The problem of the statement of “never saved to begin with”

[BillG]

does not get any clearer than this Brother

It doesn't
Yet they will twist the verses to spout their false, doctrine, and have the cheek to accuse others of doing the same.

They put words in the mouth people (lots of it on this thread) without actually engaging to ask if the crap they espouse about you is true.
They generalise.

I even had people when looking at John 6:39-40 that the word "May" means they may still not be saved because they lose their faith.

Yet Jesus said he would lose non that God has given him.

It really pees me off when people asume I believe something based on what I believe without actually asking me.

The main one being "you believe in OSAS therefor you believe it's ok to sin all you want"

For goodness sake Paul dealt with this, it's like we don't believe that either and we can sin all we want.

Matthew 7:3-5
3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Pharisees to the core.

They will answer for it

 

[GWH]

Nope, I point ALL glory to God, not Satanic at all. You want to usurp some of Gods glory to give yourself credit, like "you choose salvation" and "your decisions in obedience are what keep you saved", these things are inward thinking and try to claim the glory that belongs to God, the very definition of Satanic. You lift up men at Gods expense whether you admit it, or can even see it, or not. I'm telling you that's what you do. Your, "I know you are but what am I", response is weak and sad. I don't think it's worth sparring with someone so blind to their own mess. Good luck.

You are right that we should not spar, and I do not intend to argue, but rather state that
I agree with pointing "ALL glory to God", and I hope you will not allow Satan to divide us for some silly pseudo-reason.

Perhaps you have not seen my recent insight regarding salvation and obedience, so here it is:

The distinction between kerygma and didache involves a difference in content and purpose.
The kerygma proclaims God's requirement for salvation, which calls for repentance and acceptance of Jesus as Lord, an all or nothing decision that occurs at one moment in time.
The didache teaches God’s will regarding how saints or those who have been saved should live in order to be a good witness for Christ, which involves learning more of God’s Word throughout one’s lifetime.
A passage teaching this truth is Colossians 2:6-7: “Just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord [kerygma], continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught [didache].”

There is no qualitative difference between faith that accepts God’s saving grace at conversion and faith that accepts God’s working grace while walking/living or during sanctification (EPH 2:8-10, 2CR 5:7), but only a quantitative difference as each additional moment passes–and of course faith remains non-meritorious (giving God the glory) during the saint’s entire lifetime.

 

[studier]

Salvation is a gift. it is not a reward.

You work to earn a wage, or a reward. a gift is freely given.

I am not sure why it seems so difficult. If I am doing any type of work to earn my salvation. To keep my salvation, or keep my from losing my salvation. I deem salvation as a reward for good deeds or a wage. not as a gift

Agree.
Jesus commanded unbelievers to work to receive the gift of EL He gives.
Paul commands Christians to accomplish by work their salvation with fear and trembling. It's not that the concepts are difficult. I know them. The reason we have discussions like this are because some Scriptures don't support simplistic or over-simplified faith alone concepts.

I see salvation as three things

1. I have been saved (justified - I have been redeemed by the blood and thus saved from the penalty of sin and am a child of God and I have eternal life forever)
2. I am being saved (Sanctification - I am being saved from the power of sin as I learn to trust God in different areas of my life, and I grow - also called christian growth, this is an ongoing until I am resurected)
3. I will be saved from the ability of sin and from this dead body. also called glorification, when I am made completely whole in him at my ressurection.

#3 is usually saved from the presence if sin. So, you see Salvation as a process, which IMO is Biblical.

FWIW, there's also sanctification in #1 and in the view of some there are concepts of justification in #2. So, I don't normally use the Justified, Sanctified, Glorified headings anymore apart from explaining a few things.

So, you're of the view that there are works in #2, but not to keep us saved, correct? And if we don't do those works, no problem, still saved? And no one can depart from the Faith if they want, and even if they do, then just no rewards?

How about all the commandments in the NC, last I counted approx. 500+ in the epistles alone. No problem if Christians don't obey our Lord God? Our Father's discipline resolves all issues for every Christian or brings him home early? How about a Christian being convinced to go back to the old era of Law - no problem for his Faith?

You've likely been exposed to all the questions. No issues, because no Christian can walk away after believing? Soils #2 & 3 are saved?

 

[Kroogz]

The main one being "you believe in OSAS therefor you believe it's ok to sin all you want"

This has to be done by default according to their theology. By nature mankind is subjective and self justifying......so we naturally paint a picture of others that is worse than ourselves.

The problem.....the Goal posts always move. Our flesh consistently gets worse. If we believe we could lose salvation we naturally paint the other guy as "sinning all he wants!" so I am still OK.

A tangled web for sure.

But there are a few who are in authority and teach this heresy.......I would NOT want to be in their shoes. Most are just average believers who have been duped by the wolves.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

It doesn't
Yet they will twist the verses to spout their false, doctrine, and have the cheek to accuse others of doing the same.

They put words in the mouth people (lots of it on this thread) without actually engaging to ask if the crap they espouse about you is true.
They generalise.

I even had people when looking at John 6:39-40 that the word "May" means they may still not be saved because they lose their faith.

Yet Jesus said he would lose non that God has given him.

It really pees me off when people asume I believe something based on what I believe without actually asking me.

The main one being "you believe in OSAS therefor you believe it's ok to sin all you want"

For goodness sake Paul dealt with this, it's like we don't believe that either and we can sin all we want.

Matthew 7:3-5
3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Pharisees to the core.

They will answer for it

Yes they will brother. Unless they repent

 

[BillG]

This has to be done by default according to their theology. By nature mankind is subjective and self justifying......so we naturally paint a picture of others that is worse than ourselves.

The problem.....the Goal posts always move. Our flesh consistently gets worse. If we believe we could lose salvation we naturally paint the other guy as "sinning all he wants!" so I am still OK.

A tangled web for sure.

But there are a few who are in authority and teach this heresy.......I would NOT want to be in their shoes. Most are just average believers who have been duped by the wolves.

I meant to post the wolves verse but forgot.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Agree.
Jesus commanded unbelievers to work to receive the gift of EL He gives.

He did? All I saw him say was as moses lifted the serpent. so to must the son of man be lifted up that whoever believes will never perish, but live forever.

No work involved.

Paul commands Christians to accomplish by work their salvation with fear and trembling.

Work out the salvation you have, not to work to recieve salvation. Big difference It's not that the concepts are difficult. I know them. The reason we have discussions like this are because some Scriptures don't support simplistic or over-simplified faith alone concepts.

I think we can root them out just by using the law of contradiction. do two verses contradict? if they do. resolve the contradiction, and you have found truth, because then there is no more contradiction.

If the contradictions remains. something is wrong with your believe.

#3 is usually saved from the presence if sin. So, you see Salvation as a process, which IMO is Biblical.

Yes, we will sin in this lifetime, and continue to sin, until the day we die. so in all time while we walk this earth. we operate on grace..

FWIW, there's also sanctification in #1 and in the view of some there are concepts of justification in #2. So, I don't normally use the Justified, Sanctified, Glorified headings anymore apart from explaining a few things.

but then you have inserted a contradiction.

While I am positionally sanctified in part 1. That position being in christ, it is eternal. And it is called being perfected in christ.

There is no justification process in number 2. if there is, there was never any justification in number 1. and in essence we are under law.

So, you're of the view that there are works in #2, but not to keep us saved, correct?

I am under the view that if you trust someone, you will tend to do at lease some of what they ask. this is works. so a believer WILL have works.

And if we don't do those works, no problem, still saved?

An imposibility. if they have zero works. then as james said, they had no faith.

if we are saved by grace through faith, but our faith in son existent. well we are not saved.

And no one can depart from the Faith if they want, and even if they do, then just no rewards?

who would want to? No one has been able to answer this question. that you have a person who was saved from death, and wanted to go back willingly to death.

Free will is still in tact. No one would want to go back to death.. Unless they were never made alive and never experienced christ.

How about all the commandments in the NC, last I counted approx. 500+ in the epistles alone. No problem if Christians don't obey our Lord God? Our Father's discipline resolves all issues for every Christian or brings him home early? How about a Christian being convinced to go back to the old era of Law - no problem for his Faith?

How about them all? Are you perfect? Have you broke any commands?

if you have the wage of sin is death.

if you have not. Well congratulations./ You have done what only christ could do.

You've likely been exposed to all the questions. No issues, because no Christian can walk away after believing? Soils #2 & 3 are saved?

Your trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. and trying to insert things which are not true and apply them to my thinking

 

[Kroogz]

An imposibility. if they have zero works. then as james said, they had no faith.

if we are saved by grace through faith, but our faith in son existent. well we are not saved.

God Knows the heart. Men look for evidence. I do believe James is speaking of the EXACT premise of this thread.

Men are going to look for OVERT works/fruits. And then men will classify whether someone is saved or not.

To God, many if not most fruits/works are done unawares to men.

All believers will have fruit, but many will be judged by men to have none.......So James is saying SHOW THEM. It's an active faith, not a sit on your butt faith.

 

[studier]

He did? All I saw him say was as moses lifted the serpent. so to must the son of man be lifted up that whoever believes will never perish, but live forever.

No work involved.

He did. John6:27.

Ask the ones who didn't look at the serpent on a pole if they didn't have to do anything but were still healed. By faith some did something as they were told to do.

Work out the salvation you have, not to work to recieve salvation.

Obediently accomplish the Salvation we were given by working in union with God to do so. Paraphrased, this is what the language says.

but then you have inserted a contradiction.

While I am positionally sanctified in part 1. That position being in christ, it is eternal. And it is called being perfected in christ.

There is no justification process in number 2. if there is, there was never any justification in number 1. and in essence we are under law.

Inserted a contradiction into Scripture, or into someone's understanding of Scripture?

The entire discussion is about the eternality of Positional Sanctification yet many of the disagreements over Experiential Sanctification and abiding remain.

Perfected in Christ? There are concepts of becoming experientially perfected/completed in Christ and His being perfected through obedience in what He suffered and the entire Salvation Plan being accomplished, but Positional Sanctification called being perfected in Christ?

It's your opinion that there is no justification in #2, but justification simply means declared righteous and there are tests and trials that the concept can apply to. We're not under law in the Mosaic era sense, but how do you read James re Abraham for example?

I am under the view that if you trust someone, you will tend to do at lease some of what they ask. this is works. so a believer WILL have works.

No concerns about some not continuing to trust?

An imposibility. if they have zero works. then as james said, they had no faith.

if we are saved by grace through faith, but our faith in son existent. well we are not saved.

So, the never believed position. Maybe you answered below, but Soils #2 & 3?

who would want to? No one has been able to answer this question. that you have a person who was saved from death, and wanted to go back willingly to death.

Free will is still in tact. No one would want to go back to death.. Unless they were never made alive and never experienced christ.

You can answer for everyone on the planet throughout history? Never experienced Christ? Absolute statements like this put me on guard and make me think at minimum of Heb6,

How about them all? Are you perfect? Have you broke any commands?

if you have the wage of sin is death.

if you have not. Well congratulations./ You have done what only christ could do.

Silly.

Your trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. and trying to insert things which are not true and apply them to my thinking

Also silly. Just asking questions and responding to points you make.

 

[Mem]

Did Peter cry out and ask forgiveness for denying Jesus 3 times.

Or did Jesus restor him by asking him 3 times, do you love me

Peter came when Jesus told the others to go and get him.

 

[Believer08]

It doesn't
Yet they will twist the verses to spout their false, doctrine, and have the cheek to accuse others of doing the same.

They put words in the mouth people (lots of it on this thread) without actually engaging to ask if the crap they espouse about you is true.
They generalise.

I even had people when looking at John 6:39-40 that the word "May" means they may still not be saved because they lose their faith.

Yet Jesus said he would lose non that God has given him.

It really pees me off when people asume I believe something based on what I believe without actually asking me.

The main one being "you believe in OSAS therefor you believe it's ok to sin all you want"

For goodness sake Paul dealt with this, it's like we don't believe that either and we can sin all we want.

Matthew 7:3-5
3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Pharisees to the core.

They will answer for it

Paul didn’t believe in OSAS…actually, he disproved it in Romans 6:1 and a host of other passages, but I guess your brain of OSAS refuses to see otherwise..hidden behind the dark sunglasses of OSAS lol…perhaps if the doctrine you believe and adhere to didn’t teach or isn’t notorious for teaching once you’re saved there’s not a sin you can commit to be lost, or perhaps if the history of it wasn’t that, then there’d be no need for someone to say that, now would it? Yet, because people such as yourself cannot stomach what the OSAS doctrine leads to and deep down teaches, you then accuse people of doing the very same thing as you…which is twisting scripture…simply for not believing in a doctrine that has a long filled history of teaching you can live in unrepentant sin and be saved. Thus, you are calling people who believe in obeying Jesus Pharisees to the core, and you and all the others will indeed answer for it. I understand how “comforting” OSAS can be…as it gives people the feel good mentality to be able to sin as much as they want…and takes any responsibility off of obedience due to always being saved. People such as yourself will not admit any of that, but it’s true. The more and more I engage with people who believe in OSAS, the more I realize how it’s filled with hypocritical people who is dishonest with what it really teaches…and dishonesty will get you nowhere. You also will be held accountable for that.

OSAS truly does lead to a life of sin. I’m not ever going to believe or have someone say it does not…and I’m not going to believe the lie that it means something different when it doesn’t. I have dealt with enough folks who believe in it to know otherwise.

Anything you say to try to teach that it doesn’t will be conceding the “always saved” part.

If one is truly “always saved” then what Sam Morris and Bill Foster taught decades ago about it is true…but even you have issues with it. At least they had the guts to be consistent with what it teaches and believes. They actually could stomach it. Most people like to redefine it now due to not being able to stomach it. You probably fall in the latter.

It looks like you don’t really believe in OSAS after all….

 

[Believer08]

Concerning John 6:39, that does not teach once you’re saved you will always be saved, or else it contradicts other passages, as well as the warnings. I can’t see how someone can honestly read the scriptures and believe the nonsensical belief of OSAS due to all the passages that teaches against it lol…I guess one has to be spoon fed it…like babies being spoon fed food..except OSAS is one that will cause spiritual GERD lol.

 

[Believer08]

The Bible teaches the eternal security of the believer…but not the unconditional eternal security of the believer. Even the more conservative (or should I say non-consistent) OSAS’ers will concede that it is conditional, or else they wouldn’t say someone was never saved if they live in sin. Thus, they have made salvation conditional based on not living in unrepentant sin, or else they might be told they were never saved in the first place. Even some versions of OSAS are conditional.

When the truth of OSAS comes out and gets called for what it really teaches, people will say it’s a misrepresentation of it…when in actuality it is being consistent and logical with what it leads to….

Proponents of the "once saved, always saved" doctrine face significant challenges when confronted with individuals who appear to have fallen away from the faith or engage in immoral unrepentant sinful behavior. Some hardcore Calvinists might argue that despite such apparent apostasy or moral decline, God will still save these individuals.

However, most advocates of this doctrine tend to adopt a different explanation. They claim that those who seemingly fall away were never genuinely saved in the first place. To support this claim, they often reinterpret or reexplain scriptures that contradict their viewpoint.

To resolve this issue, some might argue that despite apparent apostasy or moral degradation, God will still save these individuals. Others will claim that those who fell away were never truly saved.

However, by adopting the latter explanation, proponents of "once saved, always saved" are forced to concede that it's impossible to know for certain whether someone is genuinely saved until after they have passed away.

Moreover, proponents of "once saved, always saved" must also address the reality that some individuals who were once part of their church community, including leaders, have abandoned the faith. This poses a dilemma for them.

This creates a problem for advocates of this doctrine. Since they have not yet completed their lives on earth, they are left to wonder whether their own salvation is genuine.

Ironically, this version of "the security of the believer" ultimately becomes a doctrine of "the insecurity of the believer," as proponents are plagued by uncertainty regarding their own salvation.

Proponents of "once saved, always saved" who claim that those who fall away were never truly saved face a logical consequence:

*They Cannot Know for Certain*
If someone appears to be saved but later falls away, these proponents argue they were never saved. However, this raises questions:

*Genuine Salvation*
How can they be certain someone is genuinely saved in the first place? They can't know for sure until the person's life is over and their faith is proven genuine.

*Personal Salvation*
This uncertainty also applies to their own salvation. Since they can't know for certain whether someone else is saved, they also can't be entirely sure about their own salvation.

*Insecurity Paradox*
This creates a paradox where proponents of "once saved, always saved" are left wondering whether their own salvation is genuine, undermining the very security they aim to affirm.

1. *How can they know for certain that someone is genuinely saved in the first place?*

Think about it: if someone can appear to be saved but later turn out not to be, how can you be sure that anyone is truly saved?

*The Logical Consequence*

The logical consequence of this line of thinking is that:

2. *They cannot know for certain whether someone is genuinely saved until after they have died.*

Only when a person's life is over and their faith is proven genuine (or not) can it be known for certain whether they were truly saved.

*The Personal Implication*

This uncertainty also applies to the proponents' own salvation. If they can't know for certain whether someone else is saved, then:

3. *They also can't be entirely sure about their own salvation.*

This creates a paradox where proponents of "once saved, always saved" are left wondering whether their own salvation is genuine.

*The Insecurity Paradox*

This paradox undermines the very security that "once saved, always saved" aims to affirm. Instead of providing assurance, this doctrine leads to uncertainty and insecurity.

In essence, the problem is that if you can't know for certain whether someone is genuinely saved, then you also can't know for certain about your own salvation. This creates a lingering doubt that can be unsettling for proponents of this doctrine.

*Why wouldn't they know for certain whether someone is genuinely saved until after they have died?*

The reasoning goes like this:

1. *Appearance vs. Reality*: Proponents of "once saved, always saved" argue that someone can appear to be saved (e.g., attending church, praying, and participating in Christian activities) but not actually be saved.
2. *Falling Away*: If someone who appeared to be saved later falls away from the faith or engages in sinful behavior, proponents of this doctrine claim that person was never truly saved in the first place.
3. *Uncertainty*: Since it's possible for someone to appear saved but not actually be saved, proponents of "once saved, always saved" can't know for certain whether someone is genuinely saved until their life is over and their faith is proven genuine.

In other words, only when a person's life is complete can it be known for certain whether they were truly saved or not. This is because, according to their doctrine, someone can appear to be saved for a time but ultimately fall away, revealing they were never truly saved.

 

[Believer08]

Here's an example to illustrate the point:

*Example:*

Meet John, a church member who has been actively involved in his community for years. He attends services regularly, participates in Bible studies, and even serves as a volunteer leader. Many people in the church consider John a strong believer.

However, after a few years, John begins to drift away from the church. He stops attending services, quits his volunteer role, and eventually starts living a lifestyle that contradicts his previous profession of faith.

*Proponents of "Once Saved, Always Saved" Might Say:*

"John was never truly saved in the first place. His actions and lifestyle now reveal that he was just pretending to be a Christian."

*The Uncertainty:*

In this example, proponents of "once saved, always saved" can't know for certain whether John was ever truly saved. They might claim he was never saved, but they can't be 100% sure. This uncertainty applies not only to John but also to themselves and every other believer.

Let's explore John's situation further.

*Questions about John*
1. What if John's decision to stop attending church and engage in sinful behavior was a result of genuine spiritual struggles, rather than a sign of false conversion?
2. How can proponents of "once saved, always saved" be sure that John wasn't truly saved, but rather experiencing a season of doubt or spiritual weakness?
3. If John appeared to be a strong believer for years, what assurance do proponents of "once saved, always saved" have that other seemingly strong believers won't also fall away?

Here's another example:

*Example:*
Meet Emily, a devoted church member who has been a pillar of her community. She's a leader in her church, teaches Sunday school, and is known for her kindness and generosity.

However, after a series of personal crises, Emily begins to question her faith. She starts to doubt the Bible's authority, struggles with prayer, and eventually stops attending church.

*Proponents of "Once Saved, Always Saved" Might Say:*
"Emily must have been a false convert. She never truly had faith in the first place.”

*The Uncertainty:*
This example raises questions:

1. What if Emily's doubts and struggles were a genuine crisis of faith, rather than a sign of false conversion?
2. How can proponents of "once saved, always saved" be sure that Emily wasn't truly saved, but rather experiencing a season of doubt?

*Implications for Personal Salvation:*
These questions create uncertainty for proponents of "once saved, always saved." If they can't be sure about Emily's salvation, how can they be sure about their own?

What if they, like Emily, experience doubts or struggles in their faith? Does that mean they were never truly saved?

This uncertainty can lead to insecurity and doubt about one's own salvation, undermining the very assurance that "once saved, always saved" aims to provide.

If John and Emily, who appeared to be strong believers, could be false converts, then what assurance do proponents of "once saved, always saved" have that anyone else isn't also a false convert?

This is where the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" creates a logical conundrum. If they can't be certain about John's or Emily's salvation, despite their outward appearances, then how can they be certain about anyone else's salvation?

This raises questions about the nature of assurance and how one can truly know whether someone is genuinely saved. Proponents of "once saved, always saved" often rely on external markers, such as profession of faith, baptism, or church attendance, to determine whether someone is saved.

However, as the examples of John and Emily illustrate, these external markers can be deceiving. This creates a problem for proponents of "once saved, always saved," as they struggle to reconcile their doctrine with the uncertainty surrounding individual salvation.

Ultimately, this highlights the tension between the desire for assurance and the uncertainty.

That's the crux of the issue. Proponents of "once saved, always saved" can't be certain that they themselves aren't a John or an Emily, who appear to be strong believers but ultimately fall away.

This self-doubt and uncertainty undermine the assurance that "once saved, always saved" aims to provide. It's a classic case of "how do I know I'm not the exception?” What if they, like John and Emily, are also deceiving themselves? What if their faith is not as genuine as they think? The possibility of self-deception creates a lingering doubt.

We've exposed a potential weakness: the inability to guarantee one's own salvation with absolute certainty.

 

[Believer08]

Whichever version of OSAS someone believes in is still false doctrine. The version that teaches once you become a Christian that it’s impossible to apostatize (or commit such a sin as to be eternally lost)…and the version that says person so and so was never saved…is both false doctrines. Both versions of OSAS aren’t found in scriptures. I have never read a passage or found anywhere in the Bible that teaches once you become a Christian that it is impossible to be lost…and I have never read a passage or found anywhere in the Bible where someone tells a Christian (and when I say a Christian…I’m referring to someone who became a Christian according to the Bible) that they were never saved (as in never a Christian). The only version of OSAS that is true is once you are saved…you will always be saved based on following Jesus. In other words…the one who follows Jesus until the day he or she dies was and always will be saved. The one who quits will not be.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

This has to be done by default according to their theology. By nature mankind is subjective and self justifying......so we naturally paint a picture of others that is worse than ourselves.

The problem.....the Goal posts always move. Our flesh consistently gets worse. If we believe we could lose salvation we naturally paint the other guy as "sinning all he wants!" so I am still OK.

A tangled web for sure.

But there are a few who are in authority and teach this heresy.......I would NOT want to be in their shoes. Most are just average believers who have been duped by the wolves.

Its another one of those flawed strawmen or hypocritical statements, ie. the accuse others of doing what they themselves do

they claim we believe we can sin all we want (which we do not) yet they also can sin all they want, the only difference is they feel they are ok because they provided God with some sort of penance to get God to forgive them of that sin.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

God Knows the heart. Men look for evidence. I do believe James is speaking of the EXACT premise of this thread.

Men are going to look for OVERT works/fruits. And then men will classify whether someone is saved or not.

To God, many if not most fruits/works are done unawares to men.

All believers will have fruit, but many will be judged by men to have none.......So James is saying SHOW THEM. It's an active faith, not a sit on your butt faith.

James is trying to get people to search in themselves. To test their own faith. Look in the mirror so to speak. If YOU claim to have faith yet YOU have no works (here we have the argument, that they say we can have no works but still be saved refuted) then can your faith save you?

James answer? No, You have mere belief, even demons believe yet tremble. If you claim you have faith yet have zero zip nadda works. then your faith is dead.

We are saved by grace THROUGH faith. If we have no faith, we have not received the grace of God. and hence also is the reason we have no works. we are false believers.. Not empowered by the HS.

Paul and James are in agreement, As Paul said in the same passage, for we are his workmanship created in christ for good works.

We will (not might) have works.

It does not mean everyone will see our works. It just means we will do something.. you do not have faith in someone and NEVER do anything they say.

Sadly, a babe in christ may remain a babe.. We can't judge them because we may not see any works.. Thats for God to do..

 

[PennEd]

someone who has pledged their allegiance to Christ end up living in sin

Pledged his allegiance! Lol!!

Talk about a works Gospel!

I shouldn’t joke though. This incredibly misguided gospel is truly very sad.

 

[GWH]

Whichever version of OSAS someone believes in is still false doctrine. The version that teaches once you become a Christian that it’s impossible to apostatize (or commit such a sin as to be eternally lost)…and the version that says person so and so was never saved…is both false doctrines. Both versions of OSAS aren’t found in scriptures. I have never read a passage or found anywhere in the Bible that teaches once you become a Christian that it is impossible to be lost…and I have never read a passage or found anywhere in the Bible where someone tells a Christian (and when I say a Christian…I’m referring to someone who became a Christian according to the Bible) that they were never saved (as in never a Christian). The only version of OSAS that is true is once you are saved…you will always be saved based on following Jesus. In other words…the one who follows Jesus until the day he or she dies was and always will be saved. The one who quits will not be.

Amen!

And the interpretation you share is true/right because there is no qualitative difference between faith that repents/accepts God’s saving grace at conversion and faith that continues/accepts God’s working grace while walking/being sanctified (EPH 2:8-10, 2CR 5:7, 2THS 1:3-4 & 2:13-17), but only a quantitative difference as each additional moment passes–and faith remains non-meritorious during the saint’s entire lifetime.

 

[GWH]

Pledged his allegiance! Lol!!

Talk about a works Gospel!

I shouldn’t joke though. This incredibly misguided gospel is truly very sad.

Merely disagreeing is not refuting, so there is no reason given for being sad.