Saved by Grace Through Faith, Not by Works

Jim Parker said:

And in Romans 11, Paul was specifically talking about the eternal condition of Israel and only of Israel.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence of this assumption at all.

The reality is that Paul plainly described 3 of God's gifts before he wrote 11:29. If Paul had no intention of including any or all of these 3 gifts in the meaning of 11:29, then he would have made that clear. So, where's the clear teaching where he separated any or all of the 3 gifts from 11:29? There isn't any.

He was saying absolutely NOTHING about OSAS.

Click to expand...

The irrevocable gift of eternal life is absolutely about eternal security.

You are misappropriating scripture which says nothing about OSAS in order to support your view.

Click to expand...

The plain language of Scripture is that eternal life is a gift of God AND that God's gifts are irrevocable.

Here's some reality to consider:
If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. Period.

So, if eternal life (A) is a gift of God (B), and it is, and if the gifts of God (B) are irrevocable, and they are, then eternal life (A) is irrevocable (C). And it is.

It is illogical, unreasonable and absurd to claim that eternal life is not an irrevocable gift of God.

By so doing, you do violence to the scripture by trying to force them to say what they do not at all say.

Click to expand...

SINCE A = B, AND B = C, THEN A = C.

Since eternal life is a gift of God, and the gifts of God are irrevocable, then eternal life is irrevocable.

Nathan said:

How do you reckon that Romans 5 says that all sin does not cause death?

Rom 5:12
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

Click to expand...

Well, it appears my point was missed. Adam died spiritually when he bit into that forbidden fruit, and then passed on that spiritual death to everyone. So, from one man's sin, all are sinners.

Please note the bolded words in Rom 5:
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

Ok, we need to figure something out here. Do you believe that Christ is still with sin? Because you said that "Then Jesus would have a problem returning back to heaven" in response to my statement "God does not allow sinful man in heaven. God is Holy."

Click to expand...

The Bible says that Christ became sin for us. You stated that God does not allow sinful man in heaven. So how did Jesus get to return to heaven, if your claim is true?

Once Christ died for sins the payment has been made. There is no more sin for those who are in Christ.

Click to expand...

When you believed and were sealed IN HIM with the Holy Spirit, did sin cease with you?

Maybe things will start to come together for you now. See, in Christ we are free from sin. His blood cleanses us from all sin.

Click to expand...

Does sin still occur in your life or not?

Rom 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Click to expand...

Since there are no verses about the sealing with the Holy Spirit being undone or unsealed, doesn't this verse give us the promise of eternal security?

Nathan said:

result of discipline, is a different type of punishment that does not return any training.

In other words, we 'spank' our kids (punishment) in order to bring about a change in their behavior. We also punish criminals with the death penalty - that does not bring about a change in their behavior.

Click to expand...

Uh, yeah it does. They will never commit that crime again.

This 'punishment' is WAY different than a punishment that comes from discipline.

Click to expand...

chessman proved that discipline includes punishment. That has not been refuted.

Nathan said:

Here we go into a word debate

Click to expand...

There is no debate. Discipline includes punishment. Punishments includes death, sicknesses and weaknesses.

Nathan said:

Punishment that is a result of discipline, is a different type of punishment that does not return any training.

Click to expand...

God's discipline of His sons (to include death as necessary) DOES return training. It might seem painful at the moment, but yields the peacful fruit of righteousness, in the end.

Nathan said:

In other words, we 'spank' our kids (punishment) in order to bring about a change in their behavior.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the Lord disciplines his sons in other ways as necessary. Weakness, sickness and even death as necessary.

Nathan said:

We also punish criminals with the death penalty - that does not bring about a change in their behavior.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's behavior has been changed somewhat already. At his punishment of death it will change even more dramatically.

But again, "we" are not the Lord.

FreeGrace said:

I said this:
"It's both. Paul said so in plain language.
"for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable." Rom 11:29"

It doesn't matter whether they are related or not. The point is that Paul noted 2 things that are irrevocable.


The Bible never says anything about the gift of eternal life being undone. It says that eternal life is irrevocable.

I use the word "undone" to show the silliness of the claim that salvation can be lost. That would be tantamount to saying that salvation can be undone. Or the seal can be undone.

God is the One who saves us. He does it. What he does cannot be undone.

I hope this clarifies.

Click to expand...

He is not saying there are two things that are irrevocable. He does say the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. These things just happen to be related to the covenant God made with Israel. Did Paul accidentally refer to the covenant? Or was it his intention to say the covenant can not be undone?

The covenant God made with Israel was conditional

What's more likely - that Paul is establishing a foundation to build a theology on? ie. OSAS Or is he just saying God's promise can not be revoked?

reba said:

The covenant God made with Israel was conditional

Click to expand...

So what?

MarkT said:

He is not saying there are two things that are irrevocable. He does say the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. These things just happen to be related to the covenant God made with Israel. Did Paul accidentally refer to the covenant? Or was it his intention to say the covenant can not be undone?

Click to expand...

I agree they are related

FreeGrace said:

Well, it appears my point was missed. Adam died spiritually when he bit into that forbidden fruit, and then passed on that spiritual death to everyone. So, from one man's sin, all are sinners.

Please note the bolded words in Rom 5:
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!


The Bible says that Christ became sin for us. You stated that God does not allow sinful man in heaven. So how did Jesus get to return to heaven, if your claim is true?


When you believed and were sealed IN HIM with the Holy Spirit, did sin cease with you?


Does sin still occur in your life or not?


Since there are no verses about the sealing with the Holy Spirit being undone or unsealed, doesn't this verse give us the promise of eternal security?

Click to expand...

So you seriously believe Christ had sin when He went to heaven?

I'm sorry, but if this is the case we have really got to settle this point before moving forward. I've never run into someone who believed this.

FreeGrace said:

Uh, yeah it does. They will never commit that crime again.


chessman proved that discipline includes punishment. That has not been refuted.

Click to expand...

It has been refuted. What hasn't been refuted is how death produces a trained person by it.

Grasping into thin air on this one. It really is all futile till we figure out if you believe Christ actually had sin in Him when He entered heaven.

Do you believe He still does?

dirtfarmer here

When Jesus was resurrected in his glorified fleshly body, what were the marks in hands and feet or the hole in his side? Was it not the marks of God's judgment. God has stated "the life of the flesh is in the blood, I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls", so, what was it that Jesus offered on the altar in heaven? It was his blood and if God said "the life is in the blood", then Christ Jesus gave his life to pay, (be eternally separated from God), and the penalty for sin of the whole world has been paid in full. This was done before the foundation of the world.

So, what is it that condemns the whole world, but unbelief!!!! Sins are what breaks fellowship between believers and God, but they do not harm the relationship between believers and God. Just as fellowship was broken between the prodigal son and his father, so it is with God and the believer. Most people never understand that the relationship between the father of the prodigal son and the prodigal son was never hindered, what was broken between them was fellowship. In Luke 15:18 the prodigal son said: "I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father I have sinned against heaven, and before thee." What right does an unbeliever have to call God his Father? so the prodigal son was a believer out of fellowship with his father, but their relationship was still intact.

chessman said:

There is no debate. Discipline includes punishment. Punishments includes death, sicknesses and weaknesses.


God's discipline of His sons (to include death as necessary) DOES return training. It might seem painful at the moment, but yields the peacful fruit of righteousness, in the end.


Yes, and the Lord disciplines his sons in other ways as necessary. Weakness, sickness and even death as necessary.


I beg to differ. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's behavior has been changed somewhat already. At his punishment of death it will change even more dramatically.

But again, "we" are not the Lord.

Click to expand...

So everyone who dies is made righteous by that discipline?

There is different types of punishment. Just like there are different types of love.

Death brings relief for a believer. Death is not discipline or punishment for a believer.

Unless you love this world? I suppose with that mindset, a person might find death to be punishment.

dirtfarmer said:

dirtfarmer here

When Jesus was resurrected in his glorified fleshly body, what were the marks in hands and feet or the hole in his side? Was it not the marks of God's judgment. God has stated "the life of the flesh is in the blood, I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls", so, what was it that Jesus offered on the altar in heaven? It was his blood and if God said "the life is in the blood", then Christ Jesus gave his life to pay, (be eternally separated from God), and the penalty for sin of the whole world has been paid in full. This was done before the foundation of the world.

So, what is it that condemns the whole world, but unbelief!!!! Sins are what breaks fellowship between believers and God, but they do not harm the relationship between believers and God. Just as fellowship was broken between the prodigal son and his father, so it is with God and the believer. Most people never understand that the relationship between the father of the prodigal son and the prodigal son was never hindered, what was broken between them was fellowship. In Luke 15:18 the prodigal son said: "I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father I have sinned against heaven, and before thee." What right does an unbeliever have to call God his Father? so the prodigal son was a believer out of fellowship with his father, but their relationship was still intact.

Click to expand...

Um, the relationship was not intact. The Father considered his son dead. Not 'gone' for a bit, not 'displeased' with him, not 'sad' or 'lonely' - the son was "dead" to him.

Luke 15:24 (ESV)
For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.' And they began to celebrate.

Do you think the son left again after the party?

Nathan said:

Um, the relationship was not intact. The Father considered his son dead. Not 'gone' for a bit, not 'displeased' with him, not 'sad' or 'lonely' - the son was "dead" to him.

Luke 15:24 (ESV)
For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.' And they began to celebrate.

Do you think the son left again after the party?

Click to expand...

hello Nathan, dirtfarmer here

Several things need to be considered before this parable can be used as a salvation parable.
Why did the son say in verse 21 ," I am no more worthy to be called thy son." Does this not speak of a previous relationship in which he was worthy to be called his son, but now feels as though he is no longer worthy?
Does the unsaved have the ability to use the Father's property as his own? Verse 12, " And the younger of them said to his father; Father give me the portion of goods that falleth to me." What "portion" does an unbeliever have that is coming to him except the lake of fire.
Is God Father to unbelievers? verse 12, "And the younger of them said to his father".
Did the prodigal have a yearn to be independent from the father? Does an unbeliever have desire to be independent of God's control, as did the prodigal?
A sense of self-ownership could not be kept while near the father, hence the going into a far country( the breaking of fellowship), but we notice in verse 18 the prodigal said: " I will arise and go to my father". This is before he left the "far country" before the father ever sees him coming. Is an unbeliever capable of calling God Father before being accepted by God?

Nathan said:

So everyone who dies is made righteous by that discipline?

Click to expand...

No, not everyone are legitimate sons.

Nathan said:

There is different types of punishment.

Click to expand...

Yes. Here are three different types of punishment that the Lord uses to discipline/train His sons that do not recognize His body properly during the Lord's supper:

Nathan said:

Death is not discipline or punishment for a believer.

Click to expand...

For a son that does not recognize the body of Christ during the Lord's Supper their death is BOTH punishment and discipline. See 1 Cor11:29-30. Where would any Scriptural support be found for your claim???

Nathan said:

Unless you love this world? I suppose with that mindset, a person might find death to be punishment.

Click to expand...

Unless you don't believe Paul wrote God breathed Scripture teaching us how to partake of the Lord's Supper (which goes against this site's SoF) then that person might now think death is not discipline.

A person like that might even be trained by becoming weak or sick from their neglect of recognizing the body during the Lord's supper and stop their neglect.

Or they might be trained by watching other brothers get sick or die.

But either way, after that person dies, he'll then recognize the body of the Lord (face-to-face), and he'll get trained.

chessman said:

No, not everyone are legitimate sons.

Hebrews 12:8 But if you are without discipline, in which all legitimate sons have become participants, then you are illegitimate and not sons. ​

Yes. Here are three different types of punishment that the Lord uses to discipline/train His sons that do not recognize His body properly during the Lord's supper:

1 Corinthians 11:29-30 For the one who eats and drinks, if he does not recognize the body, eats and drinks judgment against himself. Because of this, many are weak and sick among you, and quite a few have died. ​

For a son that does not recognize the body of Christ during the Lord's Supper their death is BOTH punishment and discipline. See 1 Cor11:29-30. Where would any Scriptural support be found for your claim???


Unless you don't believe Paul wrote God breathed Scripture teaching us how to partake of the Lord's Supper (which goes against this site's SoF) then that person might now think death is not be discipline.

A person like that might even be trained by becoming weak or sick from their neglect of recognizing the body during the Lord's supper and stop their neglect.

Or they might be trained by watching other brothers get sick or die.

But either way, after that person dies, he'll then recognize the body of the Lord (face-to-face), and he'll get trained.

Click to expand...

Do you believe in the Real Presence?
I see many taking Communion who shouldn't be for things I know for sure that are being done.
I never saw anyone get sick over this or die.
Have you?

dirtfarmer said:

hello Nathan, dirtfarmer here

Several things need to be considered before this parable can be used as a salvation parable.
Why did the son say in verse 21 ," I am no more worthy to be called thy son." Does this not speak of a previous relationship in which he was worthy to be called his son, but now feels as though he is no longer worthy?
Does the unsaved have the ability to use the Father's property as his own? Verse 12, " And the younger of them said to his father; Father give me the portion of goods that falleth to me." What "portion" does an unbeliever have that is coming to him except the lake of fire.
Is God Father to unbelievers? verse 12, "And the younger of them said to his father".
Did the prodigal have a yearn to be independent from the father? Does an unbeliever have desire to be independent of God's control, as did the prodigal?
A sense of self-ownership could not be kept while near the father, hence the going into a far country( the breaking of fellowship), but we notice in verse 18 the prodigal said: " I will arise and go to my father". This is before he left the "far country" before the father ever sees him coming. Is an unbeliever capable of calling God Father before being accepted by God?

Click to expand...

Hi Dirtfarmer,

I haven't been following along, but would like to say this:
As you know by now, I DO believe in the possibility of loss of salvation because the N.T. speaks to this repeatedly.

What portion does an unbeliever have?
The Son was Not an unbeliever when he asked for his inheritance.
I believe you're confirming this with verse 12.
So the Father gave the son what his inheritance was till that moment. There was to be no further inheritance after that.
God gives believers many good gifts and teaches them many good things WHILE they are sons.

THEN the son yearned to be independent, as you stated.
He LEFT the Father. If the Father had died while the son was away, he would have received NO FURTHER INHERITANCE.
He had already received all he was going to receive.
If a believer abandons God, he will not receive the promised salvation at the end of his life, because he must endure till the end.
Mathew 10:33
Mathew 24:13

The son did not only break fellowship, he was no longer consider a son except by name. A son that is one only by name is not truly a son.
If fellowship dies, the relationship dies. We like to say that we have a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with God. Do we or don't we?
A relationship must be maintained. If it is abandoned, the relationship dies.

Luke 15:21
The son HIMSELF realized he was no longer worthy to be called a son.

Luke 15:24
§The Father declares that the son was DEAD and has come to life AGAIN.
He was LOST and has been FOUND.

The word AGAIN means something changed from before.
The son was alive.
Then he was dead.
Then he was alive AGAIN, as in the beginning.

I don't see how anymore could get around this.

#1297 Like & agree! ..."that the son was DEAD and has come to life again" ...that's very interesting, Sister. I've never really caught that in that way before. Good catch.

Chessman, (or whoever), I have one quick question and then will derail this no more, lol.

Am I correct in my understanding that, in communion, it is the blood which we receive that cleanses us from sin...and the body (flesh of my flesh, bone of my bones...) that we receive which imparts healing to us?

(by His stripes (on His body) we are healed)

wondering said:

Do you believe in the Real Presence?

Click to expand...

Yes. We'd have to agree on a Biblical definition of 'Real Presence', of course. But I most certainly believe that the broken bread Jesus gives, IS His body and should be recognized as such. I do not believe bread given by anyone other than Jesus Himself is His body, however.


On a side note, I do not believe anyone other than The Father gives out His Presence (His body).

wondering said:

I see many taking Communion who shouldn't be for things I know for sure that are being done.

Click to expand...

It is not my position that sons must be sin free in order to receive His bread. In fact, I know it is not required because His disciples receive forgiveness of sins after eating His bread (not before).

Die, no. Get weak, yes.
I did not see Christ Jesus' body hang on the cross, but I believe it happened nonetheless.