1 Peter 1:23 is about eternal security

[FreeGrace]

Your interpretation of it ignores the whole context of scripture.

What's to "interpret"? Paul was clear about these FACTS:
1. the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable in 11:29
2. eternal life is a gift of God in 6:23
3. Paul DID NOT exclude the gift of eternal life from the gifts of God in 11:29.

 

[FreeGrace]

14“For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matthew 22:14 NASB)

We know that the calling is indeed revocable for the individual person.

Where would anyone find anything about being revocable in Matt 22:14?? You've confused being called with being chosen. In fact, there is nothing about being either revocable or irrevocable in that verse.

Many have received the calling of God, yet reject it and lose that calling (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 NASB, 1 John 5:10 NASB). But you insist that the calling is irrevocable for the person.

I'm always amazed at the claims made my your position. Neither verse even speaks of being called, much LESS of having that call revoked.

It seems the meaning of "called" isn't all that familiar to you. It means "invited". And God does NOT revoke His call to salvation. And even when people reject the gospel, the call hasn't been revoked.

 

[FreeGrace]

I asked this:
"Do you agree that 11:29 is speaking of 2 separate things from God that are irrevocable? If not, then please provide a clear explanation of why not."

How does one have the gifts of God if he is not first called to them?

I see no relevance of this question to my question.

However, to answer your question, it should be clear to everyone that the call precedes the gifts. But, so what?

Now, I've answered your question. Will you please answer mine?

 

[Runner]

This is apparently The Thread That Will Never End. Clearly, one can (and thousands of scholars have) make a biblical case for OSAS or for OS-Not-AS. Looking at this from the 30,000-foot level, OSAS is no more bizarre or astounding to me than the notion that tens of millions of kindly, compassionate, decent Buddhists and Hindus who thought they were sincerely serving the Divine are going to spend eternity in a lake of fire. Both OSAS and the damnation of Buddhists and Hindus strike me as bizarre and astounding, but so be it if that's the reality.

OS-Not-AS seems to drastically dilute the Good News. You must be born again, but only so you can worry the rest of your life about whether you have sufficiently persevered to the end? Sort of the "conditional Good News," eh? It seems as though what I always thought of as the moment of my salvation was not really the moment of my salvation at all, but only the moment in which I became eligible for salvation if I persevered to the end. This could certainly be true, of course, and there is some biblical basis for it, but it does seem to dilute the Good News and sounds an awful lot like I would be earning my way into heaven.

I could see, and there is a biblical basis for, the notion of OSAS "unless you completely apostatize by rejecting the Holy Spirit as being from Satan." but this is considerably less "conditional" than what I understand the OS-Not-AS position to be.

Again from the 30,000-foot level, OSAS seems to me to be more consistent with Jesus' death and resurrection having atoned for all of my sins and His message being the liberating Good News that is to be preached to all the world. However, in the great scheme of things, what difference does it make? Am I going to live my life differently if OSAS is true or if OS-Not-AS is true? No, I am going to do my best to walk in the Spirit in either case. Why, on issues on which scholars have disagreed for centuries and there are obviously Bible verses pointing in multiple directions, is there this obsession with proving one is "right" and others are "wrong"?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

How does one ever have eternal life if the life they've been called to AND gifted with (whether Jew or Gentile) is not actually eternal?

The same way a person has a lotto ticket for a lifetime of paydays......as long as he doesn't lose the ticket before redemption day.

Right after he set the context:

2 John 1:8 (LEB) Watch yourselves that you do not lose what we have worked for, but receive a full reward.
​

If the discussion was about losing reward (versus losing irrevocable gifts) you'd have a point. As it stands, you unrightly divide verse 8 from verse 9. Plainly.

John wants them to not fall away so HE and his companions in ministry can have the reward they worked among them to get:

"8Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 9Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (2 John 1:8-9 KJV bold mine)

You should have done some homework before you posted.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What's to "interpret"? Paul was clear about these FACTS:
1. the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable in 11:29
2. eternal life is a gift of God in 6:23
3. Paul DID NOT exclude the gift of eternal life from the gifts of God in 11:29.

Now address the argument: Your interpretation ignores the full counsel of God's word.

I asked this:
"Do you agree that 11:29 is speaking of 2 separate things from God that are irrevocable? If not, then please provide a clear explanation of why not."

Did you not read post #500??????

 

[gr8grace3]

This is apparently The Thread That Will Never End. Clearly, one can (and thousands of scholars have) make a biblical case for OSAS or for OS-Not-AS. Looking at this from the 30,000-foot level, OSAS is no more bizarre or astounding to me than the notion that tens of millions of kindly, compassionate, decent Buddhists and Hindus who thought they were sincerely serving the Divine are going to spend eternity in a lake of fire. Both OSAS and the damnation of Buddhists and Hindus strike me as bizarre and astounding, but so be it if that's the reality.

OS-Not-AS seems to drastically dilute the Good News. You must be born again, but only so you can worry the rest of your life about whether you have sufficiently persevered to the end? Sort of the "conditional Good News," eh? It seems as though what I always thought of as the moment of my salvation was not really the moment of my salvation at all, but only the moment in which I became eligible for salvation if I persevered to the end. This could certainly be true, of course, and there is some biblical basis for it, but it does seem to dilute the Good News and sounds an awful lot like I would be earning my way into heaven.

I could see, and there is a biblical basis for, the notion of OSAS "unless you completely apostatize by rejecting the Holy Spirit as being from Satan." but this is considerably less "conditional" than what I understand the OS-Not-AS position to be.

Again from the 30,000-foot level, OSAS seems to me to be more consistent with Jesus' death and resurrection having atoned for all of my sins and His message being the liberating Good News that is to be preached to all the world. However, in the great scheme of things, what difference does it make? Am I going to live my life differently if OSAS is true or if OS-Not-AS is true? No, I am going to do my best to walk in the Spirit in either case. Why, on issues on which scholars have disagreed for centuries and there are obviously Bible verses pointing in multiple directions, is there this obsession with proving one is "right" and others are "wrong"?

Because eternal security glorifies the Lord Jesus Christ. It shows His Character and nature. His Grace. His mercy. His virtue. His strength. His power.His perseverance.

Loss of salvation glorifies the creature. The creatures character. The creatures strength.The creatures perseverance.........And is a subtle, yet blatant attack of my Lord and Saviors character and nature.

Loss of salvation will always put the focus on ME. And my life and what I am doing. Eternal security puts the focus on the Lord Jesus Christ and what HE has done. His life.His work.

If we don't KNOW we are eternally secure........Are we really walking in the Spirit?

Rom 8:16~~New American Standard Bible
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,

 

[FreeGrace]

The same way a person has a lotto ticket for a lifetime of paydays......as long as he doesn't lose the ticket before redemption day.

The question remains: where does the Bible plainly tell us or warn us that eternal life can be lost?

 

[FreeGrace]

This is what I said:
"What's to "interpret"? Paul was clear about these FACTS:
1. the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable in 11:29
2. eternal life is a gift of God in 6:23
3. Paul DID NOT exclude the gift of eternal life from the gifts of God in 11:29."

Now address the argument: Your interpretation ignores the full counsel of God's word.

If my interpretation is in error, then show that either #1 or #2 is not true. That is the only way to do that.

Did you not read post #500??????

If it was to me, then yes, I did. Post #507. Did you not read that post??????????

 

[chessman]

The same way a person has a lotto ticket for a lifetime of paydays......as long as he doesn't lose the ticket before redemption day.

So you think purchasing a chance and winning a lottery "the same" as being gifted by God with His eternal life. No wonder your anti-OSAS.

John wants them to not fall away so HE and his companions in ministry can have the reward they worked among them to get:

"8Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 9Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (2 John 1:8-9 KJV bold mine)

2 John 1:8 (NASB) Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.​

I see you, in this case, prefer the mistaken translation of ἀπολέσητε (apolesēte) and insertion of John's 'companions' and 'fall away' into the verse.

Notice it says a full reward. What, part of them 'fall away' into Hell? Which part, their arms/feet?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I asked this:
"Do you agree that 11:29 is speaking of 2 separate things from God that are irrevocable? If not, then please provide a clear explanation of why not."

I see no relevance of this question to my question.

However, to answer your question, it should be clear to everyone that the call precedes the gifts. But, so what?

Now, I've answered your question. Will you please answer mine?

14“For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matthew 22:14 NASB)

We know that the calling is indeed revocable for the individual person. Many have received the calling of God, yet reject it and lose that calling (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 NASB, 1 John 5:10 NASB). But you insist that the calling is irrevocable for the person.

But what we can see Paul plainly teaching is that the calling is still in place for the nation of Christ rejecting Jews. God did not revoke that calling even though He cut them out of the tree because of their unbelief. So it's easy to see right from the Romans 11 passage itself that Paul is not saying that once a person has salvation they can never lose it. It's very obvious just from a simple read that he is saying the Jews have not lost God's calling even though they have rejected Christ. Paul and other Israelites being the proof that God has not revoked that calling (Romans 11:1-2 NASB). It's simply not a passage about a believer never being able to lose his salvation.

Bottom line: The calling IS revocable as you are interpreting the calling. So we know your interpretation of Romans 11:29 is false. Individual people do in fact lose the calling. But the way Paul is using 'the calling' in Romans 11:29 it isn't revocable, because he's talking about the nation of Israel.

That's your single biggest mistake about Romans 11:29 NASB: You have lifted it out of the context of the nation of Israel and the gifts and calling of God and are erroneously applying the gifts and calling of God to the individual believer for whom we know the calling is indeed revocable as I have shown above. So we know your interpretation can not be correct.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

2 John 1:8 (NASB) Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.
I see you, in this case, prefer the mistaken translation of ἀπολέσητε (apolesēte)

Neither 'we' nor 'you' appears in the text. It is added for translation purposes. 'We' is consistent with the rest of scripture concerning the worker and his rewards, and the verbs 'lose' and 'receive' are both in the active voice. So 'we' is actually the better interpretation added for English clarity.

But that doesn't change the fact that John is saying that the person who does not abide in the teaching of Christ "does not have God" or the Son. The choice of 'we' or 'you' in verse 8 does not change that fact:

8Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. 9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son." (2 John 1:8-9 NASB)

This same John says that the person who does not have God does not have eternal life:

"...God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (1 John 5: NASB)

So the use of 'we' or 'you' in verse 8 has no bearing on 2 John 1:8-9 being a 'rewards' only passage. The simple fact that the loss being spoken of in the passage results in a person not having the Father and Son (2 John 1:9 NASB) shows he's talking about not having eternal life, because to not have the Father and the Son is to not have eternal life (1 John 5:12 NASB). Which only makes sense since Jesus IS eternal life (1 John 5:20 NASB). So it's absurd for hyper-grace OSAS to insist you still have eternal life when you do not have Jesus because of unbelief.

 

[FreeGrace]

I asked this:
"Do you agree that 11:29 is speaking of 2 separate things from God that are irrevocable? If not, then please provide a clear explanation of why not."

I see no relevance of this question to my question.

However, to answer your question, it should be clear to everyone that the call precedes the gifts. But, so what?

Now, I've answered your question. Will you please answer mine?

14“For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matthew 22:14 NASB)

We know that the calling is indeed revocable for the individual person.

How does this verse support your contention? Please explain.

Merely making a claim and throwing a verse at it does no good and is of no help.

Many have received the calling of God, yet reject it and lose that calling

Here is the problem with your perspectives. Rejecting the irrevocable call doesn't mean that God revokes it. In fact, throughout human history, there have been many, many people who resisted the call of God repeatedly, and then finally did accept it.

And, btw, Paul himself was in that category. He was a Christ rejector and persecuted the church for a long time, until he finally ACCEPTED the call.

What does that show? That the call of God IS NOT REVOCABLE.

(2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 NASB, 1 John 5:10 NASB). But you insist that the calling is irrevocable for the person.

Because the Bible SAYS that gift is irrevocable, AND, Paul's own life demonstrates that fact.

It totally amazes me to find believers directly opposing what God's Word says in Rom 11:29. Your position has always opposed the statement that the gifts of God (one of them noted by Paul to be eternal life) are irrevocable. Now, to add to that opposition is the claim that even the call of God is revocable.

Why don't you just take some scissors and snip out Rom 11:29 from your Bible. Wouldn't that provide some relief?

But what we can see Paul plainly teaching is that the calling is still in place for the nation of Christ rejecting Jews.

Where's the logic, reason, or sense in claiming that God's call is only to one specific group, and not to anyone else personally?

You've already equated those rejecting the call to the call being revoked by this statement: "We know that the calling is indeed revocable for the individual person".

God did not revoke that calling even though He cut them out of the tree because of their unbelief. So it's easy to see right from the Romans 11 passage itself that Paul is not saying that once a person has salvation they can never lose it.

Paul sure did mean that. It's impossible to claim that he meant the opposite of that, or that eternal life or God's call can be revoked.

Bottom line: The calling IS revocable as you are interpreting the calling.

Wrong. I know what the word for "call" means. It means "to invite". And God's invitation to the gospel message of salvation is irrevocable to everyone on the planet. Titus 2:11 shows that. And those who have received the gift of eternal life cannot have it revoked.

So we know your interpretation of Romans 11:29 is false. Individual people do in fact lose the calling.

Then PROVE it, please. I'm tired of all these claims without any evidence. Where does the Bible say that God has or will revoke His calling?

But the way Paul is using 'the calling' in Romans 11:29 it isn't revocable, because he's talking about the nation of Israel.

That would mean that God revokes his calling to individual Gentiles then. Pure nonsense, as we all know.

That's your single biggest mistake about Romans 11:29 NASB: You have lifted it out of the context of the nation of Israel and the gifts and calling of God and are erroneously applying the gifts and calling of God to the individual believer for whom we know the calling is indeed revocable as I have shown above. So we know your interpretation can not be correct.

The context for what the "gifts of God" are in Rom 11:29 is EVERYWHERE in Romans between ch 1 and ch 11 where Paul NAMED specific gifts of God.

To claim otherwise is simply incomprehendable.

 

[chessman]

So the use of 'we' or 'you' in verse 8 has no bearing on 2 John 1:8-9

If it had no bearing, you wouldn't have posted v9 in NASB then switched to KJV for verse 8. Using your made up analogy of losing a winning lottery ticket; it matters as much as the difference in saying;
1) 'Watch yourselves, I might lose my winning lottery ticket' versus
2) 'Watch yourselves, you might lose your winning lottery ticket.
A substantial difference!

Neither 'we' nor 'you' appears in the text. It is added for translation purposes.

It is not necessary in the Greek because the form of the verbs watch/lose define themselves being in the 2nd person plural versus 1st person plural (you versus I).

If, John had meant himself and his companions, he'd of used the 1st person plural verb form as he does in v6 for "we walk".

'We' is consistent with the rest of scripture concerning the worker and his rewards, and the verbs 'lose' and 'receive' are both in the active voice.

Only if you thought (2nd person singular form) the rest of scripture taught that salvation is a reward based on works.

So 'we' is actually the better interpretation added for English clarity.

No it's not. It's literally wrong to translate a 2nd person plural verb form (no matter the verb) using "we". It's "absurd" to use your word.
It should be translated "you" as the more literal translations do.

 

[JLB]

I said this:
"The entire problem with your misunderstanding of Rom 11:29 is in the assumption that "the gifts and calling of God..." means "the gifts which is the calling of God...".

It certainly does not mean that. Everyone familiar with the English language knows that Paul was describing 2 DIFFERENT THINGS that are irrevocable:

1. the gifts of God
2. the calling of God

iow BOTH of these 2 DIFFERENT THINGS are irrevocable. You've not shown otherwise."

Please finally FACE the FACT that Rom 6:23 AND Rom 11:29 are about the GIFTS OF GOD.

6:23 describes one of the gifts of God.
11:29 tells us that the gifts of God are irrevocable.

There is no reason at all to exclude ANY of the gifts that Paul DID describe from 11:29. In fact, it is irrational to do so.

The local context DOES NOT exclude eternal life from 6:23 as gifts that are irrevocable.

If Paul HAD NOT described any gifts of God prior to 11:29, you might have a point. But, because he DID describe 3 specific gifts, Paul certainly DID have those gifts in mind when he penned 11:29.


Unbelieving Jews. So what, again? The point REMAINS; the gifts of God (one of which IS eternal life) ARE irrevocable.

Any unbelieving Jew who places their faith in Christ will HAVE eternal life, and that gift is irrevocable. That is Paul's point.

And God's call (invitation to the gospel) to the Jews (and Gentiles) is irrevocable.

Do you agree that 11:29 is speaking of 2 separate things from God that are irrevocable? If not, then please provide a clear explanation of why not.

More dodging of a simple question:


This verse does not contain the words "eternal life", and for good reason, since the context is referring to those who are enemies of the Gospel, but can indeed be saved if they repent and obey the Gospel, by confessing Jesus as Lord.

28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. Romans 11:28-32

CAN YOU ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION ABOUT ROMANS 11:29 AND IT'S CONTEXT?

To whom does "them", and "they" and "their" refer to in the context of these passages, of which verse 29 is referring?

1. Born again Christians?
2. Unsaved Jews who have rejected Jesus as Messiah?



JLB

 

[JLB]

How does one have the gifts of God if he is not first called to them?

Yes Sir!

How does an an unbelieving Jew, who has rejected Jesus as Messiah, yet still has the call of the Gospel to believe, have eternal life?


28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. Romans 11:28-32

 

[FreeGrace]

More dodging of a simple question:


This verse does not contain the words "eternal life", and for good reason, since the context is referring to those who are enemies of the Gospel, but can indeed be saved if they repent and obey the Gospel, by confessing Jesus as Lord.

28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. Romans 11:28-32

CAN YOU ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION ABOUT ROMANS 11:29 AND IT'S CONTEXT?

To whom does "them", and "they" and "their" refer to in the context of these passages, of which verse 29 is referring?

1. Born again Christians?
2. Unsaved Jews who have rejected Jesus as Messiah?JLB

I already answered the question. I dodged nothing.

But it's already been shown how much dodging has been happening on your side.

 

[FreeGrace]

How does an an unbelieving Jew, who has rejected Jesus as Messiah, yet still has the call of the Gospel to believe, have eternal life?

Why is this really strange question still being asked? No one HAS eternal life until they HAVE believed on Christ.

The question doesn't make any sense. No one has posited such an idea.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

How does this verse support your contention? Please explain.

The calling to the individual person is revocable.
The multitudes of people who reject the call to salvation, and therefore lose it (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 NASB), proves this.

The calling to the nation of Israel is not revocable.
The Jews who have believed since the Jews killed Christ proves this.

These simple truths are another way we know your interpretation of Romans 11:29 NASB is false.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Where's the logic, reason, or sense in claiming that God's call is only to one specific group, and not to anyone else personally?

The argument is not that the gifts and calling are only for Israel and not for the gentiles. The argument is that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable in regard to the nation of Israel as a group, not in regard to any one individual person not being able to have them revoked once they accept the gifts and calling of God. Prove to me you're smart enough to see the difference and stop arguing points I'm not making.