The Five Points of Calvinism

[ivdavid]

Calvinism does one thing. It removes "FAITH" out of scriptures.
Then it gives the simple an excuse that whatever happens, it's not their fault. However it turns out, it was God's divine and Sovereign will.

Firstly, I'll simply state where I'm coming from, concerning this topic -
1. I hold the TULIP doctrines to be true.

2. I have never read any of Calvin's works till date, nor have been taught these doctrines by anyone.
After my conversion, I studied Scriptures on my own in a locked room and came to certain conclusions about the nature of God and man. I was unaware at that time that these went by the present common doctrinal names. When I then took to forums and articles on the net, i discovered that TULIP represented my independently inferred beliefs accurately.
This point is to avoid the following line of reasoning -
a) ivdavid believes TULIP is true.
b) TULIP is nowhere to be derived from Scriptures.
c) Therefore, ivdavid derived TULIP from elsewhere, mostly a calvinistic church or other calvinistic teachings.

I do acknowledge the logical possibility that perchance TULIP is False and that I could have misinterpreted Scriptures so miserably as to arrive at TULIP being true - but that still negates the faulty generalization that one can never arrive at these doctrines just by reading the Bible.

3. I identify myself as a Christian alone. If followers of Calvin are termed calvinists, then I do not know the man enough to be loyal to him or trusting of his knowledge/teachings. But if it's a grouping term to denote the set of beliefs one holds, then I'd convey the fact that I too happen to hold TULIP as true by stating concisely that I am a calvinist.
This point is to negate the argument that my position is cultist in nature and to instead clarify that both of us appeal to the same merits of Scripture, though one of us may have understood it wrongly.


As to the above quote, I find that my beliefs in TULIP have only led me to an utter dependence on God through the faith that it is claimed to "remove" - and I have not seen a logical scenario of how a blame game of convenient excuses could emerge out of what I believe. It is one thing for both of us to agree upon the observation and to differ upon the causes and methods - but it's quite another to not agree upon the observation itself.

After all, man is depraved, and can't make his own choices. Man is not much smarter than a monkey.

You'll have to show where Total Depravity states man cannot make his own choices.
I believe it states that the man in the flesh does make choices - which are inclined to the flesh (Rom 8:5) , and that the inclinations of the flesh are enmity with God and can Never be subject to His law(Rom 8:7) and therefore, man in the flesh can never please God(Rom 8:8) - which excludes the scenario of "man in the flesh" having faith which pleases God(Heb 11:6).
To which Paul renders the alternative as man having to be "in the spirit" to be obedient and pleasing to God, which is caused(John 3:6) and evidenced by the Holy Spirit dwelling within man(Rom 8:9).

I derive from the above quoted Scriptures the following -
1. That man in the flesh inevitably chooses to be continuously disobedient to God. (Total Depravity)
2. That man needs to be rebirthed in the spirit by the Holy Spirit to prevail over the flesh.

Where exactly do we differ in our beliefs over these?

 

[JLB]

You'll have to show where Total Depravity states man cannot make his own choices.
I believe it states that the man in the flesh does make choices - which are inclined to the flesh (Rom 8:5) , and that the inclinations of the flesh are enmity with God and can Never be subject to His law(Rom 8:7) and therefore, man in the flesh can never please God(Rom 8:8) - which excludes the scenario of "man in the flesh" having faith which pleases God(Heb 11:6).
To which Paul renders the alternative as man having to be "in the spirit" to be obedient and pleasing to God, which is caused(John 3:6) and evidenced by the Holy Spirit dwelling within man(Rom 8:9).

Hi,

Thanks for sharing your explanation of your beliefs, and how they align with TULIP.

I respect how you have come to be dependent upon God, and how you studied the scriptures to learn what you have.

I agree with much of what you are saying.

I would like to clarify some things you said and about TULIP/Calvinisn in general by discussion.

You stated that man in the flesh chooses to be continuously disobedient to God.

So in the flesh means before "being born again by the Spirit"?

How does a person with a free will, before being born again, choose to obey the Gospel and turn to God?


18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’ Acts 26:18

JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

I have many times.

with many scriptures, while easily refuting your misunderstanding of Romans 11:29
JLB

[Personal opinion about another member's posts. ToS 2.4. Please refer to the forum guidelines.]

 

[FreeGrace]

The scripture warns us of the deceitfulness of sin.
Those who practice, as a lifestyle, the gratifying of the sinful desires of the flesh, can become overcome by that sin.
Today, we call it addiction.
An addiction forms from a habit, a lifestyle choice to obey the sinful passions of the flesh, whereby these become our master that we obey.
James teaches us the pattern -
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
15 Then, when desire has conceived,it gives birth to sin;and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
James 1:14-15
When sin has time to grow and mature within the believer, who has become entangled again, it becomes full grown... and brings forth death.
This speaks of a sinful lifestyle that continues, as one who practices...
Look at what James says -
4 Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. James 4:4
We choose of our freewill to become God's enemy!
Then we become hardened...
12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;
13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
Hebrews 3:12-13
again
16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? Romans 6:16
and again
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21
These are just a few of the clear warnings in the Bible about sin, and the choices we make, to disobey the Holy Command of the Gospel to repent.
The Lord gives us time to repent, He is patient and kind and loving, longsuffering.
He loves us and will never stop loving us... never the less, these warning exist in the scriptures.
Yet, those that have been deceived into believing the lie, and even teach others, that it is impossible for us to lose our precious salvation...impossible to die and go to hell as a born again Christian, no matter what we do and how long we do it, because God is somehow obligated to save us no matter what.
And all the scriptures that warn us... well those don't mean we will lose our salvation...they say.
While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage. 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. 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. 2 Peter 2:19-21
it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness...
JLB

Yet, none of this SAYS that salvation can be lost. And since there has been NO EVIDENCE that Paul excluded eternal life from Rom 11:29, we know that there are no passages that teach that eternal life can be revoked.

 

[JLB]

What has been lacking from your responses is any evidence of misunderstanding on my part. In fact, they have all consistently proven that all misunderstanding has been on your part.

You've questioned my claim that eternal life, which is a gift of God was included in the gifts of God that are irrevocable. But you've failed to show any evidence that Paul had any other gift in min.

Your claims are not reasonable or rational. Paul wrote the book of Romans. He is the one who decide what he meant by the word 'gifts', since he defined that word several times. NONE of the things you've called as a gift is mentioned as a gift anywhere in Romans, resulting in NO evidence for your view.

Claims without any evidence are empty.

29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29


Is the phrase "eternal life" mentioned in this verse?


JLB

 

[ivdavid]

I would like to clarify some things you said and about TULIP/Calvinisn in general by discussion.

Sure. I cannot promise prompt replies though - kindly bear with me.

You stated that man in the flesh chooses to be continuously disobedient to God.
So in the flesh means before "being born again by the Spirit"?

Yes.

How does a person with a free will, before being born again, choose to obey the Gospel and turn to God?

Without getting derailed by semantics, let me simply state that "free will" seems too ambiguous a term for me to be comfortable with in the context of the unregenerate man. When I read about the abilities(or rather inabilities) of the flesh, they seem far too limiting and constrained to be really Free - Ref: nothing good dwells in the flesh(Rom 7:18), never can be obedient(Rom 8:7), sold under sin(Rom 7:14), profits nothing(John 6:63) and thereby merits no glory(1 Cor 1:29).

I'd say that man in the flesh has a "will", which isn't really free until he can also start choosing to do good in the spirit - which is the whole point of regeneration... To give him a new heart instead of the stony heart of rebellion (Eze 36:26)

As to your above question then, it becomes a loaded question as per my worldview - I do not believe man in the flesh ever wills to obey the Gospel. In fact, he consciously and consistently chooses to disobey it in rebellion against God until he does get regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit, at which point, he then is able to choose to obey the Gospel and turn to God.

 

[Deborah13]

Despite you think you believe in Free Will, You believe God knows the end from the Beginning.

I believe God is omniscient. How does that have anything to do with Calvinism? That is not just a Calvinist doctrine but rather a universal Christian doctrine, I believe.
1Jn 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

 

[JLB]

Without getting derailed by semantics, let me simply state that "free will" seems too ambiguous a term for me to be comfortable with in the context of the unregenerate man.

I can certainly see why.

Free will = A man being free to choose.

If a man is unregenerate and apart from God, then it would stand to reason that his will would be disconnected from the will of God as well.

If this is true, then man must be influenced to change his will, his mind, his lifestyle because man has a will free from God.

However, man is said to be in bondage and even in captivity as a slave to do the will of Satan, being under Satan's influence and power, having been taken captive to do his will. So in that regard, man in a depraved state, has a will that is in bondage to Satan, even though man may no longer want to serve Satan, having become disgusted at his own depraved condition.

The must come a power stinger than Satan's power to set man free from his depraved condition, that man's free will is powerless to achieve of itself.

The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation.

The Spirit of Grace being present to assist man and his will to be free from the power of Satan.

Man must exercise his ability to choose to turn to God from the power of Satan.

This is to repent.

To turn away from the dominion of darkness and be translated into the kingdom of God.

18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’ Acts 26:18

He has delivered us from the power ofdarkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son ofHis love,
Colossians 1:13


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Regarding the fifth petal of TULIP: Perseverance--aka, OSAS:

I've decided nothing. I HAVE accepted what he described as gifts:
1:11 is about spiritual gifts
5:15,16,17 is about justification
6:23 is about eternal life

It's interesting that your doctrine is all about context, yet in your list of gifts you skip right over the gifts Paul is referring to right in the context of his discourse about his people Israel that he started in chapter 9:

"3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh..." (Romans 9:3-5 NASB)

Of course, you're going to say that, legalistically, the word 'gifts' does not appear here. But you can tell us which of these things the Israelites earned the privilege of having that they would not be free gifts given to them from God. We know these are unmerited gifts given to the nation of Israel as part of their calling. And the reference to the 'temple service' in verse 4 is indeed called a gift in the law:

"19 "I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and to his sons from among the sons of Israel, to perform the service of the sons of Israel at the tent of meeting and to make atonement on behalf of the sons of Israel" (Numbers 8:19 NASB)

Stop! The Bible NEVER defines forgiveness as a gift. So your premise is a pretense.

Then perhaps you can explain how in your doctrine redemption (the forgiveness of sins--see below) is earned and not given as a free gift. The Bible describes redemption, the forgiveness of sins, as God's grace freely lavished on us:

"6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He lavished on us." (Ephesians 1:6 NASB)

If that isn't a gift what is? Yet, your doctrine wants to argue that God's grace in our redemption in the forgiveness of our sins is not a gift? Really?

Your doctrine can't ignore the plain Biblical fact that Paul's 'gifts' in Romans 11:29 NASB can't be all inclusive since we know from the Bible itself that in the kingdom there is forgiveness that is freely given, not earned (see context--Matthew 18:32 NASB) and which can then be taken away. So, your doctrine is making a big boo-boo by insisting that forgiveness is not a gift and therefore can't be included in God's gifts.

Where ever did Paul define "the ministerial gifts to Israel" as gifts? Your side is simply ignoring the OBVIOUS in order to maintain your view that salvation can be lost.

Where did he do that? As I've shared, he did that here...
"3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh..." (Romans 9:3-5 NASB)

Which one of these did Israel earn the privilege of having that they are not gifts given to Israel? And as I noted earlier in this post, the temple service is in fact called a gift in the law. The list above is right in the context of Romans 11, and yet, you, who insist on context, gloss right over these in considering these gifts as the ones that he's actually talking about in his discussion about Israel's gifts and calling.

Further, the PARABLE in Matt 18 isn't even connected to Romans. Paul never quoted or cited from it, so again, just another false claim. And parables aren't the standard for teaching doctrines.

Do you think it right to ignore that the forgiveness spoken about in the Bible was given free of charge (IOW, gifted to the person) and was then taken away because of contempt for that gift; and that Jesus said this is how it is in the kingdom and that the Father will treat us this way, too, if we act like the chap in the story? Of course it's not right to ignore it. But that is exactly what your doctrine does.

 

[ivdavid]

Any non-believer hearing these doctrines could say to himself. God has not chosen me to believe, 'U'. If He had I would believe. He hasn't regenerated me so I can have faith, He did not die for my sins, 'L', He hasn't called me with His irresistible message of grace, 'I', so therefore I can't live righteously, 'P'.

Yes, I agree that is how most would read it - but if these doctrines are indeed true, (and the IF is what we're debating), and if these doctrines themselves do not imply any of the above - then, should the truth be modified to a more palatable form just to avoid what is misinterpretation by the reader?

To say my unbelief is caused by God's not choosing me is to misinterpret cause and effect.
This is how I see it - A king commands all in his kingdom to obey his laws. A rebel group choose to transgress - they are jailed and sentenced to be executed. On the day of their execution, the king sovereignly chooses to have mercy upon half of them. When the execution of the other half is carried out, note, it is still accounted to their transgressing the laws - and not to the king not showing mercy. And the ones who were released did not get to live because of anything they did - but purely due to the king showing mercy. The king is at no fault for not showing mercy to the ones who did get condemned for their own willful transgressions. (Use this analogy in its limited specific application)

Now, the perishing of the unbeliever is not directly accounted to his unbelief itself - but rather the unbelief proves he hasn't any redemptive work done on him to atone for his evil deeds(John 3:18-19), leaving him to face righteous judgement for the entirety of his works alone. This unbeliever's condemnation is accounted to his evil deeds, and not to God not showing mercy.

That is just to address the misinterpretation. As to how to rightly interpret it - TULIP is always stressed as Passive truth and not Active truth - in that it describes reality in truth but does nothing to prescribe. We read the prescriptions into it while it doesn't permit any.

God did promise Rom 10:9. Any man who instead of willing to walk away from the Gospel, chooses to obey it, will be saved - Any which man/woman. The prescription is right there - Repent and believe. Since election is reserved to God's sovereign will alone, there is nothing to prescribe man over it. Now when we observe such a man obeying the prescriptive command to repent and believe - and we passively analyse what happened behind the scenes, that is when election makes sense.

Such a person's believing evidences him being part of the elect and this fact came to light only after he believed - there is simply no way for anyone to know who is or who isn't part of God's elect before you believe - so there are absolutely no prescriptive commands there. Just as one cannot say I am elect before he believes, so he cannot say that he is non-elect before he can most assuredly prove that he will never ever come to believe in God atoning his deeds during his lifetime.

I will get into more detail on this as well as address the other points of your post once we're done till here. Tell me if I need to elaborate over any part of what I've written above.

 

[FreeGrace]

Jesus said, 'he who hears my words'. He is pretty specific about who has passed from death to life. He said he who honours the Son honours the Father. John 5:22-23 So he who honours the Son has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

This is a misuse of Scripture, or at least a misquote. Jesus tells us many times who gets eternal life; those who believe. Actually, honoring the Son is a command for believers only. No one gets eternal life on the basis of honoring. Because there are no verses that say that.

So If God opens our ears to hear and to see, I would call it a gift.

Doesn't matter what either of us calls a gift. We're not the ones authorized to call anything a gift, other than what the Bible itself calls a gift. And Paul clearly defined what he meant by 'gift' in the book of Romans. In 1:11 he mentioned spiritual gifts. They are irrevocable. In 5:15,16,17 he described justification as a gift. It is irrevocable. In 6:23 he described eternal life as a gift. It is irrevocable. Why? Because Paul, who defined what he meant by 'gift' also wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable. Clear as can be.

When Paul says 'the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable' Ro. 11:29, he is referring to the Jews who will be saved. Ro. 11:4-5

This is not connected to reality. Here are the 2 verses being presented as evidence for your view:
4But what is the divine response to him? “I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.

Now, please direct my attention to WHERE the mention of any 'gift' is made in these 2 verses. Or anywhere else between Rom 6:23 and Rom 11:29 where Paul specifically describes what he calls a gift.

I will save you the time. There aren't any. He mentioned gifts in 3 chapters BEFORE he wrote 11:29. Those are what he meant by 'gift' in 11:29. Not what others IMAGINE what he meant.

We don't have to imagine anything. Paul was quite clear about what he meant by 'gift', since he mentioned the word in 3 chapters before 11:29.

 

[JLB]

This is a misuse of Scripture, or at least a misquote. Jesus tells us many times who gets eternal life; those who believe. Actually, honoring the Son is a command for believers only. No one gets eternal life on the basis of honoring. Because there are no verses that say that.

opinion. No scripture.

 

[JLB]

This is a misuse of Scripture, or at least a misquote. Jesus tells us many times who gets eternal life; those who believe. Actually, honoring the Son is a command for believers only. No one gets eternal life on the basis of honoring. Because there are no verses that say that.


Doesn't matter what either of us calls a gift. We're not the ones authorized to call anything a gift, other than what the Bible itself calls a gift. And Paul clearly defined what he meant by 'gift' in the book of Romans. In 1:11 he mentioned spiritual gifts. They are irrevocable. In 5:15,16,17 he described justification as a gift. It is irrevocable. In 6:23 he described eternal life as a gift. It is irrevocable. Why? Because Paul, who defined what he meant by 'gift' also wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable. Clear as can be.


This is not connected to reality. Here are the 2 verses being presented as evidence for your view:
4But what is the divine response to him? “I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.

Now, please direct my attention to WHERE the mention of any 'gift' is made in these 2 verses. Or anywhere else between Rom 6:23 and Rom 11:29 where Paul specifically describes what he calls a gift.

I will save you the time. There aren't any. He mentioned gifts in 3 chapters BEFORE he wrote 11:29. Those are what he meant by 'gift' in 11:29. Not what others IMAGINE what he meant.

We don't have to imagine anything. Paul was quite clear about what he meant by 'gift', since he mentioned the word in 3 chapters before 11:29.

29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29


Is the phrase "eternal life" mentioned in this verse?




JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29
Is the phrase "eternal life" mentioned in this verse?JLB

Please review ALL the places where Paul described and defined what he meant by 'gift' in Romans.
1:11 spiritual gifts
5:15,16,17 justification
6:23 eternal life

Now, please show where Paul excluded any one of these gifts from what he wrote in 11:29.

It can't be done. Proving that spiritual gifts, justification and eternal life are ALL irrevocable. Paul clearly defined what he meant by 'gift' before he penned 11:29. So we understand what 'gifts' he was referring to in 11:29, which included eternal life.

Your question was not only irrelevant but quite an attempt at distraction from the facts.

 

[FreeGrace]

Then perhaps you can explain how in your doctrine redemption (the forgiveness of sins--see below) is earned and not given as a free gift. The Bible describes redemption, the forgiveness of sins, as God's grace freely lavished on us:

"6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He lavished on us." (Ephesians 1:6 NASB)

If that isn't a gift what is? Yet, your doctrine wants to argue that God's grace in our redemption in the forgiveness of our sins is not a gift? Really?

The hole in your theory is the attempt to call something a 'gift' that the Bible NEVER calls or describes as a gift. Again, Paul as the author of Romans is the one who defines what he means when he uses a word; not anyone else.

And he very clearly defined what he meant by gift 3 times in Romans before he penned 11:29. So we know what he was referring to: spiritual gifts (1:11), justification (5:15,16,17) and eternal life (6:23).

What else did Paul define or describe as a gift BEFORE 11:29? Nothing.

I said this:
"Further, the PARABLE in Matt 18 isn't even connected to Romans. Paul never quoted or cited from it, so again, just another false claim. And parables aren't the standard for teaching doctrines."

Your doctrine can't ignore the plain Biblical fact that Paul's 'gifts' in Romans 11:29 NASB can't be all inclusive since we know from the Bible itself that in the kingdom there is forgiveness that is freely given, not earned (see context--Matthew 18:32 NASB) and which can then be taken away. So, your doctrine is making a big boo-boo by insisting that forgiveness is not a gift and therefore can't be included in God's gifts.

This is just another huge HOLE in your theory. Matt 18 has NOTHING to do with Rom 11:29. NEVER anywhere in Scripture is forgiveness called or described or defined as a gift. So your point isn't one.

Which one of these did Israel earn the privilege of having that they are not gifts given to Israel?

Please direct me to ANY place in Romans where Paul described any gift given to Israel? There aren't any. This is just an attempt to make up a definition of gifts to detract from the truth of what Paul was clearly saying; that eternal life, a gift of God, is irrevocable.

And as I noted earlier in this post, the temple service is in fact called a gift in the law.

Please show me where in Romans Paul called, described, or defined "temple service" as a gift in the law.

And you've violated the TOS here. Where is the verse where temple service is "in fact' called a gift? Whether it is or not makes NO DIFFERENCE. Paul NEVER defined it as a gift in Romans, but he DID call, describe and define eternal life as a gift. There is no excuse for denying that eternal life is irrevocable.

The list above is right in the context of Romans 11, and yet, you, who insist on context, gloss right over these in considering these gifts as the ones that he's actually talking about in his discussion about Israel's gifts and calling.

Please cite the actual verse that describes "temple service" as a gift in Romans 11, or anywhere between Rom 6:23 an Rom 11:29. Impossible.

Do you think it right to ignore that the forgiveness spoken about in the Bible was given free of charge (IOW, gifted to the person) and was then taken away because of contempt for that gift;

The fact that forgiveness is "given free of charge" doesn't permit one to claim it is a gift. Where does the Bible call forgiveness a gift? More specifically, where ever did Paul call forgiveness a gift?

We know exactly what Paul meant by gift in Romans because he told us what he meant. This is just ignoring the obvious because it doesn't fit one's agenda.

My only agenda is to know the truth. And Paul gave us the truth. God's gifts are irrevocable, and eternal life is a gift of God. Direct link.

and that Jesus said this is how it is in the kingdom and that the Father will treat us this way, too, if we act like the chap in the story? Of course it's not right to ignore it. But that is exactly what your doctrine does.

My doctrine accepts the clarity of Scripture: God's gifts are irrevocable per Rom 11:29, and eternal life is a gift of God per Rom 6:23.

It must take great effort to ignore this.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The hole in your theory is the attempt to call something a 'gift' that the Bible NEVER calls or describes as a gift.

Come on. I did just that. I showed you where the Bible describes many things, including redemption the forgiveness of sins (which you say is not a gift), as being freely given, gracious gifts. Take any one of them and show us how they are earned, not given as free gifts, okay?

Start here: What is it about redemption the forgiveness of sins that doesn't qualify as a free gift? If it's not a free gift, how do we earn redemption the forgiveness of sins? Answer that, then you'll have an argument.

"6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He lavished on us." (Ephesians 1:6 NASB)

 

[JLB]

Please review ALL the places where Paul described and defined what he meant by 'gift' in Romans.
1:11 spiritual gifts
5:15,16,17 justification
6:23 eternal life

Now, please show where Paul excluded any one of these gifts from what he wrote in 11:29.

It can't be done. Proving that spiritual gifts, justification and eternal life are ALL irrevocable. Paul clearly defined what he meant by 'gift' before he penned 11:29. So we understand what 'gifts' he was referring to in 11:29, which included eternal life.

Your question was not only irrelevant but quite an attempt at distraction from the facts.

29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29


Is the phrase "eternal life" mentioned in this verse?

JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"This is a misuse of Scripture, or at least a misquote. Jesus tells us many times who gets eternal life; those who believe. Actually, honoring the Son is a command for believers only. No one gets eternal life on the basis of honoring. Because there are no verses that say that."

opinion. No scripture.

Where is the Scripture that SAYS that one is given eternal life on the basis of honoring? Please share. If there isn't any, then it is only an opinion to make such a claim.

Scripture is quite clear about how eternal life is obtained; by believing in Jesus Christ.
John 3:15-16
15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

John 5:24 "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 6:40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

John 6:47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord

1 Tim 1:16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

Gal 3:22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

I'm unaware of any verse that tells us that one obtains eternal life from honoring. Please advise.

 

[FreeGrace]

29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29

Is the phrase "eternal life" mentioned in this verse?JLB

This is a repeat of post #644. And has been answered.

Please show me anywhere in Romans where Paul called, described or defined "temple service" as a gift before he penned Rom 11:29.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"The hole in your theory is the attempt to call something a 'gift' that the Bible NEVER calls or describes as a gift."

Come on. I did just that. I showed you where the Bible describes many things, including redemption the forgiveness of sins (which you say is not a gift), as being freely given, gracious gifts.

Amazing. Please back up the claim that forgiveness is called a gift within the context of the letter to the Romans.

It doesn't matter where else gifts are described. Only in Romans do we have context.

Take any one of them and show us how they are earned, not given as free gifts, okay?

Please show me anywhere forgiveness is called a gift, not that it matters to the context of Romans.

Start here: What is it about redemption the forgiveness of sins that doesn't qualify as a free gift? If it's not a free gift, how do we earn redemption the forgiveness of sins? Answer that, then you'll have an argument.

The hole in this theory is that forgiveness is NEVER called, described or defined as a gift. And, even if it were somewhere in the Bible (which it isn't), Paul never did in Romans. So there is NO context for forgiveness as being a gift.

"6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He lavished on us." (Ephesians 1:6 NASB)

Nope. No mention of 'gift'. And anyway, since Paul wasn't quoting from Ephesians, there is no context for anything in Ephesians to Romans.

Paul told us what he meant by gift in Romans:
1:11 spiritual gifts
5:15,16,17 justification
6:23 eternal life

These are the gifts that Paul MEANT when he penned 11:29. No one has been able to prove otherwise.

The context for gifts in Rom 11:29 is found ONLY in Romans. Not Matt, not Ephesians, not anywhere else.