Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Faith without works........is Faith.
- Thread starter Kidron
- Start date
What it really means is God was not forced or compelled by the law to make us his sons. He made us his sons because he loved us. 1 John 4:19 The gift he gave us was not earned by works. But now that we have it, we have to hold on to it. 2 Thess. 2:15 Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. John 14:15 and, 'He who does not love me does not keep my words' John 14:24
I said this:
"This is totally untrue. I never ever said anything about "categorically and w/o exception" regarding God's gifts.
So I NEVER said, implied or suggested anything about "all gifts ever noted in Scripture", as you've insinuated. The charge is false."
No one has been able to show that Paul meant anything else by 'gift' in 11:29.
"This is totally untrue. I never ever said anything about "categorically and w/o exception" regarding God's gifts.
So I NEVER said, implied or suggested anything about "all gifts ever noted in Scripture", as you've insinuated. The charge is false."
My point has always been this: Paul defined what he meant by 'gift' when he penned 11:29. He defined spiritual gifts in 1:11, justification in 3:24 and Rom 5 and eternal life in 6:23. It is ALL THESE that he meant when he penne 11:29.
No one has been able to show that Paul meant anything else by 'gift' in 11:29.
I don't see forgiveness being described or defined as a gift here.
Interesting. The phrase "by definition" should be applied to what Paul defined as gift in his letter to the Romans. He defined gift very clearly in 1:11 as spiritual gifts. These are irrevocable. In 3:24 and Rom 5 justification as a gift, which is irrevocable. And 6:23 where eternal life is defined as a gift of God. Which is also irrevocable.
Paul defined what he meant by gift. Those are irrevocable.
Except Paul didn't define anything here as a gift. So there is no contextual reason to think he meant anything here as a gift of God that is irrevocable. he alreay defined gift as noted.
Where did Paul define them as gifts? There is no contextual reason to call them gifts since Paul didn't.
I don't understand your question. We are saved by grace. Not by any behavior. Therefore, we are kept by that same grace. We can't lose our salvation by any behavior. And, Paul defined what he meant by gift before he penned that God's gifts are irrevocable. So eternal life, one of the gifts define by Paul in 6:23, is irrevocable. Undeniable.
And…once faith, we are saved. We are given eternal life, a gift of God. And that gift is irrevocable because the Bible says so.
The Greek single word for "hold firmly" means to possess. We are save if we possess the gospel. Those who have believed receive eternal life. Agreed? Once possessed, eternal life is irrevocable. So says the Bible.
No, that's not it at all. I insist that Paul himself defined what he meant by 'gift' when he penned 11:29 about God's gifts being irrevocable.
1:11 spiritual gifts. These are irrevocable.
3:24, 5:15,16,17 justification. This is irrevocable.
6:23 eternal life. This is irrevocable.
These gifts of God are irrevocable.
Paul NEVER defined forgiveness as a gift, so there is no contextual reason to assume he meant to exclude eternal life from 11:29.
Rom 3:24 is quite clear; it is justification that is the gift. And justification is irrevocable.
Do you have a scripture that says we have a new nature?
Do you have a scripture that shows we have a new nature that is not divine?
Please post the scriptures that show we have a "new nature".
JLB
No one from the OSAS camp has ever presented a scripture to prove the doctrine of OSAS is true.
Romans 11:29 does not contain the phrase "eternal life", so is certainly disqualified as being a valid OSAS scripture.
It does show that God has not cast away His people He foreknew, but rather still calls them to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
His calling and grace towards them to respond to the Gospel us still available to them and will always be available to them.
That is the context and meaning of Romans 11:29.
JLB
Jethro Bodine
Member
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace..." (Ephesians 1:7 NASB)
What it is about our redemption, the forgiveness of our trespasses, being according to the riches of God's grace (not our works) that you don't understand?
What did you do to earn God's redemption/forgiveness? If you didn't do anything to earn it how is it that your redemption/forgiveness is not then a gift graciously given to you by God? You'll have to answer these questions before anybody takes your claim that forgiveness/redemption is not a gift, nor described as a gift in the Bible (I just showed you, again, that it is).
Why do you claim these passages define the gifts Paul is talking about in Romans 11:29 NASB, but then turn right around and insist that the redemption he speaks of in Romans 3:23 NASB, described for us as the gracious gift of God's forgiveness in Colossians 1:14 NASB, and Ephesians 1:7 NASB, is NOT a gift? You're contradicting yourself. You'll have to clear up this blatant contradiction in your doctrine before we can begin to take you seriously.
Prove it by explaining how the Israelites earned these things so that they were not unmerited free callings and gifts given to them by God. That's what you have to do to prove these are not gifts listed in Romans 9:3-5 NASB.
And as far as context goes, these are the gifts that actually are in the context of his discourse on Israel that begins in Romans 9. But for some reason your doctrine just conveniently skips right over them.
Like I say, all you have to do is explain how they are NOT callings and gifts of Israel. That's all you have to do.
This question insinuates that believers don't have a new nature. Paul refers to our sinful nature as the "flesh". Agree? And the Bible says that we are born again, regenerated. Agree? So, what does that mean, if anything?
No. And no one has a verse that says that we have a divine nature. So what is the point?
Specifically, 2 Cor 5:17 should suffice:
Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
Maybe I'm just real slow. If being a "new creature" doesn't mean having a new nature, then please advise on what that phrase refers to. Thanks.
Also, Paul described the struggle between his sinful nature (the one we are born with) with his new nature in Romans 6 and 7. And he got real specific about the struggle in Gal 5:17 - For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit,and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.
The Holy Spirit resides in us. Agreed? So, where would one suppose the Spirit resides specifically? Why would anyone think He resides in our sinful flesh? That doesn't make sense to me. What does make sense is that He would reside in the regenerated, reborn, new spirit. And the struggle is between flesh and spirit.
Please explain John 3:6, since it appears there is a strong disagreement with my view that regeneration involves a reborn human spirit:
"“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
So, What does "born of the (Holy) Spirit is spirit" mean, if not a human spirit?
Also, Matt 26:41 says: “Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
Please advise what Jesus meant if "spirit is willing" doesn't refer to a human spirit.
Paul defined eternal life as a gift of God in Rom 6:23 and the NEXT TIME he use the word gift was in 11:29 where he said that God's gifts are irrevocable.
Context proves that 11:29 is about 3 gifts specifically. Paul noted spiritual gifts in 1:11, justification as a gift in 3:24 and Rom 5, and eternal life as a gift in 6:23. These are the gifts that Paul was referring to in 11:29 that are irrevocable.
No one has proven that Paul meant any other supposed gift. Claims have been made, but no evidence that Paul had Matt 18 in mind, or any other supposed gift.
Context determines what words mean. And Paul defined what he meant by gift in 11:29. Neither of us has the right to make any claim about what Paul meant that doesn't include the 3 things he did note as gifts: spiritual gifts, justification, and eternal life.
Where is this EVER defined as a gift? Certainly not by Paul in Romans. [You were doing well until you got here. Violation of ToS 2.4]
OK. Doesn't demonstrate that eternal life isn't a gift of God that is irrevocable.
This is an opinion. The context for the wor 'gift' in 11:29 WAS determine by Paul in 1:11 (spiritual gifts), 3:24, 5:15,16,17 (justification) and 6:23 (eternal life). ONLY these 3 things can be the context for Paul's use of the word 'gift' in 11:29.
Again, no one has shown otherwise. Opinions do not prove anything. Paul defined what he meant by gift. No one has the right to try to change that by mere opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
I understand all of it. Why?
I believed in Jesus Christ for my salvation. Acts 10:43 proves it. "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."
I believed…therefore I received forgiveness.
The problem for your theory is that NO WHERE in the Bible is forgiveness is calle a gift. I'm still waiting for any verse that supports your theory.
And I have answere these questions. Where are the answers to my questions, about where forgiveness is defined as a gift in the Bible. That has never been answered.
Because they DO, that's why. Paul ALONE has the right to define what he means by the words he uses. And he did in those passages. That's what context is all about.
Col 1:14 says - in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. NASB I don't see the word 'gift' anywhere in this verse.
Eph 1:7 says - In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace. NASB I don't see the word 'gift' anywhere in this verse either.
Yet, your claim is that forgiveness is "described for us as the gracious gift of God's forgiveness" in both verses. That just isn't true. We do have forgiveness yes. But neither verse, NOR ANY OTHER verse says that forgiveness is a gift.
The proof for my view is found in the FACT that this passage does NOT define or describe anything in that passage as a gift. The word does NOT occur there. I've shown exactly where the word 'gift' does occur.
Nothing was skipped over. I've shown EACH AND EVERY VERSE THAT USED THE WORD GIFT before Paul noted that God's gifts are irrevocable. ONLY Paul has the right to define what he means by the words he uses. And he did in the passages I showed.
Jethro Bodine
Member
Why don't you get the gracious gift part of it?
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace..." (Ephesians 1:7 NASB)
Our forgiveness/redemption is not earned by us, and it is given to us according to God's grace, yet your doctrine insists it's not a gift?
I know all your doctrine is trying to do is avoid the trouble it gets into when it has to face up to it's own belief that the gift of forgiveness must be included in Romans 11:29 NASB. Which it can't do, though, because we see that the gift of forgiveness IS revocable in the kingdom in Matthew 18:23-35 NASB, so it's impossible that Paul is saying the gift of salvation/redemption is included in Romans 11:29 NASB. Your doctrine took a knee-jerk way to get out of this problem, but it only got itself deeper in trouble and made itself look ridiculous when it claimed that forgiveness is not a gift from God. (Address, doctrine, not people
).
Jethro Bodine
Member
No, I don't agree.
Those who believe have eternal life.
"24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24 NASB)
Examine this link and see for yourself that it is those who believe, not those who have believed that have eternal life: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=5&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1002024
If only OSAS would provide the verse that says that.
I see where the Bible says sanctified believers who turn away from trust in Christ's blood will come into judgment:
"29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." (Hebrews 10:29-30 NASB capitals in original)
I asked where the word "gift" is in that verse? So, where is it? I still don't see it.
When did Paul ever define forgiveness or redemption as a gift? He did, otoh, define justification and eternal life as gifts of God, BEFORE he said that God's gifts are irrevocable. Context refutes your theory.Our forgiveness/redemption is not earned by us, and it is given to us according to God's grace, yet your doctrine insists it's not a gift?
[QUTOE]I know all your doctrine is trying to do is avoid the trouble it gets into when it has to face up to it's own belief that the gift of forgiveness must be included in Romans 11:29 NASB. [/QUTOE]
This woul be true ONLY IF Paul had defined forgiveness as a gift. Oh, and btw, if Paul had done that, it would have refuted your theory that Matt 18 is about forgiveness in the kingdom. Because he SAID that God's gifts are irrevocable. So IF he had defined forgiveness as a gift in Romans, I would have added that to the gifts that are irrevocable.
Context directly supports my view of Paul's meaning and refutes your theory, as I've repeatedly demonstrated. The use of matt 18 as a way to reject eternal life being one of the gifts of God that are revocable has no contextual support whatsoever.Which it can't do, though, because we see that the gift of forgiveness IS revocable in the kingdom in Matthew 18:23-35 NASB, so it's impossible that Paul is saying the gift of salvation/redemption is included in Romans 11:29 NASB. Your doctrine took a knee-jerk way to get out of this problem, but it only got itself deeper in trouble and made itself look ridiculous when it claimed that forgiveness is not a gift from God. (Address, doctrine, not people
I've given all the evidence that supports my view. All that has been provided for your view is opinion without any contextual evidence for support.
I'll let tet each reader decide for themself who's view is supported from Scripture. There seems to be no more reason to continue this endless discussion. I've proven my view easily. All within the context of the letter to the Romans.
Your view denies the context of HOW Paul defined what he ALONE meant by the word 'gift' in Rom 11:29, which has been repeatedly denied.
[Let's not make this personal. Violation of ToS 2.4]
Last edited by a moderator:
Jethro Bodine
Member
Are you seriously trying to argue that grace is not a gift?
"7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace..." (Ephesians 1:7 NASB)" (Ephesians 1: NASB)