OSAS origins and comparison

[OMC]

I agree that our ancestors were likely to have been RCs before the Reformation, but not the the translators of the KJV had once been Roman Catholics.

Good morning Mr. David

 

[DavidLamb]

Good morning Mr. David

Good afternoon to you, too.

 

[OMC]

Good afternoon to you, too.

How are things across the pond?

 

[GWH]

Your long historical survey does not actually address the point you were correcting, because listing Reformation‑era violence, corruption, or political maneuvering does not establish that the KJV translators were “ex‑Catholics,” nor does it justify treating Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism as “two sides of the same coin”; the issue is not whether Henry VIII behaved wickedly (he did), nor whether both institutions committed persecutions (they did), but whether the individual translators of the KJV were former Roman Catholics, which they were not.
Your argument confuses political history with personal religious background, and then uses that confusion to imply doctrinal bias in translation—an implication that cannot be sustained.
If you want to critique Anglican doctrine or Calvin’s theology, you must do so exegetically, not by collapsing all 16th‑century religious institutions into one moral category or by attributing theological error to a protected religious group.
The only legitimate ground for evaluating doctrine or translation is the text itself, not the sins of monarchs or the tragedies of the Reformation era.

I guess you did not see my agreement with DL re post #313.

 

[GWH]

Your “potato/tomato” analogy is not actually addressing the issue, because the disagreement is not about terminology but about categories: you are treating perseverance as a humanly sustained condition that determines whether salvation continues, while Scripture treats perseverance as the God‑produced evidence that salvation is real. When I say “independently” and “separate,” I am not nullifying human cooperation; I am rejecting the idea that human cooperation is the decisive cause of perseverance

I treat/view persevering faith the same as repenting/seeking faith: cooperation with God’s initiation or plan of salvation which made deciding to have faith in Him as revealed the condition.

 

[OMC]

I treat/view persevering faith the same as repenting/seeking faith: cooperation with God’s initiation or plan of salvation which made deciding to have faith in Him as revealed the condition

Brother, the way you frame “persevering faith” as the same kind of cooperative act as “repenting/seeking faith” is precisely where your system breaks down, because Scripture never treats perseverance as a new human decision that must be continually re‑performed to keep salvation intact; it treats perseverance as the God‑sustained continuation of the faith He Himself granted (Phil 1:6; 1 Pet 1:5), the ongoing effect of regeneration, not a repeated human condition that can veto God’s promise.

 

[DavidLamb]

How are things across the pond?

Spiritually? Pretty grim - many churches seem to be going away from relying on the Bible, Weather? Cooling down, and getting some rain at last, after a very hot (for us) dry summer.

 

[OMC]

Spiritually? Pretty grim - many churches seem to be going away from relying on the Bible, Weather? Cooling down, and getting some rain at last, after a very hot (for us) dry summer.

Stay strong brother, Redemption is close.

 

[GWH]

Brother, the way you frame “persevering faith” as the same kind of cooperative act as “repenting/seeking faith” is precisely where your system breaks down, because Scripture never treats perseverance as a new human decision that must be continually re‑performed to keep salvation intact; it treats perseverance as the God‑sustained continuation of the faith He Himself granted (Phil 1:6; 1 Pet 1:5), the ongoing effect of regeneration, not a repeated human condition that can veto God’s promise.

I once thought/framed faith the way you and DL do re OSAS, but learning more Scripture (the sour 16 per tulipists) convinced my open/truthseeking mind to believe otherwise, which I decided/continually decide to state thusly:

There is no qualitative difference between faith that accepts God’s saving grace at conversion and faith that accepts God’s working grace while persevering/walking/living/surrendering (Eph. 2:8-10, 1Cor. 15:10, 2Cor. 5:7, Rom. 1:17), but only a quantitative difference as each additional moment passes–and of course faith remains non-meritorious during the saint’s entire lifetime.

 

[Dave123]

The translators of the KJV were not former Catholics, but members of the Church of England.

William Tyndale an ex Catholic. The KJV is about 80 to 90 % of his work in the NT, and much of it in the OT also.

"The Church of England was born directly out of the Roman Catholic Church when King Henry VIII broke away in 1534. Because of this, the KJV translators practiced a faith that retained Catholic structures (like bishops and liturgy) but rejected the Pope and Catholic theology. None of the 1611 translators were active Roman Catholics; they were Protestants whose entire church system was built by ex-Catholics."

Much of the poison remained.

 

[OMC]

I once thought/framed faith the way you and DL do re OSAS, but learning more Scripture (the sour 16 per tulipists) convinced my open/truthseeking mind to believe otherwise, which I decided/continually decide to state thusly:

There is no qualitative difference between faith that accepts God’s saving grace at conversion and faith that accepts God’s working grace while persevering/walking/living/surrendering (Eph. 2:8-10, 1Cor. 15:10, 2Cor. 5:7, Rom. 1:17), but only a quantitative difference as each additional moment passes–and of course faith remains non-meritorious during the saint’s entire lifetime.

Your “quantitative not qualitative” framing is exactly the right instinct, but it still doesn’t land where you think it does, because the NT never treats persevering faith as a new cooperative act that must be continually re‑performed to keep salvation intact; it treats persevering faith as the same God‑given, God‑sustained faith continuing in time, the ongoing effect of regeneration, not a repeated human condition that can veto God’s promise.
When you say there is no qualitative difference between initial faith and persevering faith, you’re actually agreeing with the very point you think you’re rejecting:
Scripture presents one continuous stream of God‑produced trust — the faith that receives grace at conversion is the faith that keeps receiving grace while walking (Eph 2:8–10; 1 Cor 15:10; 2 Cor 5:7; Rom 1:17), and the reason it continues is not because the believer keeps deciding to maintain it, but because God keeps sustaining it (Phil 1:6; 1 Pet 1:5).
Your system still inserts a human veto — the idea that this God‑given faith can be “repudiated” by the believer — but that is precisely what the NT never grants: perseverance is cooperation, yes, but cooperation caused and preserved by God, not cooperation that determines whether His saving act remains effective.
The moment perseverance becomes a humanly maintained condition, it ceases to be the same faith Paul describes in Romans_1_17 and becomes a qualitatively different category — a contingency that Scripture never introduces.

 

[Karlon]

God said it & that is final. John 3:36, 10:28, 1st John 5:13 & Hebrews 5:9.

 

[GWH]

Your “quantitative not qualitative” framing is exactly the right instinct, but it still doesn’t land where you think it does, because the NT never treats persevering faith as a new cooperative act that must be continually re‑performed to keep salvation intact; it treats persevering faith as the same God‑given, God‑sustained faith continuing in time, the ongoing effect of regeneration, not a repeated human condition that can veto God’s promise.
When you say there is no qualitative difference between initial faith and persevering faith, you’re actually agreeing with the very point you think you’re rejecting:
Scripture presents one continuous stream of God‑produced trust — the faith that receives grace at conversion is the faith that keeps receiving grace while walking (Eph 2:8–10; 1 Cor 15:10; 2 Cor 5:7; Rom 1:17), and the reason it continues is not because the believer keeps deciding to maintain it, but because God keeps sustaining it (Phil 1:6; 1 Pet 1:5).
Your system still inserts a human veto — the idea that this God‑given faith can be “repudiated” by the believer — but that is precisely what the NT never grants: perseverance is cooperation, yes, but cooperation caused and preserved by God, not cooperation that determines whether His saving act remains effective.
The moment perseverance becomes a humanly maintained condition, it ceases to be the same faith Paul describes in Romans_1_17 and becomes a qualitatively different category — a contingency that Scripture never introduces.

I attribute discernment regarding persevering faith to insight, not instinct.
The sour 16 treat/imply persevering faith is lifelong willingness to cooperate with the Holy Spirit.
IOW, there is no qualitative difference between faith at regeneration and faith during sanctification.
Both God's forgiveness at the first until the last is conditional upon saving faith.
The trust/grace God produces/sustains is resistible or able to be vetoed and repudiated.

You are talking like a tulipist again, so I must ask--
are you schizophrenic?!

 

[OMC]

I attribute discernment regarding persevering faith to insight, not instinct.
The sour 16 treat/imply persevering faith is lifelong willingness to cooperate with the Holy Spirit.
IOW, there is no qualitative difference between faith at regeneration and faith during sanctification.
Both God's forgiveness at the first until the last is conditional upon saving faith.
The trust/grace God produces/sustains is resistible or able to be vetoed and repudiated.

You are talking like a tulipist again, so I must ask--
are you schizophrenic?!

Brother, calling me “schizophrenic” doesn’t advance your argument; it just signals frustration because the text itself won’t bend to the system you’re trying to impose.

 

[DavidLamb]

William Tyndale an ex Catholic. The KJV is about 80 to 90 % of his work in the NT, and much of it in the OT also.

"The Church of England was born directly out of the Roman Catholic Church when King Henry VIII broke away in 1534. Because of this, the KJV translators practiced a faith that retained Catholic structures (like bishops and liturgy) but rejected the Pope and Catholic theology. None of the 1611 translators were active Roman Catholics; they were Protestants whose entire church system was built by ex-Catholics."

Much of the poison remained.

Although no doubt it is true that the KJV translators relied very much on Tyndale's earlier translation, and Tyndale had indeed been a Roman Catholic before he began translating the Bible, Tyndale was not a translator of the KJV, as he died in 1536, many years before the KJV was started.

 

[GWH]

Brother, calling me “schizophrenic” doesn’t advance your argument; it just signals frustration because the text itself won’t bend to the system you’re trying to impose.

The term signals that sometimes you talk like a tulipist and sometimes you talk like a mfwer.

 

[OMC]

The term signals that sometimes you talk like a tulipist and sometimes you talk like a mfwer.

Calling me “schizophrenic” because you think I “sound like a tulipist sometimes and a mfwer other times” isn’t an argument — it’s a label you’re using to avoid dealing with the actual text.
My position hasn’t shifted; I’ve been consistent: I distinguish grace as God’s cause from faith as the human reception, because that’s exactly how Paul frames it, and refusing to collapse those categories doesn’t make me inconsistent — it makes me obedient to the grammar. You know, Grammar?

 

[GWH]

Brother, calling me “schizophrenic” doesn’t advance your argument; it just signals frustration because the text itself won’t bend to the system you’re trying to impose.

I did not call you schizo; I asked whether you were, and I explained why I asked, which you merely noted without acknowledging that my reasons were valid, thereby causing our discussion to bog. However, you are correct that I am frustrated by that ambivalence aka talking out of both sides of one's mouth.

Although some prooftexts may seem to portray God as forcing only some folks to "believe"/be elect, thereby being unfair and unloving,
those passages per the NT context/frame reveal God to be omniloving and to not show favoritism. IOW, grammar can take you only part way to understanding God's Word. Harmonization is also needed to complete the revelation.

 

[Roger316]

I once thought/framed faith the way you and DL do re OSAS, but learning more Scripture (the sour 16 per tulipists) convinced my open/truthseeking mind to believe otherwise, which I decided/continually decide to state thusly:

There is no qualitative difference between faith that accepts God’s saving grace at conversion and faith that accepts God’s working grace while persevering/walking/living/surrendering (Eph. 2:8-10, 1Cor. 15:10, 2Cor. 5:7, Rom. 1:17), but only a quantitative difference as each additional moment passes–and of course faith remains non-meritorious during the saint’s entire lifetime.

The Bible also teaches that it is the power of God who sustains faith.

 

[Dave123]

Although no doubt it is true that the KJV translators relied very much on Tyndale's earlier translation, and Tyndale had indeed been a Roman Catholic before he began translating the Bible, Tyndale was not a translator of the KJV, as he died in 1536, many years before the KJV was started.

The translators didn't just rely on Tyndale's translations, they actually used most of his translations. They say that 83% of the NT in the KJV is Tyndale, and 76% of the OT is his. Tyndale was a translator of the KJV, but his work was overviewed by others and the icing was put on the cake by them. How much did they alter or remove of Tyndale's work that Tyndale would have disagreed with? According to this study, the numbers are valid....

"Linguistic studies estimate that roughly 84% of the KJV New Testament and 76% of the Old Testament portions Tyndale translated remain identical or nearly identical to Tyndale's original wording." Taken from link below (actually a good read)

Revisiting William Tyndale, Father of the English Bible | Religious Studies Center

Tyndale was the first to translate the New Testament from Greek and parts of the Old Testament from Hebrew into English. Artist unknown, National Portrait Gallery, London. Courtesy of Wikipedia.

rsc.byu.edu

Think of the Reformation as a process, not a sudden, perfect reset. A transition, if you will. We rely on those same "early" translations too much, if you ask me. And the error from those early translation has unfortunately trickled into modern translations.