1 Peter 1:23 is about eternal security

[FreeGrace]

Yes, eternal life/salvation is not conditioned on your perfect performance. Eternal life is conditioned on faith.

What your position fails to grasp is that once faith, the believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit, described as a gift throughout Acts. And we all know what the Bible teaches about the gifts of God: they are irrevocable.

Therefore, those who have been sealed with the Holy Spirit are sealed FOR THE DAY OF REDEMPTION. That is eternal security.

And notice here, once again, even the hyper-grace OSAS crowd declares that believing is the ongoing condition for eternal life when they post scriptures that say that, but were posted by them to show eternal life/salvation is conditioned on nothing whatsoever:

Again we see the perjorative word "hyper-grace", clearly indicating that those who believe in loss of salvation think that God's grace in keeping His children is "too much grace". Way more than they would ever extend.

 

[chessman]

I am making the assumption that you know the meaning of the word "all."

I know what all means.
Do you know what brothers mean?
Do you know what first means?
Do you know what each group means?

There is no indication that the word "all" means "only believers."

There is every indication that the word "all" means all brothers, all who are in Christ. Christ being the first.

1 Corinthians 15:20, 23 (LEB) But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

But each in his own group: Christ the first fruits, then those who are Christ’s at his coming, ​

You were the one claiming 1 Cor 15 "proves" all the lost are raised immortal in Christ. It's your "proof-text" for a claim the Bible doesn't claim. It's not my position that the lost are brothers raised in Christ. They are another group. "All" of them.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"The point remains that our new nature is incorruptible. Explain that along side the view that salvation can be lost."

Actually, what you have to do is invent a way to make this not mean what it says:
"...beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." (2 Corinthians 7:1 NASB)

How does 2 Cor 7:1 relate to 1 Pet 1:23? It is your position that must explain how being born again (spiritual birth resulting in a new nature) with incorruptible seed can ultimately lead to corruption (lake of fire).

Paul said he himself is the example of the gifts and calling being irrevocable for Israel (Romans 11:1 NASB).

Except Paul never dfescribed any gifts for Israel anywhere in Romans. So your position simply fails to understand the proper context. Which would involve EVERY time Paul mentioned 'gifts of God'. So I'll help out:
1. spiritual gifts in 1:11
2. justification in 5:15,16,17
3. eternal life in 6:23.

Note that between 6:23 and 11:29 Paul NEVER used the word 'gift'.

That is the context that shows us Paul is not saying that you can not lose the gift of eternal life/ salvation once you have received it.

Except he never used the word 'gift' in relation to Israel anywhere in Romans or any where else in the Bible.

He's talking about God's rejection of Israel.

Yes he was. But context is context. Eternal life is a gift of God, and God's gifts are irrevocable. Therefore, eternal life is irrevocable.

 

[Jim Parker]

And we all know what the Bible teaches about the gifts of God: they are irrevocable.

A gift cannot cease to be a gift.
But the one to whom the gift is offered is not compelled to accept it or, have accepted it, to keep it.
And a better translation of the word ἀμεταμέλητα is "without repentance." God does not regret that He has given the gift.
What ἀμεταμέλητα does NOT mean is that the one to whom the gift is given cannot ever loose, discard, or reject the gift.
It simply does not say that.

Therefore,

Therefore nothing. Your conclusion is a non sequitur.

those who have been sealed with the Holy Spirit are sealed FOR THE DAY OF REDEMPTION. That is eternal security.

That one is sealed does not require that the seal be unbreakable.
That is NOT eternal security.
That is a statement of the goal of sealing with the Holy Spirit.

Heb 6:4-6 (RSV) For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

Having been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, be a partaker of the Holy Spirit, tasted the goodness of the word of God, tasted the powers of the age to come all describe the experience of someone who has been saved.

It is possible, according to that passage, for such a saved person to commit apostasy; to detach himself from salvation.

That passage is a specific refutation of the eternal security heresy.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"There is only 1 way for my logic (not syllogism) to fail. One would have to prove either:
1. eternal life is NOT a gift of God. Though Rom 6:23 says that it IS. Or,
2. the gifts of God are NOT irrevocable. Though Rom 11:29 says that they ARE."

...Or, 3. Paul is not talking about never being able to lose eternal life once you have it.

Where did he actually speak about losing eternal life?

Why are you conveniently leaving that out of the list of things that have to be proven in order to make your logic fail?

Thanks for noting what logic states. Which proves my point.

Since eternal life (A) is a gift of God (B), and since God's gifts (B) are irrevocable (C), then eternal life (A) is irrevocable (C).

This logic cannot be dislodged.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"The loss of salvation view is totally illogical since there are no verses that even make that claim."

"...if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:19 NASB bold and underline mine)

The interesting thing being, OSAS has to add to the words of the book of Revelation to make it so that if God takes away your part from the tree of life and the holy city you still have Christ's abundant eternal life. Which I find incredibly ironic because the very defense of the OSAS argument that 'you are still saved and have Christ's eternal life if God assigns you your place outside of the holy city' is exactly an example of what will cause a person to lose their eternal life. Pure irony.

What I said stands. There are no verses to that claim salvation or eternal life can be lost.

 

[FreeGrace]

6 In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, 8 whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,9 receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls.

Peter encourages us to continue in the faith, even while under persecution, so that:

• We who have been born again, will receive the salvation of our souls, at the end of our faith; not the beginning.
• We are kept by the power of God, through faith for salvation that will be revealed when Jesus Christ returns.

JLB

Let's look at 1:9 and the phrase "at the end of our faith". The word for "end" is telos:
NT:5056
telos (tel'-os); from a primary tello (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly, the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally, figuratively or indefinitely], result [immediate, ultimate or prophetic], purpose); specifically, an impost or levy (as paid):

We receive salvation immediately upon faith, or at the conclusion of the act of believing. NOT, as insinuated, at the end of our lives.

Jesus said the same thing in John 5:24 as to WHEN one receives eternal life: WHEN they believe. Not at the end of one's life.

 

[FreeGrace]

No such phrase, or language in the bible as "eternal security".

Certainly is not found in the writings of Peter.

20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.” 2 Peter 2:20-22
JLB

Feel free to show any verse that plainly warns that anyone can lose their salvation or eternal life.

 

[Jim Parker]

"There is only 1 way for my logic (not syllogism) to fail.

A syllogism is a diagram of logic.

 

[FreeGrace]

No such phrase, or language in the bible as "eternal security".

Interestingly, there is no such words as "loss of salvation" or "loss of eternal life". Yet, there ARE verses that teach eternal security quite clearly. We know that eternal life (A) is a gift of God (B), and God's gifts (B) are irrevocable (C),

Therefore, eternal life (A) is irrevocable (C). This is irrefutable logic.

Rejecting this logic is illogical.

Certainly is not found in the writings of Peter.

Then explain how one who has been born again by incorruptible seed can end up in the lake of fire.

 

[FreeGrace]

Just show us in the passage where it says that people who believe, but then don't believe, still have eternal life.

Why would such a statement be necessary when we ALREADY have 2 verses that teach that eternal life (A) is a gift of God (B) and that God's gifts (B) are irrevocable (C), leading to the irrefutable logic that A = C, or eternal life is irrevocable.

It is totally illogical to reject logic.

What I see is Paul saying the gifts and calling given to Israel have not been revoked even though God has rejected them. Paul himself being proof of that (Romans 11:1 NASB).

Then please show where in Romans Paul described anything as a gift to Israel.

Then, show where Paul specifically excluded the gift of either justification or eternal life from his statement that the gifts of God are irrevocable.

And, while you're at it, please explain why the prophet Samuel told King Saul that he would join Samuel the next day. The day that Saul died. If one can lose salvation. Certainly if salvation can be lost, Saul would be one of them. Because 1 Kings 10:14 says that God killed him for his unfaithfulness (lack of faith).

Awaiting your reply.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"The Bible says that we are born again of INCORRUPTIBLE SEED. That is our new nature from a spiritual birth. The point remains that our new nature is incorruptible."

YOur error is in that you have lifted a piece of what Peter wrote rather than considering the entire comment as if the verse numbers marked independent, unconnected thoughts.

There is no error. The verse is quite clear. We have been born again by incorruptible seed. So explain how being born by incorruptible seed can EVER lead to ending up in the lake of fire.

Peter's entire comment is:
1Pe 1:23-25 (RSV)You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord abides for ever." That word is the good news which was preached to you.

The imperishable seed, according to Peter, is the word of God.

By which we have been born again spiritually. So, please, explain how one who has been born again by IMPERISHABLE seed can PERISH in the lake of fire.

That passage says absolutely nothing about the eternal security heresy.

Correct. It doesn't say anything about heresy. It is about eternal security, which is not heresy, regardless of what anyone thinks.

You equated two things which were not equal; therefore, you syllogism is false.

Anyone can make any kind of claim they want. The issue is to back up claims with evidence.

If what I presented in my logic isn't equated, then prove it which hasn't been done.

To do that, one must prove EITHER:
1. eternal life is NOT a gift of God, or
2. God's gifts are NOT irrevocable.

So, go for it.

How did Israel get the Law? Did they work for it or was it given to them by God? It was given.(Deu 10:4)

Where does the Bible describe the Law as a gift? I rest my case.

How was Israel chosen? Did they compete in and win some epic competition or did God call them to be a kingdom of priests? God called them. (Ex 19:6)

Yes, this calling is irrevocable. But so are all of God's gifts.

Wrong again.
AS I already explained, in order for your syllogism to be correct, both of you "proof-texts" (A and B) would have to be talking about the same thing.

They are. Both verses are totally connected by "gifts of God". In 6:23 we have one of God's gifts, eternal life. In 11:29 we see that God's gifts are irrevocable. Therefore, eternal life, being a gift of God, is irrevocable. No one has shown otherwise.

In Ro 6:23 Paul does say eternal life is a gift.

Yes, he does.

In Ro 11 Paul is NOT talking about eternal life. He's talking about whether or not Israel has been rejected by God. (Ro 11:1)
Those two subjects are not the same. A does NOT equal B.

The error in on your side. Paul was talking about God's gifts in BOTH verses. Therefore, 11:29 is about all of God's gifts. The attempt to narrow it down to just what Israel got fails. And Paul never described anything Israel had as gifts.

I have not suggested otherwise. It is YOUR attempts at logic that are found to be deficient, not Paul's.

It was no "attempt". Rom 6:23 and 11:29 are directly connected by the fact that both are speaking about God's gifts. Or (B) in the logic equation.

The logic I have presented has not been refuted.

Eternal life IS a gift of God. Rom 6:23
God's gifts ARE irrevocable. Rom 11:29
Therefore, eternal life MOST DEFINITELY IS irrevocable.

 

[FreeGrace]

A gift cannot cease to be a gift.
But the one to whom the gift is offered is not compelled to accept it or, have accepted it, to keep it.
And a better translation of the word ἀμεταμέλητα is "without repentance." God does not regret that He has given the gift.
What ἀμεταμέλητα does NOT mean is that the one to whom the gift is given cannot ever loose, discard, or reject the gift.
It simply does not say that.

Wanna bet?
NT:278 ametameletos (am-et-am-el'-ay-tos); from NT:1 (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative of NT:3338; irrevocable:

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

That one is sealed does not require that the seal be unbreakable.

Let's not equate the sealing with the Holy Spirit to an inanimate object.

That is a statement of the goal of sealing with the Holy Spirit.

It's NOT a goal. It's a PROMISE. It's in the verse.

 

[FreeGrace]

A syllogism is a diagram of logic.

Fine. You've simply not shown how my syllogism of logic is flawed.

 

[Edward]

v.23 is rather clear: "being born again, not of coruptible seed, but of incorruptible". We are born again "by the word of God".

I think you've misread the verse.


I think the verse is quite clear about being about eternal security.

Our being born again is "of incorruptible seed". I have no idea how one could conclude that the "incorruptible seed" refers to the Word of God. The verse does say we are born again by the Word of God. But that's not "incorruptible seed".

Also, Peter clearly makes the comparison between "corruptible seed" with "incorruptible seed".

How is a person physically born? By sperm, or "seed". Which is corruptible.

How is a person spiritually born again? By the Holy Spirit. Which is incorruptible.

Therefore, this is another verse that teaches eternal security.

Exactly, Brother.

 

[chessman]

A syllogism is a diagram of logic.

Fine. You've simply not shown how my syllogism of logic is flawed.

Don't be misled.
A syllogism is NOT a diagram of logic.

A syllogism is a basic logical argument (taught the first day of logic 101) with a major premise and one (or more) minor premises and a conclusion that follows from these premises.

A logic diagram is, you guessed it, a diagram of logic. Can be in the form of a Venn diagram or Boolean Diagram.

Ironically the word, in English, comes transliterated from the Greek word syllogismos.

Example #1:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

You would have to refute either the major premise (all men are mortal) or the minor premise (Socrates is a man) in order to refute the logical conclusion.

Example #2:
All God's gifts are irrevocable (major premise)
Eternal Life is a gift of God (minor premise)
Therefore Eternal Life is irrevocable. (Conclusion)

 

[Jim Parker]

Why would such a statement be necessary when we ALREADY have 2 verses that teach that eternal life (A) is a gift of God (B) and that God's gifts (B) are irrevocable (C), leading to the irrefutable logic that A = C, or eternal life is irrevocable.

It is totally illogical to reject logic.

You have not presented logic.
You have merely lifted words out of context and tried to make them fit where they do not.
You have taken the word gift when it was used to refer specifically to the calling of Israel and attempted to give it a general meaning which applies to all gifts.
You have attempted to make dissimilar meanings equivalent.
You have also dismissed out of hand every passage of scripture which teaches that salvation can indeed be lost.

There is absolutely nothing logical about your position.
It is unscriptural.
It is heretical.
It is your darling.

 

[Jim Parker]

A syllogism is NOT a diagram of logic.

It is a verbal diagram.

A syllogism is a basic logical argument (taught the first day of logic 101) with a major premise and one (or more) minor premises and a conclusion that follows from these premises.

No kidding
What you fail to note is that both the major and minor premise must be (1) correct and (2) be talking about the same thing.
What has repeatedly been presented, and which neither you nor freegrace is able to understand, is a faulty syllogism in which the major and minor premises are NOT referring to the same thing.

You have also refused to acknowledge or been unable to understand the many passages posted multiple times which clearly teach that eternal life is NOT irrevocable. John 15:2 telly you that, if you do not produce fruit, God the Father will cut you off from Jesus in whom alone you have eternal life. That means you once had eternal life because you were "in Jesus" but no longer have it.

Since it is obvious that you are not an idiot who cannot understand such basic teaching in English, I can only assume that you are more dedicated to the "preservation of the saints" heresy than to the teaching of scripture.

 

[Jim Parker]

You've simply not shown how my syllogism of logic is flawed.

I can't show you what you refuse to see.

 

[Jim Parker]

NT:278 ametameletos (am-et-am-el'-ay-tos); from NT:1 (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative of NT:3338; irrevocable:

That is the "root word" grammatical fallacy.
The word as used is not bound to the meaning of the root word.
The root word is NOT "presumed definitive" for the word used in it's context.
For example: Our word "nice"comes from the Latin word "nescius" which means "ignorant."
So if the root word is "presumed definitive" of every usage then saying someone was nice would include the meaning that they were also ignorant.
I gave you Thayer's conclusion as to the meaning of ἀμεταμέλητα. It is not the same as the root word because Thayer has taken into consideration it's context and relationship to the rest of scripture.
And that the gift might be irrevocable does not require that the recipient of the gift keep it.