Question on Galatians 5:4 and OSAS

I agree with your post except for the idea that James was talking about the Judgement Seat of Christ. What he was saying is that those that claim to be saved and have never shown any fruit of the Spirit or good works, it is most likely that they have never been saved in the first place. They made a false profession of faith.

 

Tazman.
You make a good point about belief. But the real belief involves a true knowledge that Christ's finished work on the cross and His Resurrection are sufficient, and once fully known is not something that one can unlearn. The Holy Spirit even makes sure of that. Phil. 1:6

Another point is this; how many people do you know that once born physically can say that I have decided to either change back into nothing, or become another physical creature and be successful?

In 2 Cor. 5:17 it says that we are a new creation of God. We cannot go back and decide later that we want to become our old dead to Christ and alive to sin creation.

 

Bmerr.
I'm sorry but Gal. 5:4 only mentions the Law, not circumcision. Catholics use that same excuse to add the keeping of the Law to their false gospel.

 

Yes. It's about inheritance. It's a family matter.

BTW, what James Newman is saying is right on the money. You're saved by "believe", not by "faith". </font>[/QUOTE]I would argue that Eph. 2:8 says through faith, not believe. But in Romans 1:16-17 we see both terms use interchangeably. As long as the usage is one of trust in Christ, both terms apply.

 

Parse out and diagram the Greek in Ephesians 2:8. It's quite enlightening. It's a verse we've all memorized, so we rarely look at it very closely.

 

Hope, you followed up the accusation we're "confusing" things with the above response

I guess I get what I deserve.

You never Adress 2 Tim 2. I think you can't prove your point when taking God at his specific word. Even those in your circle of belief would question your intent. Did God not mean he would DISOWN or not? IF so, does a "disowned" individual stay in the promise?

 

Sure thing -

We see here a logical sequence. Paul starts with the role of evangelism – seeking the lost as God’s own (and not claiming to know which lost person will accept Christ and which one won’t).

He then goes to the goal and objective of evangelism – “That they ALSO may obtain salvation”. This means that the term “WE” is defined as those who like Paul ALSO accept salvation.

Paul takes the next logical step and shows that this group who “Died with Him” WILL also “Live with Him”. That is God’s purpose in saving the lost. Paul argues in Romans 6 that those who have died with Christ have died to self and to sin and must no longer LIVE in sin but must LIVE in freedom from slavery to sin.

Then Paul shows that within the SAME group “WE” we should see “endurance” and indeed there are those in that group that will endure – so “IF WE endure” we WILL reign with Him.

Notice that Paul does not say “SINCE we have died with Him and live with Him then NATURALLY we MUST endure. There is no other possibility”. Yet many believe that this unwritten statement is the “real truth” and there is no “IF WE endure” qualifier possible AS IF failure were even an option.

By taking that bias from their tradition they negate the force of the text.

Paul then says “IF WE deny Him” showing that in that group “WE” that died with Christ, that Live with Christ there are indeed those who will NOT endure – those who will “deny” Him. And when that happens Paul predicts the same “loss” that Christ predicted in Matt 18 “Forgiveness revoked”.

 

BobRyan pretty well summed it up.

A disowned person is still in the family. That is based on the work of the Lord Jesus.

Endurance, as pointed out in 2 Timothy 2 has to do with reigning, not with simply being saved.

There's the word "if". It implies that "we" might or might not endure.

 

Hope,

This is your opinion but its obvious that Paul is encouraging Timothy of the rewards of endurance and sharing in His Death. Then provide warnings of what happens to those who disown him.

The latter does not exist without the former.

"If" indicates that it is not a certainty. Thats basic english. Even in your own bibles it is translated the same way each time by your own scholars, but what is amazing you still have to further interpret your own translaters.

 

Bob,

bmerr here. I don't see how one could be saved apart from obeying the commandments of Christ/God, since Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to those who obey Him (Heb 5:8-9).

I may have stated my case poorly. I say this because we usually seem to agree on most points, and you seem to disagree with this one. Let me try again briefly.

There are some things that have always been sin (ie. lying, murder, fornication, idolatry), both before, and after the Mosaic Law was given to the Israelites, both before and after the New Testament came into effect.

The way I understand it, the Galatians were being pressured by Judaizing teachers that wanted to bring them under the Mosaic Law, in matters such as circumcision, dietary restrictions, and other things specific to Israel. They were being taught that unless they did these things, they could not be saved.

Paul told the Galatians that if they returned to the Mosaic system, they would have fallen from grace, because they would have departed from Christ.

Is that any clearer? I'll make another attempt if I have to. I'm pretty tired right now, though.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Hope,

bmerr here. The "Once a son, always a son, even if disobedient" illustration that is often used to convince people of OSAS misses something important. The relationship between Christ and the church, and thus individual Christians, is not one of "Father/son", but of "Husband/wife".

Look at Eph 5:22-32. You'll find that following Paul's instructions to husbands and wives, he says,

"This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

There is a cause for divorce, which is fornication (Matt 19:9). If a Christian lives in rebellion against Christ and His covenant, he commits spiritual fornication by submitting to another master (Rom 6:16). For such a one to die in this state would be for that one to be lost, since Christ will return for a faithful bride. It seems reasonable.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Jack,

bmerr here. Right, but the verse preceding 5:4 specifically mentions circumcision, and that's why I mentioned it. That seems to have been a main goal for the Judaizers: getting the Gentile Christians circumcized as a requirement for salvation.

As far as what the RCC teaches, well, I can't be expected to keep up with every false doctrine, can I?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Bob,

bmerr here. I don't see how one could be saved apart from obeying the commandments of Christ/God, since Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to those who obey Him (Heb 5:8-9).

I may have stated my case poorly. I say this because we usually seem to agree on most points, and you seem to disagree with this one. Let me try again briefly.

There are some things that have always been sin (ie. lying, murder, fornication, idolatry), both before, and after the Mosaic Law was given to the Israelites, both before and after the New Testament came into effect.

The way I understand it, the Galatians were being pressured by Judaizing teachers that wanted to bring them under the Mosaic Law, in matters such as circumcision, dietary restrictions, and other things specific to Israel. They were being taught that unless they did these things, they could not be saved.

Paul told the Galatians that if they returned to the Mosaic system, they would have fallen from grace, because they would have departed from Christ.

Is that any clearer? I'll make another attempt if I have to. I'm pretty tired right now, though.

In Christ,

bmerr </font>[/QUOTE]Though you're correct, it will not make a difference because the point is that certian people have a theological point of view to protect and will not except the truth at face value. The reality is the people that believe "works" are Jesus' commands will never love him. They can't help but read there doctrine into passages and revising the clear ones that propose a threat to there theology.
I have never in my life see so many people revise clear plain meanings to suite there own gain.

 

JackRUS, you said

I might agree, someone who never had any fruit or any good works might not be saved. But who has no good works? I know unbelieving Muslims that do good works all the time. How much good works do you suggest I should look for to make sure I am really believing on Christ for my salvation?

 

How are you disowned by someone you don't know? You can be disowned by your family, in this case, your father. But, being disowned does not change the physical relationship. Your father is your father is your father, and nothing can change that.

Yes, it's quite obvious that Paul is talking about the rewards of endurance and not salvation. If salvation is a reward, then salvation is by works.

1 Timothy 2:12 clearly says, "If we suffer, we shall also reign..." It's talking about reigning, not simply being saved. It's earning crowns.

The Bible is full of warnings of what will happen if we deny him, and it's loss or even chastisement, but you cannot find one single place that threatens you with loss of salvation.

If you find a place that says you can lose your common salvation, then there's a contradiction in Scriptures with Acts 16:31. If there's a contradiction, it's useless.

 

Hope,

bmerr here. If Acts 16:31 were the only verse that dealt with salvation, then you would be correct. However, the Bible has much more to say about salvation than, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house".

Just the immediate context of the verse shows that the Phillipian jailor (PJ) may have been hearing the name of Jesus for the first time when Paul and Silas told him the above words.

The very next verse has Paul and Silas speaking unto PJ the "...word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house" At this point, and not before, we can be sure that PJ had heard the word of God, whereby cometh faith (Rom 10:17).

We then see his repentance demonstrated as he washes their stripes, and we see that he and his household submit to baptism that same hour of the night.

Following all of these things, we read that PJ "...rejoiced, believing in God with all his house" (16:34). His faith, repentance, and baptism are all summed up with the phrase, "believing in God", which is equivalent to believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Concerning the possibility of forfieting one's common salvation, there are many warnings to Christians about not giving up, keeping the faith, not turning back to the world. Rom 6:16 is one of them, which reads,

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"

I don't think physical death is what Paul is speaking of here. Even the righteous die physically, and nothing, save the 2nd coming, will keep that from happening. The only other option is spiritual death.

One becomes a servant of Christ by obeying Christ. If one stops obeying Christ, and returns to obeying his own sinful lusts, then he becomes the servant of sin.

In Luke 12:42-48, Four types of people are described:

- the faithful servant (42-44) - Called "that servant". Did the will of his Lord faithfully. He is the only one rewarded by the master.

- the wicked servant (45-46) - Called "that servant". Forsook his Lord, and returned to the ways of the world, and is given the most severe punishment. Cut asunder and given his portion with the unbelievers.

- the lazy servant (47) - Called "that servant". Knew his Lord's will, but didn't do it. His punishment is less severe than the wicked, but is not rewarded. Beaten with many stripes.

- the unbeliever (48) - Is not called "that servant", but is referred to merely as "him". Knew not the Lord's will. Did things worthy of stripes, but is only "beaten with few stripes".

Only one of those listed as "servant" is rewarded. At least one of those listed as "servant" is given his portion with the unbelievers, which we all understand is hell. Both the wicked servant and the lazy servant recieve more severe punishment than the unbeliever, and I don't think any of us would say that unbelievers go to heaven.

I don't know how any other conclusion can be reached than that the wicked and the lazy servants of the lord of the parable ended up in worse shape than the unbeliever. If that isn't a loss of one's salvation, I don't know what it is.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

My point about Acts 16:31 is that if anything contradicts it, then the Scriptures are useless. How do you decide which ones to use? They're faulty. You can't trust any of it. If this part is false, what other parts are false?

Acts 16:31 deals with being saved. The subsequent verses deal with what you do after being saved. Works.

Rewarded. Is your salvation a reward? If you think it is, then we have no common ground for this discussion and we need to be having a different one. Salvation is not by works; it's not a reward.

In verse 46, his part is appointed with the unfaithful. (The KJV says unbelievers, which leads to confusion, because we so often, myself included, call the saved "believers".) What is the part for the unfaithful? Is it loss of salvation?

All four servants are "his servants". All four are saved. All four will be rewarded for their behavior, just as all Christians will be rewarded at the Judgment Seat of Christ: Some will receive crowns, some will suffer loss, and some will be chastized.

Chastizement is a different word and a different idea than punitive punishment, which is what the lost receive. You chastize your kids.

 

Snitzelhoff,

Well, if we just read this in context we see that this actually supports OSAS.

Look at the 4 points I emboldened above:

"Fallen from grace" is not even hinting at the idea of losing your salvation. It is instead referring to someone who has gone back to relying upon the OT law to save them. They don't really believe that faith alone is enough. That's Paul's concern.

You appear to be genuinely concerned about the "danger" of OSAS while I am equally concerned about the "danger" of an insecure salvation that can easily confuse seekers into thinking that they are saved not by the work of Christ but by their own work plus faith. I am also concerned about the very real "danger" of those who are trying to grow in Christ through empty works, without relying on the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the grace of God to enable them to live for Christ. I lived too much of my Christian life doing that, and I refuse to be sucked back into a powerless way of living for Christ.

As you can see above, the expression "fallen from grace" as used by Paul does not refer to having somehow lost your salvation. On the contrary, it refers to those who are striving to be saved by requiring something else than simple faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross, not by grace alone. So those who say that you can lose your salvation Paul says are teaching something that is very dangerous. I had to say this because I've grown tired of people speaking of the "dangers" of OSAS when the Bible warns us of quite the opposite.

Yes, there are many warnings for the Christian in the NT regarding doing good works - just don't hang your eternal destiny on that hook - it just might snap.

FA

 

bmerr,

If Acts 16:31 were the only verse that dealt with salvation, then you would be correct. However, the Bible has much more to say about salvation than, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house".

But this IS the answer given to that specific question.

Either this is correct or it is not. If salvation is NOT that simple then this answer was WRONG. Paul and others will spend much more time and words giving us more details - like what is the nature of that faith and how does it behave. But this verse is the synopsis. Salvation is by faith.