is going to look very different in each of our own minds because we each have very different starting points.

I would love to think about this more, but right now I do not have time either. Back to work for a few hours.

 

[dadof10]

I would look at it more like this..... I know of people who left Reformed theology, and espoused other theologies. Yet when I listen to them misrepresent Reformed theology, I wonder if they ever had it right in the first place. They might claim to have once been a believer, and later claimed something else, but when they misrepresent certain doctrines, it raises doubts as to their original authentic conversion. I am guessing when you look at what apostasy is, you would look at different criteria?

I feel you. There is not a more misrepresented and misinterpreted religion around than Catholicism, especially by "ex-Catholics" who "know" what the Church teaches and make it their life duty to "straighten out" the rest of us poor, misguided sops.

I don't look at these people as "apostates", though (even though the definition allows for simple rejection of doctrine). I don't think they have rejected Christ, which is how I would define "apostate", in this conversation anyway. When I talk about a person apostatizing, I don't mean switching Christian churches, I mean rejecting Christ outright. We might also have different ideas of what "showing true faith" is, but I gotta get to work now. Talk to you later.

How easily we can talk past each other. I observe that there is a very different starting point for the two of us. You use the phrase "rejecting Christ outright" to define apostasy. Being Reformed, I would probably define apostasy as "leaving the gospel" but not necessarily Christ. If a person were truly reformed Presbyterian or reformed baptist, and then converted to Mormonism (a polytheistic religion that claims Christ as one of the Gods) I would have to wonder about the doctrine of the Perseverance of the saints (A reformed doctrine).

OK, have you ever known anyone who has gone through this? I don't mean specifically Mormonism, but a person who you consider "truly reformed Presbyterian or reformed baptist" and left "the gospel" for some other religion?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems as though you are assuming that you can recognize that a person is "truly reformed Presbyterian or reformed baptist", by which I think you mean "having true, saving faith". Is this correct?

Each definition of apostasy would fit our own theological frameworks, and we have two different starting points for saying who is saved. From your perspective (correct me if I do not get this right), someone might be baptized as an infant into the Church (initial justification) and attend mass as a youth, and then go to college and become an atheist. Certainly I can see your point if I begin with your starting place in theology. Then your statements would be obvious and logical. Of course, coming from my Reformed Baptist perspective, I would not look at either your infants or our own as justified, or as believing the gospel. Even if an adult were baptized, I would still question his faith in the gospel. Of course reformed theologies do not see baptism as related to justification (no matter if infant baptizing Presbyterians or Reformed Baptists). Neither would we see a baptized youth who was raised in our own Churches as necessarily saved. Apostasy is going to look very different in each of our own minds because we each have very different starting points.

I would love to think about this more, but right now I do not have time either. Back to work for a few hours.

Really, Mondar I'm not trying to confuse the issue by mixing in what actually saves, whether that be baptism, faith alone, faith and works or whatever. All I'm saying is that James' point is that we can "show" to others that we have "saving faith", we can prove our faith (or claim of faith) is justified by our works and others can see it. You seem to agree with this, so moving on, IF we prove our faith is "true", then "leave the gospel", the only logical conclusion you could come to is that we can lose our faith. We have already "shown" we had "saving faith" by our actions, so if we "leave the gospel", "he was never saved in the first place" is a fallacious conclusion.

 

[mondar]

OK, have you ever known anyone who has gone through this? I don't mean specifically Mormonism, but a person who you consider "truly reformed Presbyterian or reformed baptist" and left "the gospel" for some other religion?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems as though you are assuming that you can recognize that a person is "truly reformed Presbyterian or reformed baptist", by which I think you mean "having true, saving faith". Is this correct?

Well, there are the "flash in the pan," sorts of people who come into our Church, look good for a few months, learn some of the lingo, and then pass right on out of the Church. Some of these people drift from Church to Church with some very different kinds of theology. None of them would deny that Jesus is Lord and savior, but I would have to get to know and be able to question some of these people to believe their confession is true faith.

I know some in protestant Churches who claim "I asked Jesus into my heart." They later fall away. Of course I would be quite skeptical of such confessions as understanding anything about the gospel. Some cling to the jargon "I was born again." While that is a little more biblical, I again would remain skeptical. This is not to say that if someone learns a certain jargon as Born Again, or "ask Jesus into your heart" is going to hell, but I would undoubtedly question the validity of their understanding of the gospel and consider the possibility that they are not saved.

Now there is a Orthodox Presbyterian Church nearby in which a young man grew to adulthood and wants to join the Roman Catholic Church and become a priest. I do not know a lot about this, but I heard the Roman Catholic Church rejected him for the priesthood and rejected him to attend a Roman Catholic Seminary. He went to Eastern Europe and teaches in some school. This guy's sister attends our Church, and so I never personally met him. He might make an interesting case study on those who leave reformed theology. I would be interested to see if he ever thought the gospel of Roman Catholicism is a false Gospel. Or did he always think of it as an option, a kind of true Gospel that had a few minor errors in it. This does not mean he is or is not truly saved, I would however, again, question his understanding of the gospel. What did he begin with? There would be a lot of questions I would like to ask this individual.

Another interesting case study might be the self proclaimed apostate Bart Erhman. I am aware he went to Moody Bible Institute, then went to Princeton, and is now a self-proclaimed agnostic and apostate. Moody Bible Institute is not a school of reformed theology. I doubt they would claim to be Reformed.

Really, Mondar I'm not trying to confuse the issue by mixing in what actually saves, whether that be baptism, faith alone, faith and works or whatever. All I'm saying is that James' point is that we can "show" to others that we have "saving faith", we can prove our faith (or claim of faith) is justified by our works and others can see it. You seem to agree with this, so moving on, IF we prove our faith is "true", then "leave the gospel", the only logical conclusion you could come to is that we can lose our faith. We have already "shown" we had "saving faith" by our actions, so if we "leave the gospel", "he was never saved in the first place" is a fallacious conclusion.

Be patient with me, I really do think it is very easy to talk past each other. For me, my understanding of "true faith," is that "true faith" is the only criteria for salvation. So the issues are identical for me from my perspective. From your perspective I think things are different. If more then true faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ is necessary for Salvation, then one can have "true faith" and still be unsaved because they have not yet met the other criteria for salvation.

Certainly I agree with the logic of your statement " IF we prove our faith is "true", then "leave the gospel", the only logical conclusion you could come to is that we can lose our faith." That of course is the question of all the anecdotal stories. The question I want to ask of those who "leave the gospel" is where were they really at the starting point. Remember, in my theology, the gospel is sola fide. If you add to sola fide, you change the nature of the Gospel.

Going back to the lad that left the OPC, and became Roman Catholic... did he move from the position of sola fide to one in which more than faith is necessary for justification? Or was he somewhere in the middle? Would he have said that both are acceptable?

Would Bart Erhman have agreed with sola fide as the gospel when he attended Moody? Did he even hear of the term at Moody?

I can see your point about apostasy if I do not think in terms of Reformed theology, but one of the problems with Reformed theology is that it is very finely and carefully defined. Most other protestants enjoy much more vagueness to their theology. There is the problem in a nut shell. When I try to peer into the past of many protestants and find this fog and vagueness, it is hard to tell what is truly apostate, and what is not.

If I saw someone that I thought was truly apostate from reformed theology, I would of course be very curious and interested. I would also have to ask, how can this be.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

For me, my understanding of "true faith," is that "true faith" is the only criteria for salvation. So the issues are identical for me from my perspective. From your perspective I think things are different. If more then true faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ is necessary for Salvation, then one can have "true faith" and still be unsaved because they have not yet met the other criteria for salvation.

What does James say is the criteria for salvation?

We both know what he says. Let's talk about it.

 

[JLB]

The primary element within the doctrine of Salvation is obedience.

To "believe" in the original carries the idea of believe,trust and obey.

If Abraham hears God tell him That He will make him a fruitful nation, yet does not get out from his family and go to a land...

Then he has not "really" believed.

Unbelief and disobedience are the same word in the original.

The KJV and NKJV are interchangeable in this concept.


6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience... NKJV

6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein , and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: KJV


In summary, we see that the work of obedience is believing, as James teaches.


JLB

 

[dadof10]

I know of people who left Reformed theology, and espoused other theologies. Yet when I listen to them misrepresent Reformed theology, I wonder if they ever had it right in the first place. They might claim to have once been a believer, and later claimed something else, but when they misrepresent certain doctrines, it raises doubts as to their original authentic conversion.

"...even what they have will be taken away." (Luke 19:26 NASB)

I noticed this, too. But the Bible says that when a person rejects the gospel, they don't get to keep the knowledge they had about it.

One person in particular amazed me at how much they did not know about the gospel that I know they once did. Amazed. It was scary.

That's an interesting take on that verse, and ones like it. I have never really thought about it before but, thinking back, it seems people who reject the Gospel after conversion do lose knowledge concerning the ways of God, even though they can parrot verses. The meaning gets really convoluted in their minds as to be almost laughable. I guess it goes with the territory.

 

[mondar]

I know of people who left Reformed theology, and espoused other theologies. Yet when I listen to them misrepresent Reformed theology, I wonder if they ever had it right in the first place. They might claim to have once been a believer, and later claimed something else, but when they misrepresent certain doctrines, it raises doubts as to their original authentic conversion.

"...even what they have will be taken away." (Luke 19:26 NASB)

I noticed this, too. But the Bible says that when a person rejects the gospel, they don't get to keep the knowledge they had about it.

One person in particular amazed me at how much they did not know about the gospel that I know they once did. Amazed. It was scary.

That's an interesting take on that verse, and ones like it. I have never really thought about it before but, thinking back, it seems people who reject the Gospel after conversion do lose knowledge concerning the ways of God, even though they can parrot verses. The meaning gets really convoluted in their minds as to be almost laughable. I guess it goes with the territory.

I hesitated to respond because I know the game. If I demonstrate one passage to be isogetical, then we jump to other contexts. Oh well, here we go.

I would not jump to conclusions concerning Luke 19 quite so fast. To insert conclusions of a person loosing their salvation or knowledge is isogetical.

Within that parable are two groups, first, his servants, second his citizens.
Luk 19:13 And he called ten servants of his, and gave them ten pounds, and said unto them, Trade ye herewith till I come.
Luk 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent an ambassage after him, saying, We will not that this man reign over us.
The servants and the citizens are not the same group, and each receive different things. The servants each receive pounds. The pounds can represent almost any sort of talent or gift. While knowledge is not excluded, it does not have to be knowledge at all. So then to say that it is knowledge would be isogesis.
Also, notice that the text does not say that any of the servants hated the master, or plotted rebellion. The text says the citizens did that, but not the servants. There are two separate groups here in this passage.

When we get to the end of the passage, there are two separate judgments. The first judgment is upon the wicked servant.
Luk 19:24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take away from him the pound, and give it unto him that hath the ten pounds. Luk 19:25 And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.
Luk 19:26 I say unto you, that unto every one that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him.
The judgment was the loss of the pound. This pound does not represent salvation, so there is no loss of salvation. If it represented salvation, then how did the other two servants get saved 5 or 10 times? Something else important is that these servants are in the Kingdom. There service is Kingdom service. The judgment is not even being cast out of the Kingdom, but loss of reward within the Kingdom.

On the other hand, while the servants might loose reward, the citizens have a completely separate judgment. Notice their judgment in the following verses.
Luk 19:27 But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Notice here the words "but these." Christ is marking them out as a different group from the servants. The disobedient servant was not included in the phrase "but these." Neither was the unfaithful servant included in the phrase "mine enemies." Neither was the unfaithful servant part of the group that would not have the master "reign over them." He was simply not a part of the group in verse 27. He lost his reward, but the citizens lost their lives.

So then, the judgments were two separate judgments and are not to be confused. It is only by inserting the concept of loss of salvation into this text that you can get the concept of loss of salvation out of the text. It seems to me to be a clear isogetical misuse of the text.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I would not jump to conclusions concerning Luke 19 quite so fast. To insert conclusions of a person loosing their salvation or knowledge is isogetical.

Regarding the losing of salvation part, I agree. Luke 19 is not being used to show that people can lose their salvation. I used it to show how a person loses any insightful and useful knowledge they do have about the gospel when they reject the gospel--or rather don't act on the knowledge God has given them.

Within that parable are two groups, first, his servants, second his citizens.
Luk 19:13 And he called ten servants of his, and gave them ten pounds, and said unto them, Trade ye herewith till I come.
Luk 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent an ambassage after him, saying, We will not that this man reign over us.
The servants and the citizens are not the same group, and each receive different things. The servants each receive pounds. The pounds can represent almost any sort of talent or gift. While knowledge is not excluded, it does not have to be knowledge at all. So then to say that it is knowledge would be isogesis.
Also, notice that the text does not say that any of the servants hated the master, or plotted rebellion. The text says the citizens did that, but not the servants. There are two separate groups here in this passage.

When we get to the end of the passage, there are two separate judgments. The first judgment is upon the wicked servant.
Luk 19:24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take away from him the pound, and give it unto him that hath the ten pounds. Luk 19:25 And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.
Luk 19:26 I say unto you, that unto every one that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him.
The judgment was the loss of the pound. This pound does not represent salvation, so there is no loss of salvation. If it represented salvation, then how did the other two servants get saved 5 or 10 times? Something else important is that these servants are in the Kingdom. There service is Kingdom service. The judgment is not even being cast out of the Kingdom, but loss of reward within the Kingdom.

On the other hand, while the servants might loose reward, the citizens have a completely separate judgment. Notice their judgment in the following verses.
Luk 19:27 But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Notice here the words "but these." Christ is marking them out as a different group from the servants. The disobedient servant was not included in the phrase "but these." Neither was the unfaithful servant included in the phrase "mine enemies." Neither was the unfaithful servant part of the group that would not have the master "reign over them." He was simply not a part of the group in verse 27. He lost his reward, but the citizens lost their lives.

So then, the judgments were two separate judgments and are not to be confused. It is only by inserting the concept of loss of salvation into this text that you can get the concept of loss of salvation out of the text. It seems to me to be a clear isogetical misuse of the text.

Well, like I say, Luke 19 wasn't being used that way. But at least I think we agree the 'talent' that God gives, and which he expects increase upon at his return, is the knowledge of God, right?

The point is, if you do not act on the knowledge you receive from God, you lose that knowledge and it's ability to save you. Not a forgetting of the gospel message. As dadof10 points out, these people who don't do anything with the gospel message, or stop doing anything with it, can quote verses, and talk about the gospel in general (boy can they!). What they lose is any rational, useful application and insight into what they have been shown about the gospel.

Like the parables say, what they've been given ends up not only not serving any useful, greater purpose and growing into something bigger, pleasing the Master who gave it, but that which they've been given becomes useless and ineffective and withers away in that respect. We see this in practice in their distorted and convoluted understanding of the gospel--a 'gospel' that can't save. I've seen this with my own eyes.

This is where the harmful, false doctrines of the church are born. Not in the minds of people who don't know the true gospel, but from people who DID know the true gospel, but rejected it and were turned over to lies and distortions, just as God said he would do to those who do that, so they can be condemned (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 NIV).

But, anyway, you can see that what saves is the knowledge of God that is put to work, not the knowledge of God that is not put to work.

James' criteria for salvation is 'faith'--faith that works. Don't confuse this with Paul's argument, which is a man is made legally righteous before God (forgiven all wrong-doing) by what he believes about Christ, all by itself, apart from the merit of work to secure that forgiveness. The Protestant Church has erroneously understood his message to mean faith in God doesn't have to do anything for it to be a saving faith. Wrong! The Bible is very clear that the faith that solicits God's forgiveness is the faith that works. Knowledge of the gospel that is not put to work is knowledge that can not save a person. Plain and simple.

I know there are those Protestants who can only continue to hear this as 'you are made righteous (legally justified) by what you do'. That is not the argument. The argument is, the faith that can save you is the faith that can be seen in what you do. If it can't be seen, you have a faith that can not save you. James said it. I like the analogy of the pool. The boast of swimming in the pool MUST be accompanied by the outward sign and manifestation of doing that--a soaking wet bathing suit. Dry trunks signify you either never went swimming in the pool, or you stopped swimming in the pool. People with wet trunks don't have to wonder about whether they've really been swimming or not. People with dry trunks do. Thus the admonition of scripture to make the boast of your hope sure by having wet trunks.

In practice, we know there really are people who do start out doing things because of their faith in God, but who stop having faith in God and, as a result, stop doing the things of faith. OSAS says they are still guaranteed salvation. But the Bible seems to be pretty clear that the person who does not persevere in faith, and the work it produces, to the end will NOT be saved:

"7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

9 Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation. 10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. 11 We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, so that what you hope for may be fully realized. 12 We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised." (Hebrews 6:7-12 NIV)

Notice, clearly, how these people started out in faith and good works, but who are being warned what will happen if they stop. OSAS says these kinds of people do not exist.

I know there's the danger of people setting off on a journey of faithless or misguided works after hearing this (Biblical) message (think 'Ishmael'). From here we learn how to fulfill God's command to do good from the faith we have, and not from a legalistic, but well intentioned 'doing' kind of attitude. This is where the teaching about 'faith working through love' comes in and how love is the energy and motivation for the works that accompany the faith that saves.

Okay, broke my own rule on long posts. Shame on me.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Paul has the same criteria for salvation that James has:

"The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." (Galatians 5:6 NIV)

Not a faith that is devoid of works, but a faith that loves. That is the faith that justifies. That is the faith that saves. OSAS says faith 'alone' (in respect to how we're using it here) saves. I don't see that in scripture. I see how faith in Christ 'alone' secures a declaration of righteousness, but I don't see that faith being 'alone' in regard to what it looks like in the life of a person.