1 Peter 1:23 is about eternal security

[FreeGrace]

1 Peter 1:23-24
For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

Everyone agrees that when one believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, they are saved, given eternal life and have been born again.

Those who spouse loss of salvation have not been able to explain how one who has been born again can be UN-born for any reason.

I hope that at least one from the loss of salvation position will explain how 1 Peter 1:23 is not about eternal security.

What does "imperishable seed" refer to? It clearly refers to the status of being born again.

So, those who believe have been born again of imperishable seed.

Since imperishable seed cannot perish, how does that verse fit into the position of loss of salvation?

 

[Sinthesis]

1Pe 1:22 ¶ Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Pe 1:23 - Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1Pe 1:24 - For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
1Pe 1:25 - But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
​

The idea of incorruptible seed in this passage applies to the word of God. It is not about the eternal security of the individual believer, but the eternal nature of the gospel.

 

[chessman]

The idea of incorruptible seed in this passage applies to the word of God

I could have sworn the incorruptiple seed was not born again by Himself.

 

[FreeGrace]

1Pe 1:22 ¶ Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Pe 1:23 - Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1Pe 1:24 - For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
1Pe 1:25 - But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
​

The idea of incorruptible seed in this passage applies to the word of God.

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.

It is not about the eternal security of the individual believer, but the eternal nature of the gospel.

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.

 

[Jim Parker]

1 Peter 1:23-24
For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

In that verse, the seed is defined as imperishable not the person who was born again.
It is the word of God that is living and enduring not the person who hears it.

Everyone agrees that when one believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, they are saved, given eternal life and have been born again.

I believe that is correct.

Those who spouse loss of salvation have not been able to explain how one who has been born again can be UN-born for any reason.

That's "Espouse", not "spouse."
It is not that we have not been able to explain but, rather, that you have been unable or unwilling to understand.
You (generic plural) have generally been unwilling to honestly consider the many passages which clearly refute the heresy; "eternal security." The standard "exegesis" of any passage refuting the eternal security heresy has amounted to nothing more than the belief that God didn't really mean what he said.

What does "imperishable seed" refer to? It clearly refers to the status of being born again.

Not if you have a decent grasp of English grammar.
Peter didn't say the believer was imperishable, he said the seed was imperishable.
You are not a seed.

Since imperishable seed cannot perish, how does that verse fit into the position of loss of salvation?

By believers not being seeds.

 

[FreeGrace]

In that verse, the seed is defined as imperishable not the person who was born again.
It is the word of God that is living and enduring not the person who hears it.

The verse is quite clear. It says we are born again of incorruptible seed. And Peter contrasted the seed we have been born again by with the corruptible seed by which we have been physically born.

I said this:
"Those who espouse loss of salvation have not been able to explain how one who has been born again can be UN-born for any reason."

It is not that we have not been able to explain but, rather, that you have been unable or unwilling to understand.

Well, try to be as direct, clear, and as straightforward as possible. I'm listening.

You (generic plural) have generally been unwilling to honestly consider the many passages which clearly refute the heresy; "eternal security."

Because, quite simply, "you" (generic plural) have been TOTALLY unwilling to honestly consider that eternal life, which is a gift of God, is irrevocable.

The standard "exegesis" of any passage refuting the eternal security heresy has amounted to nothing more than the belief that God didn't really mean what he said.

Hardly. And every passage that has been presented as teaching loss of salvation CAN BE and HAS BEEN shown to teach something else.

I would think the FACT that there are zero verses that plainly state that salvation can be lost would be a problem for "you" (generic plural).

Peter didn't say the believer was imperishable, he said the seed was imperishable.

Was your own physical birth from a seed or something else?

You are not a seed.

Was your own physical birth from a seed or something else?

By believers not being seeds.

Let's consider what Scripture says about seed and seeds.

Gal 3:16
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ

I rest my case.

 

[Jim Parker]

The verse is quite clear. It says we are born again of incorruptible seed. And Peter contrasted the seed we have been born again by with the corruptible seed by which we have been physically born.

If it were granted that the "seed" refers to the body rather than to the word,(with which I do not agree based on basic English grammar) in each case, corruptible and incorruptible, the reference would be to the physical body which, when Christ returns, will be raised immortal and incorruptible. (1 Cor 15:52-53) Some will enter into eternal life and some will go to hell, (Mat 25:46) each with his immortal and incorruptible body.

Well, try to be as direct, clear, and as straightforward as possible. I'm listening.

That will require that you acquire a thorough understanding of the meaning and application of the English word, "if." Every time I have posted the scripture which contain that word, the meaning and application had been totally ignored.(It became very frustrating and I don't care to repeat it if it's going to be a useless exercise. )
But i'll have a go at it once more just for grins and giggles. See next post.

Because, quite simply, "you" (generic plural) have been TOTALLY unwilling to honestly consider that eternal life, which is a gift of God, is irrevocable.

We have honestly considered it and found the concept to be refuted by the scriptures which you repeatedly dismiss as not saying exactly what they do, in fact, say.

To my comment "Peter didn't say the believer was imperishable, he said the seed was imperishable." you responded:
"Was your own physical birth from a seed or something else?"
And that completely misses the point.
"Birth" and "seed" are two entirely different things which you are trying to make into identical things.
In addition, being "born again", according to scripture, does not require the interpretation that it includes the heretical* teaching of Calvin et al that salvation cannot be lost, discarded, or taken away.

* Synod of Jerusalem, 1672

 

[Jim Parker]

Definition of the word “if” per http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
a : in the event that
b : allowing that
c : on the assumption that
d : on condition that

The word “if” introduces a potential outcome based on a condition.

Ex: “If (in the event that, allowing that, on the assumption that, on condition that) you eat that mushroom (the condition) you may die. (the potential outcome)

Ex. “if (in the event that, allowing that, on the assumption that, on condition that) any one's name was not found written in the book of life, (the condition) he was thrown in the lake of fire. (the potential outcome) (Rev 20:15 RSV)

Ex: if (in the event that, allowing that, on the assumption that, on condition that) Christ has not been raised, (the condition) then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. (the potential outcome) (1 Cor 15:14 RSV)

It logically follows that the failure to meet the condition will result in the potential outcome not coming to pass. So, with reference to the first example, if you do NOT eat the mushroom you will NOT die from the effects of eating it.

COL 1:21-23 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight —IF YOU CONTINUE IN YOUR FAITH, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.

The outcome of being “reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight” is contingent upon the condition that “YOU CONTINUE IN YOUR FAITH, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.”

It follows logically that is one does NOT “YOU CONTINUE IN YOUR FAITH, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel” (fails to meet the condition) then the potential outcome of of being “reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight” will not become a reality.

HEB 3:14 We have come to share in Christ IF WE HOLD FIRMLY TILL THE END THE CONFIDENCE WE HAD AT FIRST.

The logically inferred opposite outcome of the opposite condition: If we DO NOT hold firmly then we HAVE NOT come to share in Christ.

2 PE 1:5-10 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For IF YOU DO THESE THINGS, YOU WILL NEVER FALL,

The logically inferred opposite outcome of the opposite condition: If you DO NOT DO these things the possibility of falling is a reality.

EZE 18:24 "But IF a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, HE WILL DIE.”

In this case, both the positive and negative conditions and potential outcomes are stated.

So, based on this sample of verses, (among others not posted here) I conclude that 1 Peter 1:23 does not confirm the heretical teaching of eternal security simply because it is impossible to confirm an alleged "Biblical teaching" that the Bible does not teach.

mazel tov

iakov the fool

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"Gal 3:16
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ"

If it were granted that the "seed" refers to the body rather than to the word,(with which I do not agree based on basic English grammar) in each case, corruptible and incorruptible, the reference would be to the physical body which, when Christ returns, will be raised immortal and incorruptible.

Then please explain why Paul wrote "and to your seed, meaning ONE PERSON, who is Christ".

Regarding the fact that Paul taught in Romans that eternal life, a gift of God, is irrevocable. To which you replied:
"We have honestly considered it and found the concept to be refuted by the scriptures which you repeatedly dismiss as not saying exactly what they do, in fact, say."

The logic is irrefutable. If A = B, and if B = C, then A = C.

If eternal life is a gift of God, which it described that way in Rom 6:23, and
if the gifts of God are irrevocable, which the Bible plainly says in Rom 11:29,
THEN eternal life (A) is irrevocable (C). Irrefutable.

To my comment "Peter didn't say the believer was imperishable, he said the seed was imperishable." you responded:
"Was your own physical birth from a seed or something else?"
And that completely misses the point.

No, it is exactly THE POINT.

"Birth" and "seed" are two entirely different things which you are trying to make into identical things.

How ridiculous!! I ever even mentioned birds.

In addition, being "born again", according to scripture, does not require the interpretation that it includes the heretical* teaching of Calvin et al that salvation cannot be lost, discarded, or taken away.
* Synod of Jerusalem, 1672

I couldn't care less what Calvin taught. He was quite wrong on a number of things.

However, the Bible is extremely clear about eternal security.

Eternal life (A), which is a gift of God (B), is irrevocable (C).

Irrefutable.

 

[Jim Parker]

Then please explain why Paul wrote "and to your seed, meaning ONE PERSON, who is Christ".

The literal "seed" was Abraham's.
The figurative meaning of the word "seed" is "descendant of."
You are confusing the literal meaning for the figurative meaning and then attempting to base of doctrine on that confusion.

Regarding the fact that Paul taught in Romans that eternal life, a gift of God, is irrevocable.

That is false.
Paul taught no such thing.

The logic is irrefutable. If A = B, and if B = C, then A = C.
If eternal life is a gift of God, which it described that way in Rom 6:23, and
if the gifts of God are irrevocable, which the Bible plainly says in Rom 11:29,
THEN eternal life (A) is irrevocable (C). Irrefutable.

If A = B, and if B = C, then A = C is irrefutable logic.
That is not what you have presented.
In Romans 6:3 Paul is teaching that those who have been baptized should no longer live in sin because sin brings death whereas God gives life.
In Romans 11:29 Paul is talking about God's calling of Israel as His people chosen to receive the Law.
Those are two entirely different topics.
So your syllogism fails because A does NOT = B and, therefore, neither does your A = your C.

How ridiculous!! I ever even mentioned birds.

Birds?
Perhaps you are experiencing some difficulty with your vision. I didn't mention birds either.
Here's what I said:
"Birth" and "seed" are two entirely different things which you are trying to make into identical things.
"birth" not "birds"

I couldn't care less what Calvin taught.

Yet you espouse one of his heretical teachings.

However, the Bible is extremely clear about eternal security.

It is. There is no such thing.

Eternal life (A), which is a gift of God (B), is irrevocable (C).
Irrefutable.

The confusion and illogic you have presented imagining that they are logic are quite easily refuted.

 

[chessman]

corruptible and incorruptible, the reference would be to the physical body

So when people are "born from above" it's a reference to a physical bodily re-birth? That's what Nicodemus thought.

John 3:3-4 (LEB) Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless someone is born from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is an old man? He is not able to enter into his mother’s womb for the second time and be born, can he?” ...
​

the physical body which, when Christ returns, will be raised immortal and incorruptible. (1 Cor 15:52-53) Some will enter into eternal life and some will go to hell, (Mat 25:46) each with his immortal and incorruptible body.

​

Neither 1 Cor 15:52-53 nor Matt 25:46 say or even remotely imply that those who are lost, raised outside of Christ (never being born from above) are raised immortal or with incorruptible bodies.

 

[Jim Parker]

So when people are "born from above" it's a reference to a physical bodily re-birth? That's what Nicodemus thought.

That is a different topic.
You keep confusing things that have some similarity with things that are identical.
The result is the confused mess you imagine is "what the Bible says."

Neither 1 Cor 15:52-53 nor Matt 25:46 say or even remotely imply that those who are lost, raised outside of Christ (never being born from above) are raised immortal or with incorruptible bodies.

1 cor 15: 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound,
and the dead shall be raised incorruptible,
That says "the dead".
It does not say "only the dead who were saved."
It does not say "the dead in Christ."
It does not say "the dead believers."

"the dead" means "all people who have died."

And it says "this mortal must put on immortality."
The "this" he is talking about is this mortal body.

Mat 25:46 says "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."
The Greek word translated "everlasting" in "everlasting punishment" and "eternal" in "eternal life" is the exact same word: αἰώνιος (aiōnios)
Thayer's Greek Lexicon says that the meaning of αἰώνιος (aiōnios) at Mat 25:46 is "without end, never to cease, everlasting."

For the punishment to be "everlasting", the person being punished must experience it "everlastingly."
If he ceases to experience it, the punishment ceases to be "everlasting."
I order for him to experience it everlastingly, he must be alive everlastingly.
It cannot be everlasting punishment if the person being punished is not also everlasting.
That means he has to be immortal

 

[Jim Parker]

1Pe 1:22 ¶ Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Pe 1:23 - Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1Pe 1:24 - For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
1Pe 1:25 - But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
​

The idea of incorruptible seed in this passage applies to the word of God. It is not about the eternal security of the individual believer, but the eternal nature of the gospel.

amen

 

[chessman]

That says "the dead".
It does not say "only the dead who were saved."

That's because you ignore the context. What you quote is not even a whole sentence.

1 Corinthians 15:50-53 (LEB) But I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood is not able to inherit the kingdom of God, nor can corruption inherit incorruptibility. Behold, I tell you a mystery: we will not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For it is necessary for this perishable body to put on incorruptibility, and this mortal body to put on immortality.
​

Who's the we? Brothers inheriting the kingdom of God!

For the punishment to be "everlasting",

For punishing to be everlasting action, the word would be a verb, not the result of a verb (a noun) as it is in the Text. Brush up on your English grammar!

Plus, as I said, the verse doesn't say anything about lost bodies or souls being immortal. You have to assume it:

It cannot be everlasting punishment if the person being punished is not also everlasting.

Sure it can. Their punishment (the destruction of both their soul and raised bodies) lasts forever. Nope, no more second resurrections for them. Only a second death in Hell where God can destroy both soul and body (Matt 10:28).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Since imperishable seed cannot perish, how does that verse fit into the position of loss of salvation?

Just because the seed of the word itself is imperishable doesn't mean it will always abide in a person:

"9No one who is born of God practices sin, because His (imperishable) seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9 NASB parenthesis mine)

"24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father." (1 John 2:24 NASB)​

Security in Christ is conditioned on the imperishable word continuing to abide in the person who receives it. And the person who does not have Christ abiding in them ,because the imperishable word no longer abides in them (see above), does not have eternal life (1 John 5:11-12 NASB).

Besides, Jesus himself was clear that believers can stumble so as to be cast into hell (Matthew 18:6-9 NASB). That's irrefutable. So we know that just because the word of God itself is imperishable, eternal life is conditioned on that word continuing to abide in the person.

 

[chessman]

Security in Christ is conditioned on the imperishable word continuing to abide in the person who receives it.

Amen. Now that's Christianity. Our security rests squarely upon and is conditioned on the imperishable Word. He's either true to His word or He's not. If it were conditioned on our perfection, our lack of any stumbling, we're in deep trouble.

2 Samuel 22:2-3 (LEB) And he said: “Yahweh is my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer. I take refuge in God, my rock, my shield, and the strength of my salvation. My stronghold and my refuge, O my savior, you will save me from violence!​

After all, He's our stronghold, our savior, not us. Nobody saves themselves due to lack of stumbling.

Jesus himself was clear that believers can stumble so as to be cast into hell (Matthew 18:6-9 NASB).

Matt 18:6-9 does not say that "believers can stumble so as to be cast into Hell".

Matthew 18:9 (LEB) And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it from you! It is better for you to enter into life one-eyed than, having two eyes, to be thrown into fiery hell! ​

Christ is our shield, our refuge, our savior and HE will save us from the violence of Hell. His desire is for what's best for us. It is better for us to enter life with Him than to be thrown into fiery Hell, clearly. (Matt 18:9)

It's also best to not claim that Jesus in Matt 18:6-9 made it clear that "believers can stumble so as to be cast into hell" when, in fact, He said no such thing in that passage.

Psalm 37:24 (LEB) Though he fall, he will not be cast headlong, for Yahweh supports him with his hand.

​

 

[FreeGrace]

The literal "seed" was Abraham's.
The figurative meaning of the word "seed" is "descendant of."
You are confusing the literal meaning for the figurative meaning and then attempting to base of doctrine on that confusion.

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. Explain that along side the view that salvation can be lost.

I said this:
"Regarding the fact that Paul taught in Romans that eternal life, a gift of God, is irrevocable."

That is false.
Paul taught no such thing.

Then your view is illogical.

If A = B, and if B = C, then A = C is irrefutable logic.
That is not what you have presented.

That is exactly what I presented.

In Romans 6:3 Paul is teaching that those who have been baptized should no longer live in sin because sin brings death whereas God gives life.

Not 6:3, but 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

In Romans 11:29 Paul is talking about God's calling of Israel as His people chosen to receive the Law.

If that is true, please identify every verse in ch 9-11 where Paul describes anything that Israel has as "gifts". It cannot be done.

In fact, there is no place in Scripture where Israel is said to be given gifts.

Between 6:23 and 11:29, Paul does NOT use the word 'gifts'.

Those are two entirely different topics.

And your comments are totally off topic.

So your syllogism fails because A does NOT = B and, therefore, neither does your A = your C.

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.

Yet you espouse one of his heretical teachings.

Nope. I espouse what Paul taught in Romans.

It is. There is no such thing.

Your statement is totally illogical.

The confusion and illogic you have presented imagining that they are logic are quite easily refuted.

If that is so, then why hasn't anyone actually shown that? Anyone can claim anything. No big deal.

I've shown from Rom 6:23 and 11:29 that A (eternal life) DOES EQUAL B (gift of God), and that B (gifts of God) DOES EQUAL C (irrevocable).

It's the illogic of loss of salvation that cannot be proven from either logic or Scripture.

Paul was totally logical. Rom 6:23 speaks of just one of God's gifts, eternal life. 11:29 speaks of all of God's gifts, which are irrevocable.

The loss of salvation view is totally illogical since there are no verses that even make that claim.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"Since imperishable seed cannot perish, how does that verse fit into the position of loss of salvation?"

Just because the seed of the word itself is imperishable doesn't mean it will always abide in a person:

The verse isn't talking about the "seed of the word". It's talking about being born again, our spiritual new birth resulting in a NEW NATURE.

Which is what 2 Cor 5:17 is talking about by the phrase "new creatures (creation)".

"9No one who is born of God practices sin, because His (imperishable) seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9 NASB parenthesis mine)

Even this verse is speaking of our NEW NATURE.

​

Security in Christ is conditioned on the imperishable word continuing to abide in the person who receives it. And the person who does not have Christ abiding in them ,because the imperishable word no longer abides in them (see above), does not have eternal life (1 John 5:11-12 NASB).

Security in Christ is conditioned on what He Himself promised:
John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.

Besides, Jesus himself was clear that believers can stumble so as to be cast into hell (Matthew 18:6-9 NASB). That's irrefutable.

Then exegete the verses to prove your claim.

So we know that just because the word of God itself is imperishable, eternal life is conditioned on that word continuing to abide in the person.

This claim has never yet been proven from Scripture. The claim gets thrown around but anyone can claim anything. It's evidence that counts.

Where is yours?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If it were conditioned on our perfection, our lack of any stumbling, we're in deep trouble.

Yes, eternal life/salvation is not conditioned on your perfect performance. Eternal life is conditioned on faith. And fruit bearing in spite of your failures is how you can know you are believing unto eternal life. But hyper-grace OSAS says you will be saved at the resurrection even if you stop believing and become a dead, fruitless branch that doesn't believe anymore.


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:

2 Samuel 22:2-3 (LEB) And he said: “Yahweh is my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer. I take refuge in God, my rock, my shield, and the strength of my salvation. My stronghold and my refuge, O my savior, you will save me from violence!

See the "I take refuge in God" part? That's the faith--the believing--upon which eternal life/salvation is conditioned. But you posted this scripture to somehow defend the doctrine that eternal life/salvation is conditioned on absolutely nothing at all. I see this happen a lot in OSAS arguments. The very thing they claim is not true is actually right in the scriptures they post.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Matt 18:6-9 does not say that "believers can stumble so as to be cast into Hell".

Matthew 18:9 (LEB) And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it from you! It is better for you to enter into life one-eyed than, having two eyes, to be thrown into fiery hell!
Christ is our shield, our refuge, our savior and HE will save us from the violence of Hell. His desire is for what's best for us. It is better for us to enter life with Him than to be thrown into fiery Hell, clearly. (Matt 18:9)

It's also best to not claim that Jesus in Matt 18:6-9 made it clear that "believers can stumble so as to be cast into hell" when, in fact, He said no such thing in that passage.

Psalm 37:24 (LEB) Though he fall, he will not be cast headlong, for Yahweh supports him with his hand.

So, in other words, you're saying Christ did not really mean what he said.
Just another use of the common OSAS argument for making the plain words of scripture about conditional security go away.

8“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble (see vs. 6), cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire." (Matthew 18:8 NASB)