1 Peter 1:23 is about eternal security

[FreeGrace]

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ignoring what Paul himself shows us in the passage--that "the gifts and calling of God" (Romans 11:29 NASB) have not been revoked so as to make it so no one can ever have those gifts and calling.

I simply don't "buy" your claim. Paul was clear about the fact that God's gifts and calling are irrevocable. And just as clear as to what some of His gifts include; that being, eternal life.

The problem is trying to limit v.29 to just ch 11, even though Paul NEVER uses the word 'gift' in ch 11 until he gets to v.29. So, if he ONLY meant something (gift) given by God to Israel, v.29 doesn't convey that meaning at all.

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

Good grief, no. There is nothing about verb tenses here. That is only in the mind of those who think that way. It's sure not in the Biible.

Yes, the Bible does use the present tense for believe in some passages. But equally as important, the Bible uses the aorist tense as well.

The obvious conclusion is what Paul himself says the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable means.

Sure. Eternal life, one of God's gifts, is irrevocable.

The OSAS conclusion utterly ignores the context of the sentence, passage, and book Romans 11:29 has been unrightly divided from by OSAS.

No statement makes itself true. Only evidence does that. And none has been shown for your position. Paul never even described anything as "gifts of God to Israel". But he did describe 3 of God's gifts in the context of the letter to the Romans. I don't know why that hasn't gotten through.

 

[FreeGrace]

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.

[edited by staff]

This is what I've shown FROM SCRIPTURE;

1. the gifts of God are irrevocable (11:29)
2. eternal life is a (one of the) gift of God (6:23)
3. the ONLY CONCLUSION: all of God's gifts are irrevocable. At least those Paul actually described within the context of the letter.

It is your position that cannot even describe or list what the so-called "gifts of God to Israel" are. And when pressed, the issue changes to "the promise of the gifts", which isn't even close to what 11:29 says, much less anything else in Romans.

So, your position is out of ammo. In fact, it never had any at all. Your position has no defense. It can't even tell us what these "gifts of God to Israel" are. And to say "that's not the issue" is nonsensical. Of course that's the VERY issue in understanding what 11:29 is referring to.

It's referring to THE GIFTS OF GOD. Not,
"a few"
"some"
"a number of"
"many"
"most".

No. Paul wrote "THE GIFTS of God". Nothing to indicate LESS THAN ALL OF THEM. If he meant less than all, he totally failed to communicate that. Given that all Scripture is "God breathed", there is NO WAY that occurred.

[edited by staff]

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The problem is trying to limit v.29 to just ch 11, even though Paul NEVER uses the word 'gift' in ch 11 until he gets to v.29.

The gifts and calling of God are for all people who will believe. So you don't need to even bring that up.

So, if he ONLY meant something (gift) given by God to Israel, v.29 doesn't convey that meaning at all.

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that vs.29 is the last part of a sentence started in vs.28...

"28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Romans 11:28-29 NASB)

Who's the 'they' in vs.28 if it is not Israel?

This has nothing to do with what specifically the gifts and calling are for Israel, but everything to do with who he is talking about in the passage. Though it's certainly true that the multitudes of gentiles saved and given the gift of eternal life since Jesus was rejected prove that God is still keeping his promise to Abraham to bless all nations through him. But the passage is specifically addressing that God has not revoked the gifts and calling from Israel even though they, as a nation, have rejected Jesus. But you are claiming Paul is saying that once a person has eternal life they can't lose it, but there is not a shred of evidence that is what he means. That's why you can't provide that shred. It simply isn't there. But I've provided evidence right from Paul's own words in the passage that what I'm saying is what he meant that "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" means (Romans 11:29 NASB).

Sure. Eternal life, one of God's gifts, is irrevocable.

The gifts and calling of God being irrevocable is not what is in debate. Paul being saved is proof that the gifts and calling of God have not been revoked, in keeping with God's promise to the Patriarchal fathers.
What you can not prove is that what Paul means by the gifts and calling of God being irrevocable is that once a person has eternal life they can never lose it. What he himself says it means is the gifts and calling of God are still on the table despite those who have been cut out of the tree because of unbelief. The passage says NOTHING about OSAS. That's why you can't provide a single shred of evidence that Paul means OSAS by vs.29.

No statement makes itself true. Only evidence does that.

That's basically what I've been saying about your argument. Verse 29 does not by itself make it true according to what you say it means. Only evidence from the context of the sentence, passage, and book it came from makes it true. Which you have not, and can not provide...because it's not there.

You took vs.29, decided that it means a person can never, ever lose eternal life because.....well....because that's what you say the verse under discussion says, all the while having zero evidence from the sentence, passage, and book vs. 29 is in to prove your claim. Me, on the other hand.....I provided lot's of evidence plainly available for any honest person to read in the sentence and passage that the verse comes from that proves what I'm saying is the truth.

Paul never even described anything as "gifts of God to Israel". But he did describe 3 of God's gifts in the context of the letter to the Romans. I don't know why that hasn't gotten through.

Good grief, freegrace, why aren't you getting it????? How am I excluding eternal life from the gifts and calling of God when I point out that saved, born again Paul has the gifts and calling of God?
The fact that he has them proves what he's saying.....that God has not revoked the gifts and calling of God. But you are saying that verse 29 means OSAS, but which has absolutely nothing to do with Paul is talking about in the sentence, chapter, and entire book of Romans. You're telling people to openly ignore what Paul is talking about and instead assign an OSAS meaning to the last part of a sentence (vs. 29) for which zero evidence in the context of the sentence, chapter, and book of Romans exists to support. [edited by staff]

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Paul wrote "THE GIFTS of God". Nothing to indicate LESS THAN ALL OF THEM.

Why are you arguing this with ME?
You keep evading this discussion by bringing up something I'm not saying.

Now get back to what I'm directly challenging you with: Prove that what Paul means by "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" is that saved people can never have their eternal life revoked. Just saying that's what you think it means is not an answer.

I proved to you, using the context of the sentence and passage you not rightly divided vs.29 from, that he's saying he and others are saved because God did not revoke the gifts and calling of God:

"26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
“THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.”

27“THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.”

28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Romans 11:26-29 NASB capitals in original)

 

[FreeGrace]

The gifts and calling of God are for all people who will believe. So you don't need to even bring that up.

Sure. So, IF you really believe that, then you MUST believe that eternal life, a gift of God, is irrevocable.

So, why all the kicking against the goads?

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that vs.29 is the last part of a sentence started in vs.28...

Rather, it seems your view is oblivious to the fact that eternal life, being a gift of God, is irrevocable.

This has nothing to do with what specifically the gifts and calling are for Israel, but everything to do with who he is talking about in the passage.

Couldn't be farther from the truth. Paul's statement clearly HAS TO include all the things he described as God's gifts within his letter.

But I've provided evidence right from Paul's own words in the passage that what I'm saying is what he meant that "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" means (Romans 11:29 NASB).

Paul said NOTHING about losing or having one's eternal life revoked anywhere in any of his letters. So you're quite mistaken.

The gifts and calling of God being irrevocable is not what is in debate.

Well, that is exactly what Rom 11:29 is about.

What you can not prove is that what Paul means by the gifts and calling of God being irrevocable is that once a person has eternal life they can never lose it.

[edited by staff] Since Paul described eternal life as a gift of God before he said that God's gifts are irrevocable, he obviously included that specific gift in 11:29. How could he not? The ONLY WAY would be for Paul to have specifically excluded that gift from what he meant in 11:29. So, where is that exclusion mentioned in ch 11?

What he himself says it means is the gifts and calling of God are still on the table despite those who have been cut out of the tree because of unbelief.

No, he meant exactly what he wrote. The gifts of God are irrevocable. Eternal life is a gift of God. This is as plain as day.

The passage says NOTHING about OSAS.

It says EVERYTHING about eternal security. Eternal life is irrevocable.

[edited by staff]

That's basically what I've been saying about your argument. Verse 29 does not by itself make it true according to what you say it means.

It means exactly what it says. God's gifts are irrevocable. Now, one only has to find Paul's verses where he described God's gifts, which I've done repeatedly. But eyes closed cannot see.

Only evidence from the context of the sentence, passage, and book it came from makes it true.

No, evidence from the context will also include EVERY place where Paul described what God's gifts are, which he did;
1. spiritual gifts in 1:11
2. justification in 3:24 and 5:15,1617
3. eternal life in 6:23

The refusal to accept these 3 gifts as being irrevocable is illogical, since Paul himself decribed these as gifts of God before he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable. And he never wrote anything to exclude any of these 3 gifts.

You took vs.29, decided that it means a person can never, ever lose eternal life because

Because that's what irrevocable means regarding the gift of eternal life.

[edited by staff]

How am I excluding eternal life from the gifts and calling of God when I point out that saved, born again Paul has the gifts and calling of God?

Because your view rejects eternal security; that eternal life can be lost.

 

[FreeGrace]

Why are you arguing this with ME?

You've been clear about rejecting eternal security, all the while knowing that eternal life is a gift of God and that God's gifts are irrevocable.

You keep evading this discussion by bringing up something I'm not saying.

Is this an admission that Paul did teach eternal security, finally??

Now get back to what I'm directly challenging you with: Prove that what Paul means by "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" is that saved people can never have their eternal life revoked.

Glad to. Again, and again. Because eternal life is a gift of God, and that God's gifts are irrevocable, eternal life is irrevocable. For some very odd reason, that seems to not have sunk into your cognizance.

Just saying that's what you think it means is not an answer.

It's certainly not about what I think. It's all about what Paul WROTE. I've merely shown what he wrote.

I proved to you, using the context of the sentence and passage you not rightly divided vs.29 from, that he's saying he and others are saved because God did not revoke the gifts and calling of God:

"26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
“THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.”

27“THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.”

28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Romans 11:26-29 NASB capitals in original)

There is nothing in v.29 to limit it's application to only the 3 previous verses.

Because of what Paul wrote in 11:29, one MUST accept ALL the gifts that he DID describe, [edited by staff]

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Sure. So, IF you really believe that, then you MUST believe that eternal life, a gift of God, is irrevocable.

So, why all the kicking against the goads?

[edited by staff] out of context meaning for what it means for the gifts and calling of God to be irrevocable. The gifts and calling of God not being revocable is not what is in debate. What you say it means is what is in debate. I proved from the passage itself what it means. You? You just keep arguing your thesis, providing zero evidence or support from the sentence, passage, and book that you wrongly snipped Romans 11:29 from.

Rather, it seems your view is oblivious to the fact that eternal life, being a gift of God, is irrevocable.

Paul shows us that him being saved is proof that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.
How is that oblivious to the fact that eternal life, a gift of God, is irrevocable?
What I resist is your [edited by staff] OSAS meaning attached to a disconnected and wrongly divided out vs. 29. Your interpretation is what is in debate here, not that eternal life is irrevocable. It most certainly is irrevocable.....according to how Paul says it is irrevocable, not how you say it is irrevocable. There is zero evidence for what you say it means. Zero.

Couldn't be farther from the truth. Paul's statement clearly HAS TO include all the things he described as God's gifts within his letter.

Someday you might figure it out this is not what our debate is about, nor what determines what Paul means by "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29 NASB).

No, he meant exactly what he wrote. The gifts of God are irrevocable. Eternal life is a gift of God. This is as plain as day.

To a [edited by staff] hardcore OSASer that's exactly what he wrote and, therefore, has to mean what you say it means. But [edited by staff] we know it means Paul and others have the gifts and calling of God and are saved because God did not revoke the gifts and calling of God even though Christ was rejected.

Since Paul described eternal life as a gift of God before he said that God's gifts are irrevocable, he obviously included that specific gift in 11:29. How could he not? The ONLY WAY would be for Paul to have specifically excluded that gift from what he meant in 11:29. So, where is that exclusion mentioned in ch 11?

You need to take that up with whoever this argument applies to.
You're asking me to respond to a challenge to a doctrine that I am not defending. That's unreasonable. It does show me that you're not really paying attention to my arguments.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Glad to. Again, and again. Because eternal life is a gift of God, and that God's gifts are irrevocable, eternal life is irrevocable. For some very odd reason, that seems to not have sunk into your cognizance.

And your evidence is........?

This is a debate. You have to prove from the sentence, passage, and book you are lifting Romans 11:29 out of context from to prove your point. You're doing a lot of chattering when what you need to do is prove from the passage that your OSAS interpretation of the verse is what Paul is talking about. Of course, you haven't done that because you can't. It's not there.

So, NO MORE CHATTER! Where is this evidence that Paul is talking about OSAS in the passage?????

 

[FreeGrace]

You are assigning an agenda driven, out of context meaning for what it means for the gifts and calling of God to be irrevocable.

I've already shown just HOW in context it is. The entire letter form context for what's IN the letter.

The gifts and calling of God not being revocable is not what is in debate.

[edited by staff] It is THE debate.

What you say it means is what is in debate.

Since it means exactly what it SAYS, there is no debate on my side. [edited by staff]

I proved from the passage itself what it means.

No, general and vague comments were made about so-called "gifts of God to Israel" that cannot be shown from the passage, which you're calling proof. But I don't.

You just keep arguing your thesis, providing zero evidence or support from the sentence, passage, and book that you wrongly snipped Romans 11:29 from.

Nothing was snipped. I have shown from rock solid logic that eternal life, being a gift of God, is irrevocable. [edited by staff]

Paul shows us that him being saved is proof that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.

But since eternal life is one of those irrevocable gifts, eternal security is shown.

How is that oblivious to the fact that eternal life, a gift of God, is irrevocable?

OK, there it is. Eternal life is irrevocable. Thank you. [edited by staff]

 

[FreeGrace]

And your evidence is........?

Rom 6:23 defines one of the gifts of God.
Rom 11:29 says that God's gifts are irrevocable.

The conclusion is clear.

This is a debate. You have to prove from the sentence, passage, and book you are lifting Romans 11:29 out of context from to prove your point.

Just raise your eyeballs upward and read what I just posted.

So, NO MORE CHATTER! Where is this evidence that Paul is talking about OSAS in the passage?????

He didn't have to, to realize what he wrote. The plain fact is that eternal life, being a gift of God, is irrevocable.

Therefore, one who HAS eternal life, will NOT ever have it revoked. That's eternal security.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Rom 11:29 says that God's gifts are irrevocable.

I see you still have no evidence that this means that a person can never ever lose eternal life.
Of course, we know you won't, because you can't, because it's not there.

Until you do something, we have no choice but to conclude that you can not defend your argument for Romans 11:29. Restating your thesis over and over again does not prove your doctrine correct.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Rom 11:28-29 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.

How does later generations of Israelites being saved in accordance with God's promise to the patriarchal fathers prove that once a person is saved they are always saved?

2 Tim 1:9 He who has given us life and has called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his will and the grace which has been given to us in Yeshua The Messiah before the time of the world,

How does this exclude the necessity for believing in order to be saved?
It is God's will that a person believe, and continue to believe, in order to be saved. That's how a person is saved according to God's will (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB). God's will in election does not exclude the necessity for faith, and a continuing faith, in order to be saved.

John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

It's also God's will that ALL men be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4 NASB, 2 Peter 3:9 NASB). But we know from that alone that God's will is not always done just because it is his will that it be done.

John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

Let's see if John meant that no one who is in Christ can ever be lost. He speaks more about God's protection in salvation here:

"9No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:9-10 NASB bold 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 bold and underline mine)

And we see that it is incumbent on the believer to not let that which he heard in the beginning be forgotten in order for God to protect him. So we see that God's protection, so that you won't be lost, is conditional on you continuing to abide in that which you heard from the beginning.

You must continue to believe the gospel to the very end to remain in Christ and the Father in order to be saved. That's the condition for salvation. So we know John did not mean in John 17:12 that a believer can never ever be lost by Jesus because Jesus keeps them apart from any requirements on the believer's part. The requirement is that you stay in Christ through a continued believing.

Rom 6:3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Not sure what significance this may have to an OSAS argument.
But if you are suggesting that salvation is a done deal, completed in the past when we first believed and died in Christ, then I will say no one to my knowledge on either side of the OSAS debate says we are not born again when we first believe. The debate is whether or not a person will always be born again once they believe. The above passage by itself does not address that.

 

[FreeGrace]

Please. It's you opinion, nothing more.

Directly quoting Scripture is never an opinion.

I never said it wasn't a gift from God.
I never said it would cease to be a gift.

Then eternal security is upheld. Thank you.

That is your opinion based on 2 verses instead of the entire Bible.

The 2 verses speak clearly for themselves. It's merely an opinion of some that eternal life can be lost or revoked, and that without any evidence from Scripture.

I merely pointed out that, although you consider yourself to be the final word and infallible pontiff of theology,

That's just your opinion (and a false one at that) of what you think I consider.

there are many people who do not agree with either you high opinion of your ability to exegete scripture or you conclusions.

So what? I've just quoted 2 verses that are clearly and directly linked by the subject of God's gifts.

If you are having that much difficulty with people disagreeing then, perhaps, you might talk to someone about that issue instead of trying to hammer everyone into submission.

An interesting claim but one without any evidence. All I've done is consistently and repeatedly pointed out what Scripture SAYS. Those who disagree are simply disagreeing with Scripture. Not me.

But, to your point, how is pointing out what Scripture SAYS "hammering everyone"???

I think your comment only reveals your biased opinion of me.

(Or is that just a Calvinist thing? Act like Calvinsts' totally sovereign god that doesn't allow any free will to dissent.)

Since I have serious disagreements with Calvinism, your comment is inaccurate [edited by staff]

you have a great day

Count on that. Because I will.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"Rom 11:29 says that God's gifts are irrevocable."

I see you still have no evidence that this means that a person can never ever lose eternal life.

[edited by staff] Paul described eternal life as a gift of God and NEVER disassociated that from anything else he said in Romans.

[edited by staff]

In fact, until someone can show from Romans a clearly stated verse where Paul disassociates eternal life from being irrevocable, I have no choice but to reject your position as unsubstantiated.

Restating your thesis over and over again does not prove your doctrine correct.

I haven't either stated or restated any thesis. I've shown 2 directly linked verses about the gifts of God that show that eternal life is irrevocable. And no one has been able to show anything different.

All that's been done is to make reference to some unseen and un-described "gifts of God to Israel" in ch 11 as the context for 11:29. And rejecting the 3 ACTUAL gifts of God that Paul had described earlier in the text.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

until someone can show from Romans a clearly stated verse where Paul disassociates eternal life from being irrevocable

Paul has eternal life. That shows that "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29 NASB). That's what the passage is explaining. Paul has eternal life showing that God did not change his mind about the gifts and calling even though Jesus has been rejected.

But you have assigned a OSAS meaning to "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" that defies the sentence and passage you un-rightly divided vs.29 from. And you have not so much as lifted a finger to provide any evidence from Romans that your meaning of vs.29 is correct. Therefore, we have concluded that you have no defense for your argument. You're done. You many leave the ring now.

 

[Jim Parker]

[edited by staff]

The 2 verses speak clearly for themselves.

No. They do not. They are part of a greater bit of communication among which those two verses are found. The verse numbers do not make the words following them stand alone. The numbers are there for the sole purpose of assisting the readewr in finding passages. Imagining that two verses among hundreds can be lifted out and stand alone is a clear indication of a total lack of understanding as to how to understand scripture.
[edited by staff]

 

[FreeGrace]

Paul has eternal life. That shows that "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29 NASB).

Yes, of course it does. And eternal life, being a gift of God, AND...the gifts of God being irrevocable, is irrevocable.

That's what the passage is explaining. Paul has eternal life showing that God did not change his mind about the gifts and calling even though Jesus has been rejected.

Eternal life is irrevocable. Of course.

But you have assigned a OSAS meaning to "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" that defies the sentence and passage you un-rightly divided vs.29 from.

No, I'm merely noting that eternal life is an irrevocable gift of God.

iow, God's gifts are irrevocable. That means He doesn't take any of them back, or revoke any of them. Including eternal life.

And you have not so much as lifted a finger to provide any evidence from Romans that your meaning of vs.29 is correct.

Who has to lift a finger to show what is so totally evident? Eternal life, a gift of God, is irrevocable.
[edited by staff]

 

[Mike]

Even by the standards established from these OSAS debates, I've seen this discussion deteriorate to back and forth accusations that the other side has an agenda and refuses to acknowledge evidence that contradicts said agenda. It's happening repeatedly from both sides of the argument.

Both sides are fully entrenched, and the are digging their heals in deeper. What comes to mind is the value of living and being among a community of believers. It highlights why God wanted us in corporate fellowship and NOT isolated in private interpretation.

I can't get to this tonight. Gotta get some asleep. I'll be back after I clean out all the petty.

 

[Mike]

Reopening after lots of edits and deleted posts with the hope that we as believers can cease the accusations and treat others with respect.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No, I'm merely noting that eternal life is an irrevocable gift of God.

No, you're not merely doing that.
You have assigned a meaning to "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (vs.29) that the context does not support in any way shape or form. Here's the whole sentence from which you are un-rightly dividing vs.29 from:

28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Romans 11:28-29 NASB)​

Who is 'they' in the verse?