1 Peter 1:23 is about eternal security

[chessman]

the person who willfully leaves his faith and returns to his old life (Hebrews 10:26 NASB).

Context works both ways. Hebrews 10 is talking about, you guesses it, Hebrews potentially returning to daily/weekly/yearly sacrifices in disregard for Jesus' one sacrifice for all time. A situation that no Gentile Christian would ever be faced with.

(Revelation 22:19 NASB). And Jesus was lying, then, that believers in him can stumble so as to go to the fiery lake,

Rev 22:19 does not say believers in him can stumble "so as to go to the firey lake". You 'add' those words to the Text.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I said this:
"What you don't want to see is that eternal life is one of those irrevocable gifts of God."

Your response:
Jethro Bodine said: ↑
I'm not saying that.
​

If you think that eternal life is revocable, you sure are saying that.

You're not paying attention.
I said the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable in the context Paul says they are irrevocable, not according to how you say they are irrevocable.

The gifts and calling are revocable for the person who stops believing. They are not revocable in regard to what Paul is actually talking about in Romans 11 NASB. Big difference between what you're saying Romans 11:29 NASB means and what Paul says it means right in the passage itself in plain words.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Rev 22:19 does not say believers in him can stumble "so as to go to the firey lake". You 'add' those words to the Text.

Right. You did not read my post carefully enough. You quoted the reference from one sentence and added it to the next.
Matthew 18 (and Mark 9) is where Jesus said believers in him can be made to stumble so as to go to the fiery hell. Revelation 22 is where it says a person will have their part in the holy city and the tree of life taken away for changing the words of the Revelation prophecy.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Context works both ways. Hebrews 10 is talking about, you guesses it, Hebrews potentially returning to daily/weekly/yearly sacrifices in disregard for Jesus' one sacrifice for all time. A situation that no Gentile Christian would ever be faced with.

If a believing Christian abandons faith in Christ and relies on Sabbath keeping, and circumcision, for example, to be justified, then they make Christ of no use in their justification (Galatians 5:2 NASB). No justifying sacrifice remains for the person who willfully sins in such a manner (Hebrews 10:26 NASB).

You don't need temple worship to be guilty of trying to be justified by the law instead of by Christ. Ask the Galatians.

 

[chessman]

Matthew 18 (and Mark 9) is where Jesus said believers in him can be made to stumble so as to go to the fiery hell

No they don't.

You tag Scriptures that do not actually say the things you claim they do.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I've got it right. The application of Rom 11:29 applies to EVERY GIFT OF GOD. How could it not? Please advise.

No, you've got it wrong. You're not listening.
Every gift of God is irrevocable according to the way Paul says they are irrevocable, not according to how you say they are irrevocable. Paul doesn't even talk about your way in Romans 11.

[Getting too personal.]

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No they don't.

You tag Scriptures that do not actually say the things you claim they do.

Only blind people can't see it.
OSAS is a profound indoctrination gripping the Protestant church at this time in history. It blinds the eyes so people can't even see the plain words of scripture right under their noses:

"6but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
7“Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!

8“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. 9“If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell." (Matthew 18:6-9 NASB)

The real danger is in being willfully blind to what these plain words of scripture say.

 

[chessman]

Only blind people can't see it.

I'm not blind and I can't see the claim you made of this Text. It clearly says that it would be better for whoever is causing the stumbling (not the little one, the believers)... You twist the words in this passage then claim it says something it does not.

 

[dirtfarmer]

If a believing Christian abandons faith in Christ and relies on Sabbath keeping, and circumcision, for example, to be justified, then they make Christ of no use in their justification (Galatians 5:2 NASB). No justifying sacrifice remains for the person who willfully sins in such a manner (Hebrews 10:26 NASB).

You don't need temple worship to be guilty of trying to be justified by the law instead of by Christ. Ask the Galatians.

hello Jethro Bodine, dirtfarmer here

Romans 6:3 " Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?" Does this mean that we are dead in Christ?
Romans 6:4 " Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." What is the "newness of life"?
Romans 6:6 " Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." What is the "old man" that is crucified? Is the body of sin that is destroyed: Katargethe- abolished in its very essence, being and idea.
Romans 6:14 " For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."
Romans 6:22 " But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruits unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Who is it that has the power of resurrection? It is Jesus Christ. Does Satan have the power of resurrection? NO. If Satan doesn't have the power of resurrection, how is he going to restore the life, the old man, that was crucified in the unbeliever before salvation?

 

[gr8grace3]

Only blind people can't see it.
OSAS is a profound indoctrination gripping the Protestant church at this time in history. It blinds the eyes so people can't even see the plain words of scripture right under their noses:

"6but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
7“Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!

8“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. 9“If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell." (Matthew 18:6-9 NASB)

The real danger is in being willfully blind to what these plain words of scripture say.

Really? The Irony.

You wouldn't consider it a stumbling block to tell a little child, who the Father who has warmly welcomed into His fold,"But be careful, He Might send you into the deepest parts of hell because you can lose what He Gifted you. We can't really welcome you yet."

Matt 18:5~~Berean Study Bible
And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me.

Berean Literal Bible
And whoever shall receive one such little child in My name, receives Me.

New American Standard Bible
"And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me;

 

[chessman]

If a believing Christian abandons faith in Christ and relies on Sabbath keeping, and circumcision, for example, to be justified, then they make Christ of no use in their justification (Galatians 5:2 NASB).

Gal 5:2 doesn't say anything about believing Christians abandoning faith in Christ. You made that up too.

Just like Heb 10 does, Paul talks about believers (brothers, subject to stumbling) AND he talks about others (them causing the stumbling/confusion). In both passages it is those causing the stumbling/confusion who pay the penalty.

Galatians 5:10-11 (LEB) I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will think nothing different, but the one who is confusing you will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. Now, brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished.
​

Neither confusion nor stumblng mean de-salvation for brothers in Christ (thank God). Or for that matter even circumcision.

Those causing the stumbling, causing the confusion are not said to be brothers/believers in either passage. You are confused if you think they do.
Paul had confidence in the brothers not to be misled into thinking differently than what he said.

 

[smaller]

Only blind people can't see it.
The real danger is in being willfully blind to what these plain words of scripture say.

There is an endless list of things to be potentially eternally damned for, isn't there Jethro? Those who have this mindset are the ones who are already trapped by hell, James 3:6, and are also the ones casting stumbling block of hell unto other believers.

OSAS is a profound indoctrination gripping the Protestant church at this time in history. It blinds the eyes so people can't even see the plain words of scripture right under their noses:

Well, heaven forbid we'd actually love one another! That would never do! I really question the value of any "church" that can't do that, quite frankly. Wouldn't bother darkening their door cause it's already filled with potential damnation upon the BEARERS of same unto other believers. They sit, every ready to pounce on other believers, and even will devour one another, amongst themselves.

I'd submit to you that the only way to fulfill this:

John 15:12
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

Is to start by NOT condemning one another as believers to hell, in throwing that stumbling block of hell. If Jesus only loves us when we're not sinners, then He loves none of us.

To enter into life is to enter into His Love, and stay there, keep ourselves there.

From practical experience, in "exercising/reflecting" His Love, it is virtually impossible to love another believer while simultaneously harboring the threat of hell toward them. It's disingenuous and dishonest love, which is not love whatsoever.

If we want to practice our judgment skills about hell, scripture has given us more than ample opportunity to look upon ourselves and find ALL the dire judgments we'll ever need. We are wrapped in what is contrary to the Spirit and against the Spirit. Gal. 5:17. I might think we'd have our hands full, just with that, without worrying about other believers potential eternal damnation fates.

 

[smaller]

If a believing Christian abandons faith in Christ and relies on Sabbath keeping, and circumcision, for example, to be justified, then they make Christ of no use in their justification (Galatians 5:2 NASB). No justifying sacrifice remains for the person who willfully sins in such a manner (Hebrews 10:26 NASB).

Nobody stopped being a sinner after salvation Jethro. I pity such blindness. 1 John 1:8 says if we make such claims were not even in truth. Paul was the chief of sinners, AFTER salvation. 1 Tim. 1:15.

IF we look upon our own "internal adversity" we'll see how Paul made his quite factual conclusion for himself. Romans 7:7-13, Romans 7:17-21. Romans 7:23, Romans 7:25, 2 Cor. 12:7, Gal. 5:17 are all direct pointers that WE are supposed to understand about "our own" conditions of being sinners.

Oh, horrors, you mean God saves sinners?! Imagine that?!

You don't need temple worship to be guilty of trying to be justified by the law instead of by Christ. Ask the Galatians.

In decades of belief in Christ I've found every sort of formula put forth to not be sinners.

Guess what? None of them are true. All such formulas are phony religious lies.

 

[FreeGrace]

You're not paying attention.

I said this:
"What you don't want to see is that eternal life is one of those irrevocable gifts of God."

I said the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable in the context Paul says they are irrevocable, not according to how you say they are irrevocable.

So you've become the authority to tell everyone else what the context is? How does that work?

Context means anything and everything that relates to the specific verse at hand. Esp within the entire epistle. And Paul previously in that same epistle described 3 gifts that come from God:
spiritual gifts
justification
eternal life

Was Paul including these specific gifts when her penned 11:29, or excluding them? Why would anyone consciously exclude any of these 3 gifts from 11:29, unless there is an agenda-driven bias against what is so clear?

The gifts and calling are revocable for the person who stops believing.

One's opinions are useless unless that one quotes a verse that says what is being claimed.

They are not revocable in regard to what Paul is actually talking about in Romans 11 NASB.

What Paul is talking about in Romans 11:29 are THE GIFTS OF GOD. And he did NOT exclude any of God's gifts in that verse. Those who do have "taken away" from Scripture, which is a warning in Revelation.

Big difference between what you're saying Romans 11:29 NASB means and what Paul says it means right in the passage itself in plain words.

The plain words are these: the gifts and calling of God are irreovcable.

plain.as.day.

That means God's gifts are irrevocable. And that would include eternal life, a gift of God.

Because Paul specifically identified eternal life as a gift of God, before he penned 11:29, it is absurd to try to separate eternal life from the gifts of God that are irrevocable.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"I've got it right. The application of Rom 11:29 applies to EVERY GIFT OF GOD. How could it not? Please advise."

No, you've got it wrong. You're not listening.

I've listened to your claims and have not seen any evidence for your opinions.

There would have to be a verse IN Romans that plainly excludes the gift of eternal life from the gifts of God that are irrevocable.

Every gift of God is irrevocable according to the way Paul says they are irrevocable[/QUOTE]
So, "according to the way Paul SAYS they are irrevocable", huh. In what way is that, specifically? This keeps being repeated, but there is absolutely no evidence that Paul meant it to exclude eternal life. That is just in one's imagination.

Paul's statement is plain and clear; the gifts of God are irrevocable. There is no rational way to exclude eternal life from that statement.

not according to how you say they are irrevocable. Paul doesn't even talk about your way in Romans 11. [/QUOTE]
This isn't about "according to me". It's about what Paul plainly wrote.
6:23 eternal life is a gift of God
11:29 the gifts of God are irrevocable

If you actually understood the argument you'd see how foolishly misapplied and juvenile your 'A + B = C' logic is.

So it's "juvenile" huh? It's standard logic taught in colleges and universities.

What's truly juvenile is to try to exclude the gift of eternal life from Rom 11:29. There is no precedent for that.

You should be embarrassed that you've been so arrogantly parading your so-called knowledge not even realizing the huge mistake you've been making in not being able to see what Paul is actually talking about in regard to the gifts and calling of God being irrevocable.

lol. All embarrassment is on your position. Eternal life is a gift of God. God's gifts are irrevocable. The conclusion is extremely obvious.

Your position is the claim that there is something in Romans 11 that clearly excludes eternal life from 11:29. So, where did Paul mention eternal life in ch 11?

He sure isn't talking about a believer not believing anymore but still having Christ's eternal life.

It's just that your position doesn't like the conclusions from the FACT that eternal life is irrevocable.

Paul is explaining something entirely different and you simply can't see it.

Again, speaking of what can't be seen, your position parallels the Pharisees, who SAW the miracles of Jesus, yet rejected them. Your position has SEEN the truth: God's gifts are irrevocable and eternal life is a gift of God, yet have rejected that truth.

 

[FreeGrace]

Only blind people can't see it.

Jesus called the Pharisees blind.
John 9:39-41
39 Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."
40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?"
41 Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains. NIV

OSAS is a profound indoctrination gripping the Protestant church at this time in history.

No, it is a profound DOCTRINE of Scripture.

The gifts of God are irrevocable. Rom 11:29
Eternal life is a gift of God. Rom 6:23

It blinds the eyes so people can't even see the plain words of scripture right under their noses:

Such as:
The gifts of God are irrevocable. Rom 11:29
Eternal life is a gift of God. Rom 6:23

The blindness is with your position. Since God's gifts are irrevocable, and eternal life is a gift of God, it is UNDENIABLE to claim that eternal life is revocable.

The real danger is in being willfully blind to what these plain words of scripture say.

That is absolutely true. Unfortunately, it applies to your position.

The Pharisees had the very same problem. They SAW the miracles yet rejected them.

Your position has SEEN the truth yet rejected it.

 

[JLB]

Really? The Irony.

You wouldn't consider it a stumbling block to tell a little child, who the Father who has warmly welcomed into His fold,"But be careful, He Might send you into the deepest parts of hell because you can lose what He Gifted you. We can't really welcome you yet."

Unfortunately for logical fallacy, a little child must first grow up and know right from wrong, then choose to repent and believe the Gospel.


So, your fictitious "scenario" is not applicable.



JLB

 

[JLB]

Nobody stopped being a sinner after salvation Jethro. I pity such blindness. 1 John 1:8 says if we make such claims were not even in truth. Paul was the chief of sinners, AFTER salvation. 1 Tim. 1:15.

Those who repent and believe the Gospel are forgiven of their sins and are washed in the precious blood of Jesus, and are now called saints, not sinners.

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, Ephesians 2:19

and again

3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.
Ephesians 5:3-7

• Then after that, we are to walk in the light, as He is in the light.

But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. 1 John 1:7

What sins to you accuse someone of having in this condition of being cleansed from all sin?


If we should stumble and commit a sin, then we confess our sin, and are forgiven and cleansed of all unrighteousness.

9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

Why do you call someone who is cleansed from their sin, a "sinner", when the bible says their saint's?

Your doctrine continues to promote error.



JLB

 

[WIP]

The debate was over when I showed that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable and that eternal life is one of those gifts. Debate over.

Just curious. If this is true then why are there about a dozen locked threads on this topic in which behavior got out of hand and now this one is in its 9th page of argument repeating the same things over and over and over...?

 

[smaller]

Those who repent and believe the Gospel are forgiven of their sins and are washed in the precious blood of Jesus, and are now called saints, not sinners.

Perhaps in the minds of some, they are sinless, not sinners. Not what I would term accurate to scripture disclosures, such as in, oh, where do I even start? Romans 3:9, Romans 7:17-21, Romans 7:25, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 5:17, 1 Tim. 1:15, 1 John 1:8 just to name a handful.

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
Ephesians 2:19

and again

3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.
Ephesians 5:3-7

Show one scripture in the entirety of scripture that shows any person other than God Himself in the flesh as sinless and you'll have your point. There are none.

Jesus came precisely to save who? Sinners. I'd speculate that sinless believers don't really need a Savior do they? They can take their chances and stand on their own merits, can't they? Why would the sinless need Gods Mercy anyway? For what reason?

What sins to you accuse someone of having in this condition of being cleansed from all sin?

Jesus didn't make anyone sinless. No, not one.

If we should stumble and commit a sin, then we confess our sin, and are forgiven and cleansed of all unrighteousness.

There is no "IF" involved. We didn't stop being a sinner to start with nor are we ever, not even for a nano-second, sinless.

9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

Confessions never made anyone sinless either.

Why do you call someone who is cleansed from their sin, a "sinner", when the bible says their saint's?

Your doctrine continues to promote error.

Far be it from me to convince any "sinless one" that they are in fact a sinner, saved by faith in God through His Grace and Mercy, for which they are in not in need of either measure, other when they make the occasional "error."

That whole mindset is out there quite frankly, of being "sinless." There is no such standing available to anyone.