If you believe you can lose your salvation, you are not saved!(explanation)

[Drew]

Since eternal life (A) is (equals) a gift of God (B),
and,
the gifts of God (B) are irrevocable {C},
then,
A = C,
or eternal life is irrevocable.

The logic is solid and undebatable.

My understanding is that if a gift is "irrevocable" this only means that the giver cannot take it back, leaving open the possibility that the recipient can discard it. Do you disagree?

Also: You cannot put the burden of proof on me to prove Biblically that salvation can be discarded. Here is why that would not be fair: By your own words, you use the definition of what it means to be "irrevocable" as a pillar of your argument. You need to therefore prove that this pillar supports the argument. Yes, an irrevocable gift cannot be taken back by the giver - we agree on that . But for your argument to work, you need to make some sort of case that the recipient cannot discard this gift. You cannot demand that prove that salvation can be discarded - you made the argument, you need to defend it.

It's like you think it's up to others to prove you are wrong when, in fact, you need to prove you are right.

The pattern you use is like that used by person A in the following argument:

A: There is life on Mars;
B: Please support your claim;
A: No, you need to prove there is no life on Mars.

By the way, even if you can make the case that an "irrevocable" gift cannot be discarded by the recipient, I think your position is vulnerable to a range of other counterarguments.

 

[smaller]

The Words of God in Christ Himself can be set before "believers" eyes, and they still won't accept it:

John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Did you really hear and believe the above?

Maybe not?

That statement of fact is the essence of the Gospel. That is what I heard, when I believed. Some even slur this statement of fact from Jesus as "easy believeism." Obviously they didn't hear it themselves.

 

[Drew]

You apparently didnt read the part of the verse that gave the context of Noah's salvation.
"he became heir of the righteousness which is according to FAITH".
FAITH.
FAITH.

NOT building an ark.
it does not say...."became heir of the righteousness which is according to JAMES, or HEBREWS, or WORKS", as you keep trying to rewrite the Gospel.

While I have asked you the following question twice - once in the present thread and once in another thread - I do not believe you have ever answered it. Here it is again:

What do you think Paul meant when he dictated these very words?:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [Romans 2:6-7, NIV}

People often "answer" by arguing that in other places in the Bible, Paul says the opposite.

Well, if this is the line you will take, you still need to explain why Paul would write something here in Romans 2 that he knows to be false.

 

[smaller]

It's not going to be helpful, but every last one of you who believe a believer can be damned to eternal hell should state on "what basis" that claim is made.

For example:
-sin,
-unbelief (yeah, unbelief in WHAT?)
-Not exercising ordinances or dogma's
-Lack of works (please stipulate what kind of works and how many)

Exactly what is it that you would potentially damn another believer for?

 

[smaller]

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [Romans 2:6-7, NIV}

People often "answer" by arguing that in other places in the Bible, Paul says the opposite.

Well, if this is the line you will take, you still need to explain why Paul would write something here in Romans 2 that he knows to be false.

Would you like to promote providing a cold cup of water salvation?

Matthew 10:42
And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

Is that going to be enough for you Drew? After all, it's a promise from Jesus. If such reward can not be lost, then the reward would seem rather secure.

 

[FreeGrace]

I do not believe you have countered my argument.

The issue is that one who argues from a total lack of any evidence really has no argument. Only assumption or speculation. That does not rise to the level of even an educated quess.

Here it is in painful detail. You tell me where the error in reasoning is:

Before we get to that, it would seem what is really painful is having an argument that isn't one. Without evidence from Scripture, one is left only with speculation.

1. I will, for the sake of this argument, concede that "salviation" is an irrevocable gift.
2. The word "irrevocable" describes the characteristic that the giver cannot "take the thing back". However the recipient can still discard the gift;
3. Therefore, one cannot conclude that salvation cannot be discarded by the recipient just because it is irrevocable.

Since there is no evidence for discarding the new birth, there is no argument. You've failed to prove your view. It is only an assumption, or worse yet, a speculation.

Please tell me where the error in this argument lies.

Yes. Glad to. There is NO EVIDENCE in it.

You keep insisting that I prove from the Bible that the gift of salvation can be discarded. Well, that is not a legitimate request precisely because it is in the very nature of the concept of "irrevocable gift", at least as that concept works in English, that the gift can be discarded.

Ther is no evidence for your view. Therefore, there is no reason to accept it.

Asking me to "prove" from the Bible that salvation as an irrevocable gift cannot be discarded is like asking me to prove, in a context of a news report saying "everyone on the plane died in the crash", that the pilot was killed. Well to say everyone was killed means that the pilot, too, was killed.

No, it's NOT at all like that. You've made a claim, yet without any evidence from the Bible to back it up. Therefore, your view is indefensible.

Back to the issue of salvation:

1. Irrevocable gifts, by the very definition of this concept, can be discarded;
2. Salvation is an irrevocable gift;
3. Therefore, since "salvation" has the properties of an irrevocable gift, it can be discarded, just like any irrevocable gift.

#1 is false on the face of it. We're not discussion mere objects that CAN be discarded, but the very nature of the new birth, which CANNOT be discarded. The very idea is preposterous.
#2 is correct.
#3 is only an assumption without any evidence. Even speculation.

Without evidence, there is no argument to defend.

 

[FreeGrace]

Your argument is defeated by your total lack of evidence from Scripture. Assumption does not create truth.

You've failed to show any assumption on my part. The claim that Rom 11:29 CANNOT refer to eternal life is only an assumption in order to deflect from the fact that Rom 6:23 is directly linked to 11:29.

It is your argument that totally lacks any evidence, and is based solely on assumption.

Between t:23 and 11:29 Paul doesn't mention anything about "gifts". That alone refutes your argument.

 

[dadof10]

They are supposed to if they want His blessings because that is what He promises. Jesus noted some who ceased to believe, so it is certainly possible. Lu 8:13


Nope. But it matter a great deal about eternity. Such believers will LOSE OUT on all eternal blessings and reward. And those who believe in loss of salvation generally dismiss this as immaterial. Which it is not.

Then it is necessary to continue to believe in Christ to be saved, yet this continuing faith doesn't have to be obedient for it to continue to save. Salvation by disobedient faith.

 

[FreeGrace]

My understanding is that if a gift is "irrevocable" this only means that the giver cannot take it back, leaving open the possibility that the recipient can discard it. Do you disagree?

Of course I disagree. Because your "understanding" treats salvation/eternal life/justification as an object.

Yes, objects can be discarded. But you've failed to show from Scripture that the new birth can be discarded. To believe it can be is only an assumption or speculation, without ANY evidence to support it.

The holes in your argument are very large.

Also: You cannot put the burden of proof on me to prove Biblically that salvation can be discarded.

I absolutely CAN and HAVE done that. You've made the claim that salvation can be discarded. So prove it.

I claim it can't because Scripture NEVER indicates such a thing. In fact, the very idea of discarding one's new birth is preposterous.

Here is why that would not be fair: By your own words, you use the definition of what it means to be "irrevocable" as a pillar of your argument. You need to therefore prove that this pillar supports the argument. Yes, an irrevocable gift cannot be taken back by the giver - we agree on that . But for your argument to work, you need to make some sort of case that the recipient cannot discard this gift. You cannot demand that prove that salvation can be discarded - you made the argument, you need to defend it.

I think you've completely missed the point here. My argument is that salvation/eternal life/justification is NOT an object. Therefore, your argument falls flat. You've not proven that the new birth can be discarded. Such a notion has NO EVIDENCE from Scripture. It's just an opinion based on assumption.

It's like you think it's up to others to prove you are wrong when, in fact, you need to prove you are right.

Oh, no, you've again missed my point. It's up to the claimer to prove their own point, which you admit that you can't.

I've proven my point by claiming there is no evidence to support your view, which means that your view is based on assumption and speculation only.

To disprove my claim, one would have to show FROM SCRIPTURE that there IS evidence to support your claim, but you've already admitted that there isn't any. So by your own admission, you've defeated your own argument. Thanks.

The pattern you use is like that used by person A in the following argument:

A: There is life on Mars;
B: Please support your claim;
A: No, you need to prove there is no life on Mars.

By the way, even if you can make the case that an "irrevocable" gift cannot be discarded by the recipient, I think your position is vulnerable to a range of other counterarguments.

Oh, and what would those counterarguments be? lol

 

[FreeGrace]

The Words of God in Christ Himself can be set before "believers" eyes, and they still won't accept it:

John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Did you really hear and believe the above?

Maybe not?

That statement of fact is the essence of the Gospel. That is what I heard, when I believed. Some even slur this statement of fact from Jesus as "easy believeism." Obviously they didn't hear it themselves.

Or, they did hear it, but didn't have "open ears" and so rejected it.

 

[FreeGrace]

Then it is necessary to continue to believe in Christ to be saved, yet this continuing faith doesn't have to be obedient for it to continue to save. Salvation by disobedient faith.

Please show from Scripture that it is necessary to continue to believe in Christ to be saved. Paul used the aorist tense in his answer to the jailer who asked what he must do to be saved. The aorist tense is completed action, NOT continuous action. Please explain how Paul can be correct and your claim at the same time.

 

[Drew]

....Without evidence, there is no argument to defend.

We are at an impasse on this. You made argument, you need to defend it.

 

[Drew]

To disprove my claim, one would have to show FROM SCRIPTURE that there IS evidence to support your claim, but you've already admitted that there isn't any. So by your own admission, you've defeated your own argument. Thanks.

This is simply not correct.

When you claim that salvation is an irrevocable gift you are effectively saying "once you have it, it cannot be lost". Well, that's not really correct - an irrevocable gift can still be discarded after receipt by the recipient (since the "revocability" of a gift is about the taking back of the gift by the giver). Do you deny this? Please answer this question. I will keep asking this question until you answer it, so it will be less painful for us all if you answer it.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Ask yourself, is a gift free? Who pays for a gift the giver or the receiver? Who had to pay for our eternal life? How did it get paid? How many times do you have to receive eternal life as a free gift for it to last forever? If you believe you can lose your salvation, you will end up working and putting your effort into doing, or not doing that you think makes you lose your salvation, like committing big sins of adultery, or even worse. When you are done living your life, you die and you meet God, you are telling God he is in DEBT and owes it to you to save you from burning in hell, because of SOMETHING YOU DID here on earth to try to keep your salvation. Does the bible says God owes us anything? Is there a single promise in the bible for partial faith in Christ, and partially in your good works, or giving up sins to save you? The promise is for those who ONLY believe ON Jesus for salvation. Lets take a look at what Jesus is going to say to the best christians out there, who failed to trust ON Jesus olny, but relied in their good works to save them: Matthew 7:22 "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Notice, it doesn't say I used to know you and you lost your salvation because of a big sin, he NEVER knew you, that means you were never born again(saved) to begin with. Lets look at a verse where the bible clearly states the believer CAN KNOW he has everlasting life, which means he can be 100% sure he is saved, and on his way to heaven. 1 john 5:13 "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." If you don't believe you have eternal life this moment, and that you are saved forever, and must do something to keep your salvation, you are making God a liar, because he said we can know, I will throw a few more verses in to show that salvation is by faith only!
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. Ephesians 2:8,9 we are told, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Now, lets look at what God thinks of your self effort toward getting into heaven by your good works, or giving up sins!
Isaiah 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Amen llama.

 

[FreeGrace]

We are at an impasse on this. You made argument, you need to defend it.

Actually, we both did. My claim is that eternal life is an irrevocable gift. Your counterargument is that eternal life can be discarded.

I proved my claim from Scripture: Rom 6:23 with Rom 11:29.

You've admitted that there is no evidence from Scripture that one can discard their eternal life.

But yes, we are at an impasse.

 

[smaller]

Or, they did hear it, but didn't have "open ears" and so rejected it.

Obviously so. If we hear unmerited favor and the need of Divine Mercy, there is no discarding, except in a form of unbelief on those counts. I am perhaps more generous, and think they'll be saved anyway, because God in Christ measures us as we measure others. Since I desire salvation it is good for my own heart to see them in like manner.

Luke 6:37
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

I think Paul saw likewise, even though he may have disagreed with the basis of others proclaiming Jesus:

Philippians 1:18
What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

And I believe Paul saw it that way not based on the sufficiency of man, but of the sufficiency of Christ.

 

[Drew]

Amen llama.

I will ask you the same question I have asked Kidron:

What do you think Paul meant when he dictated these very words?:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [Romans 2:6-7, NIV}

People often "answer" by arguing that in other places in the Bible, Paul says the opposite.

Well, if this is the line you will take, you still need to explain why Paul would write something here in Romans 2 that he knows to be false.

 

[FreeGrace]

This is simply not correct.

When you claim that salvation is an irrevocable gift you are effectively saying "once you have it, it cannot be lost". Well, that's not really correct - an irrevocable gift can still be discarded after receipt by the recipient (since the "revocability" of a gift is about the taking back of the gift by the giver).

What is really not correct is the assumption that eternal life CAN BE discarded, since there is no evidence from Scripture for this, and you've even admitted to that.

Basically, your arguement is one without any evidence.

Do you deny this? Please answer this question.

Of course I deny your claim that the gift fo eternal life can be discarded. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE FROM SCRIPTURE to support this assumption, which you've admitted to.

I will keep asking this question until you answer it, so it will be less painful for us all if you answer it.

I'm not having any pain. I'm just stumped as to why one would think an argument without any evidence would be convincing to anyone.

btw, please note that I have just answered your question. There is no need to keep asking it.

 

[Douglas Summers]

I think you just proved Obadiah's point.

Rollo, Please take that silly hat off.

 

[dadof10]

I don't see it like that at all because Paul plainly said in Romans 4:11 that Abraham already had the righteousness of faith when he got circumcised in Genesis 17:24. Paul quoted Genesis 15:6 several verses earlier in Romans 4:3 to establish that truth.

So, he is not being re-justified here in Genesis 17:24--he's already been justified. His obedience is only a sign of the righteousness he got back in Genesis 15:6. Paul makes this exact point. He does not say Abraham was re-justified. He makes MY argument, that he is already justified, back in Genesis 15:6 (not Genesis 12:6) and that his obedience is simply the sign of that righteousness, not another instance of faith that re-justifies him:

"3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
9 For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised" (Romans 4:3,9-11 NASB capitals in original)

See? No process of justification. Just the outward showing of the one-time justification he already had and which Paul says he got in Genesis 15:6, not Genesis 12:4.

There is one more good reason to believe that Rom 4:18-22 refers to Gen. 17. It slipped by me in the KJV, but becomes clear in more modern versions like the NASB.

"In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, “SO SHALL YOUR DESCENDANTS BE.”" (Rom.4:18 NASB)

He is talking about something said by God in Gen. 15 in the past tense. He "hoped" that he might become "father of many nations" according to something that "had been spoken" before Gen. 17...Fascinating.