1 Peter 1:23 is about eternal security

[LovethroughDove]

What is being discussed is the issue of whether one who has believed and HAS eternal life can lose it (by any means).

So, the issue is quite black and white. The 2 views are in direct opposition to each other. No middle ground. Please explain how "parts of both sides is correct".

Then, please explain the "correct parts" of each side and the "incorrect parts" of each side.

Thanks.

Please correct me if I misunderstand both sides. I kept posting the parable of the sower, because this is the crux of whole back and forth and beating the dead horse.

You believe that ALL the people were born again in that parable? I know that the only ones who are born again are the people with good soil and they receive the Word and it grows and doesn't stop growing.

When the Bible says "believe for a while", it is not the saving belief..........We all know what the saving belief is
Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord", and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

They believed parts of the Bible/gospel, but it didn't take root.......to saving belief.

On the other side of this debate are the people who say you can lose your born again status. There are warnings to us about running the race and fight the good fight. Keeping us on the narrow path. The scripture that pops out is:

Hebrews 6:4-6 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

This is speaking right to the core of a born again believer. We will not disgrace the Son of God, because our love for him is more than anything and anyone can know. It is keeping our hearts on the narrow path.

God is constantly offering hope to all of us. That is what he does. The Hebrews scripture doesn't say there will be people who lose their salvation, but it is directly for the purpose of keeping those who love him on track. Hope would be lost if scripture said for sure that the born again status does get lost for some people. The majority of people are on the path of the sower and we are either receiving the Word and it is taking, or it is not sticking.

I guess what I want to convey to the other side of the debate, is that sometimes when you are a born again believer you don' feel like you are cutting the mustard. You've slipped up and you may feel God left you. That is not the case. He sent his comforter to be with you forever.

John 14:16-17 "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

 

[chessman]

NOTHING whatsoever in the context of Romans 11 says that "the gifts and calling of God is irrevocable" (Romans 11:29 NASB) means the 7,000+ individuals that received the gifts and calling of God can now never ever lose it.

The fact that God's gifts and calling are irrevocable IS Paul's point. Just cut it out of your Bible if you don't believe God's gifts are irrevocable. It means something, the fact that God's gifts are irrevocable. And the something is not "nothing whatsoever". And, the something that it means is not meant nationally merely to Jews either. Else, Paul would have not told it to Gentiles.

How does Paul and the 7,000+ individuals that have the gifts and calling of God automatically translate into them never being able to lose that gift and calling?

Because God's gifts are irrevocable. Plain as day.

because there is nothing in the passage to defend your out of context interpretation of Romans 11:29 NASB.

Bull. I'm not the one claiming that God's gifts and calling are individually revocable in contradiction to Romans 11:29. You are. Using a bogus argument. There are at least 7,001 reasons why your argument is absurd. I simply don't buy your argument.

Paul could have easily said God's gifts and calling to the Nation of Israel as a group are irrevocable but revocable to individuals. Which would have been rather contradictory given his own calling and gifting and his point about the 7,000 individuals in Elijah's day. He didn't. Or he could have just left Romans 11:29 out of his discussion to the Gentile brothers in Roman altogether. But he didn't. He meant what he said and said what he meant.

Those that are God's people have obtained the irrevocable gift of eternal life and done so on an individual by individual basis (not by birth). Whether Jew or Gentile, God's people are His.

 

[FreeGrace]

How can eternal life be irrevocable if these who rejected Jesus as Messiah were "cut off" and are now in need of obeying the call of the Gospel?

Being "cut off" does not mean loss of eternal life, as you continue to assume. In the OT, it was used many time to indicate physical death. It is also used to indicate being cut off from service. Recall that the Jews were quite proud of their heritage as God's "chosen people". To be told that God has cut them off from service to Him would be a major shock.

Paul warns the Church, they too can become "cut off" if they don't continue to believe.

And I can show specific verses about both physical death and loss of service to God for the church as well.

1 Cor 11:30 for physical death from divine discipline.
Luke 9:62 Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God." NIV

These folks who were "cut off", because of unbelief, can indeed be grafted back in, IF they do not continue in unbelief.

Of course they can be used again of God.

Jews who were cut off = unsaved
Christians who are cut off = unsavedJLB

That's just an opinion, without merit because of no evidence from Scripture.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"Simply, and clearly, because the gifts of God are irrevocable."

Classic OSAS circular reasoning.

Please explain clearly how it is. I've shown from sound logic that it is so.

You'll have to do better than this.

Actually, not I, but it's you that must do better than this. To date, you've not shown any evidence for your claims.

You have to provide context to prove that eternal life itself is what is irrevocable and not that God still giving out the gifts and calling to people is what Paul is saying is irrevocable.

I've already done that in spades. When Paul mentioned "the gifts of God" in 11:29, he had already specifically described 3 of God's gifts within the context of the letter to the Romans. Why anyone would think that those specific gifts of God somehow don't apply to 11:29 is just absurd. So don't talk "context" with me, since it's obvious that you've no clue what the scope of context is.

By mentioning "gifts" in 11:29, EVERYTHING prior to that within Romans described as a gift that is from God is obviously included in 11:29.

Paul even uses himself as proof to support what I'm saying Romans 11:29 means. No proof, no evidence, nothing exists in the passage to support and defend your argument that Paul means that once a person receives the gifts and calling of God that they can not be taken back from that person.

I would sure love to see Paul's reaction if he was able to hear your nonsensical comment here. Paul himself HAD eternal life. Paul himself described eternal life as a gift of God in 6:23. And Paul himself said that the gifts of God (and the calling of God) are irrevocable.

Stop dodging the argument. There is no disagreement on the definition of irrevocable.

Since your view is that salvation/eternal life can be lost, of course there is MAJOR DISAGREEMENT as to what 'irrevocable' means.

Prove to us that what Paul is saying is that the gift of eternal life itself is irrevocable and can't be taken away from the person who has it,

Here is the proof, which is just another opportunity for your side to reject the facts:
Paul described eternal life as a gift of God. Not the promise of it. Not the giving of it. But IT (eternal life) itself.
Then Paul wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable. Nothing more to say.

and that Paul is not saying that what is irrevocable is God continuing to hand out the gifts and calling of God to new people even though Christ has been rejected.

He's clearly NOT saying that because NONE of those words are in the verse or passage. Good grief!!

Prove it using the passage, not by using what you insist it means.

I already have.

And you've failed to prove all your claims. None of it says what you've claimed it means.

 

[FreeGrace]

Please correct me if I misunderstand both sides.

That was the crux of my response to your post.

I kept posting the parable of the sower, because this is the crux of whole back and forth and beating the dead horse.

No, it's not. It isn't about either getting, or staying saved, or losing salvation. It is all about fruit production.

You believe that ALL the people were born again in that parable? I know that the only ones who are born again are the people with good soil and they receive the Word and it grows and doesn't stop growing.

No. The first soil didn't believe, as Jesus very clearly stated in Luke 8:12 Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved NIV

Since ALL the rest of the soils DID produce a plant from the seeds, that shows new life from the seed, the seed being the very word of God. So soils 2-4 are saved, yet, for a variety of reasons, soils 2 and 3 didn't produce fruit.

When the Bible says "believe for a while", it is not the saving belief..........

That is an unfortunate misunderstanding of words. There is NOTHING in Scripture to back up your opinion.

We all know what the saving belief is
Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord", and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

They believed parts of the Bible/gospel, but it didn't take root.......to saving belief.

No, it didn't take root to produce fruit.

How do you explain the FACT that from the seeds PLANTS grew up?

Hebrews 6:4-6 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

It is only assumed that "impossible...to be brought back to repentance" means cannot be saved again. This passage again has nothing to do with either salvation or loss of it.

This is speaking right to the core of a born again believer. We will not disgrace the Son of God, because our love for him is more than anything and anyone can know. It is keeping our hearts on the narrow path.

This is a very naive viewpoint of believers. King Saul was a believer who was finally killed by God for going to a medium, according to 1 Chron 10:13,14, which I strongly suggest you read.

In 1 Sam 28:19 Samuel appears in that seance and tells Saul that "tomorrow you and your sons will be WITH ME". How is that not clear? Only to those who simply won't admit or accept that Saul went to Paradise, where Samuel was residing and waiting for the Lord Jesus Christ to come to take all the OT believers up to heaven to the Father.

So, in spite of Saul's many flaws and outright disobedience, he was saved even though God killed him for it.

God is constantly offering hope to all of us. That is what he does.

Really? Where is that taught in Scripture? God doesn't offer any such thing. He offers eternal security rather bluntly:
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. NIV
John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. NIV

The Hebrews scripture doesn't say there will be people who lose their salvation, but it is directly for the purpose of keeping those who love him on track.

To be correct, there are NO verses that say that there will be people who lose their salvation. But your second comment suggests that God is merely threatening what He won't really bring about. Really?

I guess what I want to convey to the other side of the debate, is that sometimes when you are a born again believer you don' feel like you are cutting the mustard. You've slipped up and you may feel God left you. That is not the case. He sent his comforter to be with you forever.

Your comments are getting kinda confusing. Is your position loss of salvation or eternal security? I cannot tell.

John 14:16-17 "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.[/QUOTE]
Directly because of what Jesus promised of the Comforter, being with us "forever" should inform everyone that those who have been given eternal life cannot end up in the lake of fire.

FOR THAT REASON ALONE. Although there are many more reasons that just that.

 

[LovethroughDove]

No, it's not. It isn't about either getting, or staying saved, or losing salvation. It is all about fruit production.

No. The first soil didn't believe, as Jesus very clearly stated in Luke 8:12 Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved NIV

Since ALL the rest of the soils DID produce a plant from the seeds, that shows new life from the seed, the seed being the very word of God. So soils 2-4 are saved, yet, for a variety of reasons, soils 2 and 3 didn't produce fruit.

It is not about fruit production. It is about people becoming believers or non-believers. In Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'"
This is stated right after he explains the sower parable. And,

Matthew 13:37-43. He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are the angels. "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it be at the end of these. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

You are either a weed or wheat.

Your comments are getting kinda confusing. Is your position loss of salvation or eternal security? I cannot tell.

No, a born again believer will not lose salvation.

 

[FreeGrace]

It is not about fruit production.

OK, we disagree. End of discussion.

It is about people becoming believers or non-believers.

Nope.

You are either a weed or wheat.

Not in the parable of the soils. You're just conflating different contexts.

No, a born again believer will not lose salvation.

Then we have no argument regarding that.

 

[LovethroughDove]

OK, we disagree. End of discussion.


Nope.


Not in the parable of the soils. You're just conflating different contexts.


Then we have no argument regarding that.

The last sentence was where I was agreeing with you through the entire debate. I also agree with Jethro and JLB on the people who are teetering on belief and unbelief. There are people who are deceiving themselves.

 

[Mike]

That's just an opinion, without merit because of no evidence from Scripture.

To date, you've not shown any evidence for your claims.

And you've failed to prove all your claims. None of it says what you've claimed it means.

There is NOTHING in Scripture to back up your opinion.

To be correct, there are NO verses that say that there will be people who lose their salvation.

All of this is more of you not practicing in honest debate. You repeatedly demand evidence and ignore or dismiss it without exception when evidence is presented. What is the purpose of being in a debate of you are dismissive of everything presented to you? It's a tactic used virtually by you alone, and this is not how discussions or debates can be had. For your own sake, I would take a new approach in order to increase your credibility.

The onus is not exclusively on one side to prove anything. It is shared equally upon both sides. Anyone who does not acknowledge this, repeatedly dismisses any evidence offered, and then claims that nothing has been offered either doesn't understand how debate works or is purposely being obstructive.

You have done better at times but quickly retreat to this tactic routinely.

 

[FreeGrace]

The last sentence was where I was agreeing with you through the entire debate.

OK. It seemed to me your view was that both sides of the debate had truth, which was the reason for my responses.

I also agree with Jethro and JLB on the people who are teetering on belief and unbelief. There are people who are deceiving themselves.

I haven't seen that in the debate. Their argument is that one who already has eternal life can lose it. Their position will not accept that the gift of God being eternal life is irrevocable. That is different than anyone who's teetering.

So, their argument is directed at those who used to believe, like the second soil in the parable, but no longer believe. They think that God revokes the gift of eternal life to them.

They have even claimed that one is kept saved by their 'faith', which by their definition means their continuing act of believing.

So, ultimately, they are saved by their own continuing act of believing. Because, in their view, if one ceases to believe, they cease to be saved.

 

[FreeGrace]

All of this is more of you not practicing in honest debate.
You repeatedly demand evidence and ignore or dismiss it without exception when evidence is presented.

If both sides truly have evidence for their own position, then the Bible is internally contradicted. It's that simple.

Both sides CANNOT have evidence. That would mean both sides have truth. In certain debates, both sides may both be wrong. But in the debate regarding eternal security, truth can only be on one side.

A person is either eternally secure, or a person can lose their salvation. Both cannot be true.

I have shown very clear evidence from Scripture that the gifts of God are irrevocable, and that eternal life is one of those gifts. What the other side presents as "evidence" is a twisting of a passage that forces Rom 11:29 to only apply to Jews. Yet Paul specifically described 3 of God's gifts within the body of the letter to the Romans. Yet the other side will not accept that any of those gifts of God applies to 11:29. That is totally unreasonable to me. Their argument just doesn't hold up. But it's the only thing they've got in their rejection of eternal security.

What is the purpose of being in a debate of you are dismissive of everything presented to you?

Because what has been presented doesn't come close to supporting the notion of loss of salvation.

If the other side had just one verse that plainly stated that one's salvation can be lost, the debate would be over for me. Immediately. But there are no such verses, as we all know.

Yet, there are a number of verses that plainly say that God's gifts, one of which is eternal life are irrevocable (Rom 6:23, 11:29). And that those who believe will never perish (Jn 3:16) and that those Jesus gives eternal life to will never perish (Jn 10:28).

It's a tactic used virtually by you alone, and this is not how discussions or debates can be had.

I've provided a reasonable explanation (interpretation) for all the verses and passages used by the other side, which are summarily ignored by the other side.

The whole point of a debate is to show evidence that supports one's view and to show how the other side doesn't have evidence.

For your own sake, I would take a new approach in order to increase your credibility.

For the record, this isn't about my sake, it's for the sake of truth. And as to credibility, the only thing that is credible is what the Bible says and means. And the other side has not been credible in their approach.

The onus is not exclusively on one side to prove anything. It is shared equally upon both sides.

Exactly!! Yet, the other side does not address my evidence. They just keep repeating their views.

Anyone who does not acknowledge this, repeatedly dismisses any evidence offered, and then claims that nothing has been offered either doesn't understand how debate works or is purposely being obstructive.

When what's offered as evidence isn't evidence, it's legitimate to call the poster on that. Just because someone says "here's the evidence" doesn't make it so. That's basically their approach. They have not proven their claim.

If the claim of evidence is considered evidence for purposes of debate, then the whole purpose of debate is destroyed.

You have done better at times but quickly retreat to this tactic routinely.

I will always call a spade a spade. If my approach is seen to be routine, it's only because of the approach of the other side.

If what they call evidence is truly evidence, and what I call evidence is truly evidence, then the Bible is interally contradicted.

Is that ok with anyone? Not me. I don't believe the Bible is contradicted in any way. Truth cannot be refuted.

If both sides have truth, then the meaning of truth is destroyed.

iow, A cannot be non-A.

If salvation can be lost, then what Jesus promised in Jn 3:16 and 10:28 cannot be true. I'll never accept that.

That is my bottom line.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

A person is either eternally secure, or a person can lose their salvation. Both cannot be true.

Obviously, both can be true.
As long as a person has faith they are indeed eternally secure.
But that hardly means it's impossible to one day no longer have the faith that makes you eternally secure.

the other side does not address my evidence.

Using the verse that is under debate to answer the argument about the verse under debate is not providing evidence. Your whole argument is:

'Romans 11:29 means you can not have the gifts and calling of God revoked because Romans 11:29 says the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.'​

That's called circular reasoning. That is not a legitimate debate method. You have to provide some kind of evidence to support your interpretation. That's what I did for my interpretation of vs.29. I used what Paul said in the passage vs. 29 comes from to prove that the gifts and calling of God being irrevocable means he has not changed his mind about giving the gifts and calling of God out even though Christ has been rejected (vs.1). And he did not change his mind about doing that because of the Patriarchal Fathers (vs.28).

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"A person is either eternally secure, or a person can lose their salvation. Both cannot be true."

Obviously, both can be true.

Obviously??

As long as a person has faith they are indeed eternally secure.

Which to date still has not been proven from Scripture.

But that hardly means it's impossible to one day no longer have the faith that makes you eternally secure.

That isn't what Jesus said about those who have believed.

Where is the Scripture that says that one must continue in the faith in order to continue to be saved? That would be proof. Where is it?

Using the verse that is under debate to answer the argument about the verse under debate is not providing evidence. Your whole argument is:

'Romans 11:29 means you can not have the gifts and calling of God revoked because Romans 11:29 says the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.'​

That is the proof for my statement.
​

That's called circular reasoning.

No, that's called LOGIC. No one has shown otherwise.

That is not a legitimate debate method.

Your claim does not make it so. You've not refuted the LOGIC that shows that eternal life itself is irrevocable.

You have to provide some kind of evidence to support your interpretation.

Paul gave us clear evidence to support my understanding. btw, there's nothing to interpret. If one understands that eternal life is a gift of God, AND one understands that the gifts of God are irrevocable, then one WILL UNDERSTAND that etenral life itself is irrevocable.

That's what I did for my interpretation of vs.29. I used what Paul said in the passage vs. 29 comes from to prove that the gifts and calling of God being irrevocable means he has not changed his mind about giving the gifts and calling of God out even though Christ has been rejected (vs.1).

And I CLEARLY showed how your 'interpetation' of that passage is wrong. You've assigned the "giving the gifts and calling of God" as what the word "gifts" in 11:29 means or refers to. But a gift is NOT a giving. That's just the means of transferring the gift itself to another.

That's what you keep getting wrong. The "gifts" in 11:29 refer to the THINGS that God gives to humans.

But your view continues to be that the "giving" is somehow a gift itself. I've shown otherwise.

 

[dirtfarmer]

Obviously, both can be true.
As long as a person has faith they are indeed eternally secure.
But that hardly means it's impossible to one day no longer have the faith that makes you eternally secure.


Using the verse that is under debate to answer the argument about the verse under debate is not providing evidence. Your whole argument is:

'Romans 11:29 means you can not have the gifts and calling of God revoked because Romans 11:29 says the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.'​

That's called circular reasoning. That is not a legitimate debate method. You have to provide some kind of evidence to support your interpretation. That's what I did for my interpretation of vs.29. I used what Paul said in the passage vs. 29 comes from to prove that the gifts and calling of God being irrevocable means he has not changed his mind about giving the gifts and calling of God out even though Christ has been rejected (vs.1). And he did not change his mind about doing that because of the Patriarchal Fathers (vs.28).

hello Jethro Bodine, dirtfarmer here

How can anything be eternal and yet be also temporal. We either have "eternal"(everlasting) life or we have temporal life(not everlasting). The life that we have in Christ is because we are dead to the old life and have been resurrected in Christ. How can any one be "un-resurrected"? If the old man has been crucified with Christ and is dead, who has the power of resurrection but Christ? Does man have the ability to "bring back to life"(resurrect)?

As I understand "circular" reasoning, it is saying one thing and then reverting back to another.

 

[LovethroughDove]

Their argument is that one who already has eternal life can lose it. Their position will not accept that the gift of God being eternal life is irrevocable. That is different than anyone who's teetering.

Oh, I see. I agree with you on this. If you have been given the Holy Spirit, he does stay with you forever.

So, their argument is directed at those who used to believe, like the second soil in the parable, but no longer believe. They think that God revokes the gift of eternal life to them.

Like you said before, you and I are at a standstill on the what the soil means. I know God doesn't give his Spirit to soil that won't produce for him.

If you have gotten to the point in your faith where you are at Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord", and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

It is a heart that has good soil. Real-lasting stuff. This is something you can't unbelieve if it is real. Example: Someone puts their hand over your face and cuts off your oxygen. Well, that proves that you need oxygen, even though you can't see oxygen. You know 100% that it is there and you can't unbelieve suddenly.

 

[gr8grace3]

If both sides truly have evidence for their own position, then the Bible is internally contradicted. It's that simple.

Both sides CANNOT have evidence. That would mean both sides have truth. In certain debates, both sides may both be wrong. But in the debate regarding eternal security, truth can only be on one side.

A person is either eternally secure, or a person can lose their salvation. Both cannot be true.

I have shown very clear evidence from Scripture that the gifts of God are irrevocable, and that eternal life is one of those gifts. What the other side presents as "evidence" is a twisting of a passage that forces Rom 11:29 to only apply to Jews. Yet Paul specifically described 3 of God's gifts within the body of the letter to the Romans. Yet the other side will not accept that any of those gifts of God applies to 11:29. That is totally unreasonable to me. Their argument just doesn't hold up. But it's the only thing they've got in their rejection of eternal security.


Because what has been presented doesn't come close to supporting the notion of loss of salvation.

If the other side had just one verse that plainly stated that one's salvation can be lost, the debate would be over for me. Immediately. But there are no such verses, as we all know.

Yet, there are a number of verses that plainly say that God's gifts, one of which is eternal life are irrevocable (Rom 6:23, 11:29). And that those who believe will never perish (Jn 3:16) and that those Jesus gives eternal life to will never perish (Jn 10:28).


I've provided a reasonable explanation (interpretation) for all the verses and passages used by the other side, which are summarily ignored by the other side.

The whole point of a debate is to show evidence that supports one's view and to show how the other side doesn't have evidence.


For the record, this isn't about my sake, it's for the sake of truth. And as to credibility, the only thing that is credible is what the Bible says and means. And the other side has not been credible in their approach.


Exactly!! Yet, the other side does not address my evidence. They just keep repeating their views.


When what's offered as evidence isn't evidence, it's legitimate to call the poster on that. Just because someone says "here's the evidence" doesn't make it so. That's basically their approach. They have not proven their claim.

If the claim of evidence is considered evidence for purposes of debate, then the whole purpose of debate is destroyed.


I will always call a spade a spade. If my approach is seen to be routine, it's only because of the approach of the other side.

If what they call evidence is truly evidence, and what I call evidence is truly evidence, then the Bible is interally contradicted.

Is that ok with anyone? Not me. I don't believe the Bible is contradicted in any way. Truth cannot be refuted.

If both sides have truth, then the meaning of truth is destroyed.

iow, A cannot be non-A.

If salvation can be lost, then what Jesus promised in Jn 3:16 and 10:28 cannot be true. I'll never accept that.

That is my bottom line.

A+

 

[Jethro Bodine]

How can anything be eternal and yet be also temporal.

The thing you possess is eternal. Your possession of it is not eternal until you get to heaven. Until then, the condition for retaining that which is eternal is your faith in the message of God's forgiveness, the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB).

How can any one be "un-resurrected"?

Simple.
Remove the Holy Spirit from that person.

As I understand "circular" reasoning, it is saying one thing and then reverting back to another.

"Circular reasoning (often begging the question) is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument..." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning​

IOW, freegrace is using the thesis he is trying to prove ("the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" Romans 11:29 NASB) as the evidence for that argument. It's like saying 'the sky is blue, because the sky is blue'. He's saying Romans 11:29 means eternal life is irrevocable for the person who gets it because Romans 11:29 says eternal life is irrevocable for the person who gets it. That's circular reasoning. I see this all the time when OSAS folk use various scriptures to prove OSAS.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Like you said before, you and I are at a standstill on the what the soil means. I know God doesn't give his Spirit to soil that won't produce for him.

If you have gotten to the point in your faith where you are at Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord", and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

It is a heart that has good soil. Real-lasting stuff. This is something you can't unbelieve if it is real. Example: Someone puts their hand over your face and cuts off your oxygen. Well, that proves that you need oxygen, even though you can't see oxygen. You know 100% that it is there and you can't unbelieve suddenly.

The sad conclusion of this popular version of OSAS is that you can never know if you are saved--as evidenced by your continuing faith--until all opportunities for finding out you really don't have faith are exhausted. IOW, you can't know you're saved until you leave the body. And that's supposed to be the doctrine of eternal security? That's a joke, because no one can truly know they are saved in that doctrine because there is always tomorrow's trials and temptations to prove you were never really saved to begin with.

In non-OSAS you know without a doubt that you are saved because you have faith in God's forgiveness. When you have faith you know that you are satisfying the condition for justification. If you stop believing in God's forgiveness you are no longer satisfying the condition for justification and, if you persist in that state, can not and will not be saved on the Day of Wrath.

 

[dirtfarmer]

The thing you possess is eternal. Your possession of it is not eternal until you get to heaven. Until then, the condition for retaining that which is eternal is your faith in the message of God's forgiveness, the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB).


Simple.
Remove the Holy Spirit from that person.

"Circular reasoning (often begging the question) is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument..." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning​

IOW, freegrace is using the thesis he is trying to prove ("the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" Romans 11:29 NASB) as the evidence for that argument. It's like saying 'the sky is blue, because the sky is blue'. He's saying Romans 11:29 means eternal life is irrevocable for the person who gets it because Romans 11:29 says eternal life is irrevocable for the person who gets it. That's circular reasoning. I see this all the time when OSAS folk use various scriptures to prove OSAS.

hello Jethro Bodine, dirtfarmer here

When a believer become an unbeliever(looses eternal life) when he dies, will that person re-aquire those sins that was committed before his cleansing by the blood of Christ or have those sins been atoned for?

 

[FreeGrace]

Oh, I see. I agree with you on this. If you have been given the Holy Spirit, he does stay with you forever.

Like you said before, you and I are at a standstill on the what the soil means. I know God doesn't give his Spirit to soil that won't produce for him.

Is there a verse that would indicate this?

If you have gotten to the point in your faith where you are at Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord", and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.