Once Saved Always Saved?

[Sig]

That depends on who you ask. Who has the authority to say what position is right?

OK. Thanks Anthony.

 

[stewstew03]

…Who has the authority to say what position is right?

Going out on a limb here, but I would think the authority rests with the Church that canonized the scriptures…

 

[Sig]

No one is infallible. But to use a term like “saving faith” is to put a qualification on the concept of faith. If we add to faith whatever else we think needs to accompany it to merit salvation, then it’s no longer faith alone. To say that faith must include works in order for it to be a faith that saves is to recognize that there’s a faith that doesn’t save, one without works like even demons possess which means merely believing is simply not enough.

Let’s not forget the context of James imagined character—his faith was a “said” faith (if a man SAYS HE HAS FAITH… (v14). Anybody can say they have faith. That, by itself, doesn’t mean much, as James shows.

So my distinction is merely pointing out what James points out in his rhetorical question concerning the “said” faith: ”can that faith save Him?” Expected answer is “no, it can’t.” IOW, it’s not a faith that saves.

I was making a different point there-maybe a bit off topic. It occurred to me that one objection to the tenet that works contribute to justification is the notion that all human works are faulty, not motivated by the right reasons, based on human “righteousness”, trying to earn salvation. But, like you maybe alluded to, Luther recognized that God gives us good works to do once we’re justified. The difference In Catholic thought is simply that those works increase our justice…

Reformed thought, based upon the language of scripture, understands justification as a punctiliar, one-time event. One Christian is no more justified before God than any other Christian, and one is never any more, or any less justified before God than at the moment of belief, which is when God justifies.

The same is not true regarding sanctification in reformed thought. Christians differ in the level of their personal sanctification, which is a real change (2 Cor 3:18).

We have different views of justification and sanctification. You view them as more or less synonymous, as I understand it; I view them as closely related, but different.

…make us more actually, ontologically just, which amounts to sanctification in the Lutheran way of looking at it, but we believe that authentic justice, as opposed to imputed justice, is required for heaven because only then is sin excluded-and sinners don’t enter heaven according to scripture.

Not imputed justice, but imputed righteousness of Christ to my account.

So we believe that God always wanted man just, of course, and that’s His purpose now in salvation-He won’t settle for anything less for us. I’m sure you must’ve experienced receiving this grace-of recieving works to do if you’ve walked with God for much time. What would happen if you didn’t let your light shine? Or keep oil in your lamp? Or invest the talents given you? These concepts all involve grace given, grace received, and grace possibly rejected.

IMO, in those parables, what is usually contrasted is the behavior of righteous servants (representing the saved) against the behavior of unrighteous servants (representing the world, or the unsaved). The saved, or righteous, are always presented as doing their master’s will while the unsaved, or unrighteous, are always presented as not doing their master’s will.

Sometimes I think people just want to shun moral responsibility-no obligation on their part to God-which is basically the original sin of Adam & Eve.

Some people do.

You maintained that scripture would contradict itself if James said that works save us. I pointed out that James did, indeed, say that, and yet there’s no contradiction.

Well I disagree with your understanding of James.

Moreover, if James is truly saying that men are saved by their works, then he and Paul, who says that men are not saved by their works, are in direct contradiction. That’s a fact.

No, I believe only a Church, which is historically connected to the beginning of Christianity can have any claim to being authorized and led by the Spirit, rather than any of the myriad of late-comers, all with their widely varying beliefs.

Forgive me; IMO, you’re in denial about that.

 

[fhansen]

Let’s not forget the context of James imagined character—his faith was a “said” faith (if a man SAYS HE HAS FAITH… (v14). Anybody can say they have faith. That, by itself, doesn’t mean much, as James shows.

He specifically said, **You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. **

Not imputed justice, but imputed righteousness of Christ to my account.

I think that’s a distinction w/o a difference.

IMO, in those parables, what is usually contrasted is the behavior of righteous servants (representing the saved) against the behavior of unrighteous servants (representing the world, or the unsaved). The saved, or righteous, are always presented as doing their master’s will while the unsaved, or unrighteous, are always presented as not doing their master’s will.

I’m not sure why the parables would even need to be told if not to exhort believers to consciously strive to persevere, do the right thing, etc, with dire consequences as related if they don’t

Moreover, if James is truly saying that men are saved by their works, then he and Paul, who says that men are not saved by their works, are in direct contradiction. That’s a fact.

Paul was combating legalism. James was combating false ideas people had who taken Paul and others wrong and began tending towards antinomianism.

Forgive me; IMO, you’re in denial about that.

Nah. You’re forgiven tho.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Sig:

Reformed thought, based upon the language of scripture, understands justification as a punctiliar, one-time event. One Christian is no more justified before God than any other Christian, and one is never any more, or any less justified before God than at the moment of belief, which is when God justifies.

So then a justified man today is no more justified than Enoch or Elijah?

Do you agree that the wages of sin is death?

So when was the last time your church had a funeral?

Enoch and Elijah went to heaven without dying. If your church’s congregants were as justified as Enoch and Elijah, then why are they still subject to death?

 

[PRmerger]

Grace alone, faith alone.

Lots of works are involved, but as per Paul, works don’t save you.

You only can say this if you ignore St. James.

Just like the JWs will say, per , Jesus is not God.

Because they ignore all the other verses that say he is.

 

[Sig]

He specifically said, You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

It seems the context in which the Holy Spirit intended for James’ words to be understood means nothing to you. So be it.

I think that’s a distinction w/o a difference.

And I know that what you just said is a quibble without merit.

If you’re going to discuss what I believe, accept correction regarding the terminology.

I’m not sure why the parables would even need to be told if not to exhort believers to consciously strive to persevere, do the right thing, etc, with dire consequences as related if they don’t

Well, if you believe what Jesus said in John 5:24, you’d understand that for the believer there is no dire consequence. He has passed from life to death, and doesn’t come into judgment.

Paul was combating legalism.

The section of Paul’s argument to which I’m referring has nothing to with legalism, and everything to do with how a man is made right with His God—by grace, through faith, without works. Paul is nothing if not consistent in his position.

James was combating false ideas people had who taken Paul and others wrong and began tending towards antinomianism.

You can’t prove that. Where does James say that? It’s conjecture and something you probably heard on apologetics tape, or read in an apologetics article.

 

[Sig]

You only can say this if you ignore St. James.

You can only say that about James if you ignore Paul.

Just like the JWs will say, per , Jesus is not God.

Because they ignore all the other verses that say he is.

Just like the JWs will say, per , Jesus is not God.

Because hey ignore all the other verses that say he is.

 

[PRmerger]

Hey, Sig!

Kudos to you for sticking around and being the lone voice of OSAS.

Could you please provide what error you believe the Church made in discerning the canon of Scripture, as you indicate that you believe the Church is fallible in this regard.

Thanks.

This is true.

If you believe the Catholic Church, which discerned for you (as you acknowledge) the canon of Scripture, is fallible, where did they err in this regard? What book did they mess up on?

Perhaps you want to make a claim that the Church erred in including, say, Revelation in the bible and excluding, say, the Gospel of Thomas? Or if they erred in some way,** could you please advise what books you think were left out that need to be included as Sacred Scripture or what books ought to be omitted in your estimation?**

 

[Cat_Herder]

You can only say that about James if you ignore Paul.

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 2:1-16[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[PRmerger]

You can only say that about James if you ignore Paul.

And as I’ve stated, ad nauseum, Catholics take the entirety of Scripture, the entirety of the Word of God.

Not just Ephesians. And Romans.

 

[Sig]

Hey, Sig!

Kudos to you for sticking around and being the lone voice of OSAS.

Could you please provide what error you believe the Church made in discerning the canon of Scripture, as you indicate that you believe the Church is fallible in this regard.

Thanks.

Recognition of the canon of Scripture doesn’t require infallibility, but meticulous record-keeping.

 

[PRmerger]

Recognition of the canon of Scripture doesn’t require infallibility, but meticulous record-keeping.

So where did they err, Sig?

Which books were omitted and which were retained that you think were incorrect?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Recognition of the canon of Scripture doesn’t require infallibility, but meticulous record-keeping.

Then why are the deuterocanonical books in all of the ancient manuscripts like the Codex Siniaticus?

 

[PRmerger]

Recognition of the canon of Scripture doesn’t require infallibility, but meticulous record-keeping.

And could you please provide a scenario as to what this “record-keeping” consisted of?

What “records” indicated that Hebrews is* theopneustos* but that the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache are not?

 

[Sig]

And as I’ve stated, ad nauseum, Catholics take the entirety of Scripture, the entirety of the Word of God.

Not just Ephesians. And Romans.

As I’ve stated, speaking for reformed protestants, they take the entirety of Scripture, and the entierty of the Word of God.

Not just James.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I know, grace and faith and works and belief in dogmas, concerning Mary and other things. I know.

What is the difference between “faith” and “belief in dogmas?”

 

[Sig]

And could you please provide a scenario as to what this “record-keeping” consisted of?

What “records” indicated that Hebrews is theopneustos but that the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache are not?

Don’t be a pain, PR.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Let’s not forget the context of James imagined character—his faith was a “said” faith (if a man SAYS HE HAS FAITH… (v14). Anybody can say they have faith. That, by itself, doesn’t mean much, as James shows.
…
IMO, in those parables, what is usually contrasted is the behavior of righteous servants (representing the saved) against the behavior of unrighteous servants (representing the world, or the unsaved). The saved, or righteous, are always presented as doing their master’s will while the unsaved, or unrighteous, are always presented as not doing their master’s will.

So then what matters in terms of salvation is whether they do their master’s will–not their faith?

Would you say then that is possible to do the Master’s will without having faith? Why or why not?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Don’t be a pain, PR.

Why don’t you answer our questions?

Are you just here to promote an agenda?