1 Peter 1:23 is about eternal security

[Jethro Bodine]

What else can it mean?

Paul and others have the "gifts and calling of God" because God did not revoke them. That is what the passage says. The passage does NOT say Paul, and others, can never, ever lose his eternal life. That's why you have been unable to provide so much as a shred of evidence that it does. It's simply not there.

It's absurd to expect a person to do what you say and ignore the sentence (and the passage, and book) vs.29 is a part of in order to derive a OSAS teaching. But I understand, that is what one must do to get that teaching from Romans. I completely get how that works. Lifting isolated verses out of context and building whole doctrines is perhaps the most common mark of false doctrine.

I, on the other hand, have provided the evidence right in chapter 11 itself that explains exactly what Paul meant when he said "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29 NASB). And it has NOTHING to do with OSAS. Nothing whatsoever. But it has EVERYTHING to do with Paul and others having salvation because God did not revoke the gifts and calling of God even though Christ has been rejected.

 

[JLB]

Nonsense? If not all, then just how many gifts was Paul referring to? Specifically?

I ask specifically, only because had already SPECIFICALLY described 3 of God's gifts in the body of the letter to the Romans, yet your position is that Paul could not have been referring to any of them. And all without any evidence for support.

The problem with your position is that there is no support from context for it. Paul NEVER described anything Israel had as "gifts".

What we do know is that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. And since Paul didn't modify "gifts" with any word to limit its meaning, such as:
"a few gifts"
"some gifts"
"a lot of gifts"
"many gifts"
"most gifts",

it's quite obvious that he did mean ALL gifts. Or he would have clarified, especially since he SPECIFICALLY described 3 of God's gifts before he said that "the gifts of God are irrevocable".

iow, he made no attempt to limit these "gifts of God" to be limited to whatever it is that some may "see" in ch 11 as referring to Israel.

Unless there is clear evidence from Paul himself that he never meant to include those previously mentioned SPECIFIC gifts in Romans, there is no reason to exclude them from Rom 11:29.

Again, you have ignored both the scriptures and what was said in my post.

Here is your quote.

it's quite obvious that he did mean ALL gifts. Or he would have clarified, especially since he SPECIFICALLY described 3 of God's gifts before he said that "the gifts of God are irrevocable".

Romans 11:29 doesn't say ... "the gifts of God are irrevocable", if it did you may have a point, but since it does not, you are presuming something the scripture does not say.

Here is the verse that you refuse to write out, because the truth of what this scripture actually says, is "the nail in the coffin" to your un-founded theology.

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

• You have built a doctrine out something that is not stated in scripture.

The gifts and calling together are irrevocable [without regret; without repentance].
Together the gifts and the call to repentance through the Gospel is still available, [without repentance] to the Jews. If a person is lost and needs to repent, then they can not have eternal life, the gift you claim they somehow have, though they are still called to repent.


The word Salvation does not appear in this verse.
The word "all" does not appear in this verse.
The word eternal life does not appear in this verse.



JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

Paul and others have the "gifts and calling of God" because God did not revoke them. That is what the passage says.

And you have agreed that Paul HAD the gift of eternal life. So why not simply agree that eternal life is an irrevocable gift?

The passage does NOT say Paul, and others, can never, ever lose his eternal life.

By the simple fact that eternal life is a gift of God, and God's gifts are irrevocable, that's what it means.

That's why you have been unable to provide so much as a shred of evidence that it does. It's simply not there.

The meaning is obviously clear. Since eternal life is an irrevocable gift of God, that means that one cannot lose it.

Re: "unable to provide so much as a shred of evidence", that applies to the claim that one CAN lose salvation or eternal life.

It's absurd to expect a person to do what you say and ignore the sentence (and the passage, and book) vs.29 is a part of in order to derive a OSAS teaching.

There is NOTHING in the passage to exclude the gift of eternal life from 1:29. Simply nothing at all.

I, on the other hand, have provided the evidence right in chapter 11 itself that explains exactly what Paul meant when he said "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29 NASB).

By your recent admission that Paul HAD eternal life, and that Paul himself described eternal life as a gift of God, when he penned 11:29 he clearly WAS including eternal life as a gift of God that is irrevocable.

Having described eternal life as a gift of God previous to 11:29, if he didn't mean to include that specific gift in 11:29, he would have made that clear in plain language.

And if 11:29 ONLY applied to what ever the "gifts to Israel" were, which has been admitted can't be done, then Paul would have at least added the word "these" in front of "gifts" to 11:29 in order to clarify that's ALL he meant. But he didn't.

And it has NOTHING to do with OSAS.

It shas EVERYTHING to do with eternal security.

Nothing whatsoever.

Some just don't WANT it to.

But it has EVERYTHING to do with Paul and others having salvation because God did not revoke the gifts and calling of God even though Christ has been rejected.

OK, let's go with this. Paul HAS salvation because that gift is irrevocable. Thank you for noticing.

But it's quite odd that your position still wants to dissociate the gift of salvation/eternal life from 11:29.

2

 

[Jethro Bodine]

And you have agreed that Paul HAD the gift of eternal life. So why not simply agree that eternal life is an irrevocable gift?

Eternal life is not an irrevocable gift in the way you are saying it is.
It is irrevocable in the way Paul is saying it is irrevocable.
You are completely ignoring what Paul is saying is irrevocable about the gifts and calling of God. Completely. It's impossible for an honest person to ignore what Paul himself says it means.
It's that simple.

 

[FreeGrace]

Romans 11:29 doesn't say ... "the gifts of God are irrevocable",

It says exactly that! Your comment is stunning!

if it did you may have a point, but since it does not, you are presuming something the scripture does not say.

I does, and I do.

Here is the verse that you refuse to write out, because the truth of what this scripture actually says, is "the nail in the coffin" to your un-founded theology.

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

You have built a doctrine out something that is not stated in scripture.

Oh, gee. I guess the words "and the calling" somehow magically and mystically change the meaning of "the gifts...of God are irrevocable".

Why would anyone believe that? Both the gifts of God AND the calling of God are irrevocable.

What is very odd is your opening claim, which is "Romans 11:29 doesn't say ... "the gifts of God are irrevocable", and then the quote of Rom 11:29 "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29".

Why should anyone think that adding the words "and the calling" would change the obvious fact that God's gifts ARE STILL irrevocable??

The gifts and calling together are irrevocable [without regret; without repentance].

Yes, I agree. But my emphasis is on the gifts. Of course His calling is also irrevocable. But it seems by not emphasizing His call, that negates the fact that His gifts are STILL irrevocable.

Is your position that individually, God's gifts and calling are not irrevocable? That seems to be your argument.

Together the gifts and the call to repentance through the Gospel is still available, [without repentance] to the Jews.

You're guilty of what you've accused me of: adding words to Scripture. v.29 does NOT SAY "to the Jews". The verse is a simple statement about God's gifts and calling. Which is: they are irrevocable.

If a person is lost and needs to repent, then they can not have eternal life, the gift you claim they somehow have, though they are still called to repent.

I've never said or even suggested that one who is lost EVER HAD eternal life. Only saved people HAVE eternal life, which is an irrevocable gift.

The word Salvation does not appear in this verse.

Doesn't have to.

The word "all" does not appear in this verse.

Doesn't have to. If Paul didn't mean all of God's gifts, then he would have clarified. Where did he clarify that he didn't mean all of God's gifts? Please advise.

The word eternal life does not appear in this verse.

JLB

Doesn't have to. The gift of eternal life IS specificaly mentioned in 6:23 and directly linked by the FACT that "gift of God" occurs in 6:23, meaning that eternal life, a gift of God, is just as irrevocable as anything anyone wants to claim what "gifts" mean in 11:29.

 

[FreeGrace]

Eternal life is not an irrevocable gift in the way you are saying it is.

There is no other way to say it. Irrevocable means irrevocable.

It is irrevocable in the way Paul is saying it is irrevocable.

And just what is this "way" that Paul "is saying it is irrevocable"???

You are completely ignoring what Paul is saying is irrevocable about the gifts and calling of God.

No, that charge is applied directly to your claims and position. He simply noted that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. There is ONLY ONE WAY to say it. But your position doesn't want to include Rom 6:23 as one of the gifts that are irrevocable. And all that without any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But it's quite odd that your position still wants to dissociate the gift of salvation/eternal life from 11:29.

What's odd, but not unexpected, is that the OSAS position completely disassociates itself completely and utterly from what Paul says "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29 NASB) means. Incredible, but I know that's how indoctrinations work.

 

[FreeGrace]

What's odd, but not unexpected, is that the OSAS position completely disassociates itself completely and utterly from what Paul says "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29 NASB) means.

I can only respond by noting just how illogic your claim is. Rom 6:23 and Rom 11:29 are directly linked by the FACT that BOTH are about the gifts of God. But your position wants to disassociate 6:23 from 11:29 because it doesn't like the obvious conclusion.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There is no other way to say it. Irrevocable means irrevocable.

That's absurd. It can obviously be said in another (Paul's) way:

You're saying "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29 NASB) means once a person is saved they can never, ever lose it.

Or, we can go with Paul himself says.....that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable means God did not withdraw the gifts and calling just because Israel has been cut out of the tree.

And you're going to insist there is no other way to say it? That's a joke. I just did. And all I did was use what Paul himself said it means.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I can only respond by noting just how illogic your claim is. Rom 6:23 and Rom 11:29 are directly linked by the FACT that BOTH are about the gifts of God. But your position wants to disassociate 6:23 from 11:29 because it doesn't like the obvious conclusion.

How does what the gifts are composed of change the fact that Paul is saying that the calling to those gifts has not been revoked from the earth? Paul has the gifts and calling of God--he is born again. How does that change the argument away from what he's saying--that he is proof that the gifts and calling of God have not been revoked?

This is a debate. You're going to have to come up with some substance instead of simply restating your position over and over and over again. Where's the evidence of your argument? I showed you where Paul himself said what the "gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" means. I just simply used what he himself said. But you? You've not provided even a shred of evidence that the last part of the sentence in verses 28 & 29 means OSAS. Not a single shred.

Honest people aren't going to embrace a doctrine formulated on an unrightly divided bit of a sentence of scripture. Romans 11:29 is not a OSAS proof text. Not even remotely. Honest people can see that.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But your position doesn't want to include Rom 6:23 as one of the gifts that are irrevocable.

Not me, buddy.
You know that's not my argument.
Why don't you try to take apart my argument using the passage instead of hammering an argument I'm not even making? Can you do that?
We will all see that you won't be able to.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"There is no other way to say it. Irrevocable means irrevocable."

That's absurd. It can obviously be said in another (Paul's) way:

You're saying "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29 NASB) means once a person is saved they can never, ever lose it.

Or, we can go with Paul himself says.....that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable means God did not withdraw the gifts and calling just because Israel has been cut out of the tree.

And since your own position is that being "cut out of the tree" amounts to loss of salvation, you have just contradicted yourself, given what was just posted. For God to "not withdraw the gifts" means that God's gifts are NOT withdrawn. So your position contains a huge contradiction. Kinda like speaking out of both sides of the mouth.

And you're going to insist there is no other way to say it? That's a joke.

The joke is to claim there is any other way.

Once again, irrevocable means just that. The problem is that your position just doesn't want eternal life to be one of the gifts of God that are irrevocable. Yet, Paul never attempted to exlude that specific gift from 11:29. Only your position tries to do that, and without any authorization from Scripture.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

For God to "not withdraw the gifts" means that God's gifts are NOT withdrawn.

Paul received the gifts and calling of God, proving that God did not withdraw his promise to the Patriarchal fathers, even though the Israelites rejected Messiah and were cut out of the tree (Romans 11:28-29 NASB). That's hardly a OSAS teaching. It's not, of course.

But it is exactly what Paul says it is....a teaching that says just because Messiah was rejected, people are still getting saved, showing that he has not stopped calling the elect to the gifts of God. Prove what I just wrote wrong by using the passage....if you can.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

irrevocable means just that.

Of course it does. It means God is still calling people to his gifts, and they are receiving them. That calling to his gifts is irrevocable (Romans 11:28-29 NASB).

The problem is that your position just doesn't want eternal life to be one of the gifts of God that are irrevocable.

Paul is saved. How is that not wanting eternal life to be one of the gifts that God calls people to?

Paul never attempted to exlude that specific gift from 11:29. Only your position tries to do that

Not me, pal.
You're dodging the real argument. And for obvious reasons. You have no defense against it.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"I can only respond by noting just how illogic your claim is. Rom 6:23 and Rom 11:29 are directly linked by the FACT that BOTH are about the gifts of God. But your position wants to disassociate 6:23 from 11:29 because it doesn't like the obvious conclusion."

How does what the gifts are composed of change the fact that Paul is saying that the calling to those gifts has not been revoked from the earth?

Actually, NOTHING changes the FACT that Paul SAID that God's gifts and calling are irrevocable. Your question doesn't make any sense to me.

Paul has the gifts and calling of God--he is born again.

OK, let's go with that. And since Paul is born again, that is irrevocable. What's not to understand? There is no evidence at all that any born again person will end up in the second death.

How does that change the argument away from what he's saying--that he is proof that the gifts and calling of God have not been revoked?

It doesn't change anything, and I still have no idea why this question is even being asked.

This is a debate. You're going to have to come up with some substance instead of simply restating your position over and over and over again.

lol. My position has been firmly established.

Since 6:23 states that eternal life is a gift of God, AND 11:29 states that the gifts of God are irrevocable, the only and obvious conclusion is that eternal life is irrevocable. The logic is crystal clear and irrefutable, yet your position won't accept the obvious.

Where's the evidence of your argument?

Oh, just 6:23 which says that eternal life is a gift of God, and 11:29 says the gifts of God are irrevocable.

I showed you where Paul himself said what the "gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" means.

It can only mean what it plainly SAYS; God's gifts are irrevocable. The problem and hang-up is with your position that claims that Paul didn't mean eternal life. Which doesn't make sense since Paul specifically described eternal life as a gift of God.

I just simply used what he himself said.

Not true. Your position wants to severe 6:23 from what 11:29 is referring to.

But you?

I've used what he himself said. 6:23 = eternal life is a gift of God.
11:29 = the gifts of God are irrevocable.

The conclusion is obvious.

You've not provided even a shred of evidence that the last part of the sentence in verses 28 & 29 means OSAS. Not a single shred.

It is your position that is in total shreds. There's no evidence that v.29 applies ONLY to whatever "gifts to Israel" is implied in ch 11.

If that were so, then Paul would have actually used the word 'gifts' to indicate what gifts he was referring to, and v.29 would have "THESE gifts" to indicate what he just described as gifts.

But he didn't. Because he didn't mean "ONLY gifts to Israel".

Honest people aren't going to embrace a doctrine formulated on an unrightly divided bit of a sentence of scripture.

Which is why I reject your position that tries to severe the 3 gifts Paul previously and specifically described from 11:29. That isn't honest in my view.

Romans 11:29 is not a OSAS proof text. Not even remotely. Honest people can see that.

Rom 11:29 is clear evidence of eternal security. Esp so since Paul had described both justification and eternal life as gifts of God before he got to 11:29.

It's your position that can't prove that Paul wasn't including those specific gifts in 11:29.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"But your position doesn't want to include Rom 6:23 as one of the gifts that are irrevocable."

Not me, buddy.
You know that's not my argument.

Huh? It's your position that eternal life isn't irrevocable, even though it is a gift of God.

Why don't you try to take apart my argument using the passage instead of hammering an argument I'm not even making? Can you do that?

If your position is that eternal life is a gift of God, then HOW in the world can you argue that eternal life isn't irrevocable??

We will all see that you won't be able to.

Good luck making your own argument.

 

[FreeGrace]

Paul received the gifts and calling of God, proving that God did not withdraw his promise to the Patriarchal fathers, even though the Israelites rejected Messiah and were cut out of the tree (Romans 11:28-29 NASB).

The error here is to keep insisting that God's gift is merely a promise. That's NOWHERE in the passage.

That's hardly a OSAS teaching. It's not, of course.

The Bible teaches that eternal life is a gift of God.
The Bible teaches that God's gifts are irrevocable.
Reasonable people will easily see that eternal life is irrevocable.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It can only mean what it plainly SAYS; God's gifts are irrevocable. The problem and hang-up is with your position that claims that Paul didn't mean eternal life.

Not my argument.
Now address what I am arguing using the passage. If you can. But of course you won't be able to.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

OK, let's go with that. And since Paul is born again, that is irrevocable. What's not to understand?

You're ignoring what Paul himself shows us in the passage--that "the gifts and calling of God" (Romans 11:29 NASB) have not been revoked so as to make it so no one can ever have those gifts and calling.

There is no evidence at all that any born again person will end up in the second death.

Presently born again people will not go to the fiery hell. Formerly born again people will suffer the second death. That is the argument.

Since 6:23 states that eternal life is a gift of God, AND 11:29 states that the gifts of God are irrevocable, the only and obvious conclusion is that eternal life is irrevocable.

The obvious conclusion is what Paul himself says the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable means.
The OSAS conclusion utterly ignores the context of the sentence, passage, and book Romans 11:29 has been unrightly divided from by OSAS.

The Bible teaches that eternal life is a gift of God.
The Bible teaches that God's gifts are irrevocable.
Reasonable people will easily see that eternal life is irrevocable.

Reasonable people will easily see what Paul actually means by the gifts and calling of God being irrevocable by just reading the plain words of the passage without the veil of the OSAS indoctrination leading them astray into a completely unsupported interpretation of vs. 29.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

[edited out deleted post quote]
That's what you have to do since you have not, and can not provide any evidence from chapter 11, or even the whole book of Romans to disprove what I've said (which comes right from chapter 11 anyway), or to prove that vs. 29 isolated all by itself is what you say it means. You simply haven't done either. You're out of ammo. You have no defense.