1 Peter 1:23 is about eternal security

[Jim Parker]

I believe eternal security is assured by the promise of God's grace

That's nice.
It's a misreading of scripture but at least you've read some of it.

 

[Jim Parker]

Yes, why, oh why, does the eternal insecurity crowd keep doing that??!

I guess they figure that if they repeat it often enough and believe it hard enough, it will magically come true.

 

[FreeGrace]

The thing you possess is eternal. Your possession of it is not eternal until you get to heaven.

This basically says that eternal life isn't really eternal until you get to eternity. Nonsense. It's ETERNAL the moment one receives it. Otherwise, the Bible wouldn't be calling it eternal life. It would be calling it "potentially eternal life", which seems to be your view of it.

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).

I've already explained the verse, and how your interpretation isn't accurate.

dirtfarmer said: ↑
How can any one be "un-resurrected"?

Simple.
Remove the Holy Spirit from that person.

That notion has been thoroughly refuted from Eph 1:13,14 and 4:30, all of which prove that the sealing WITH the Holy Spirit means He can't and won't be removed from that person.
Eph 1:13-14
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession — to the praise of his glory. NIV

Eph 4:30
And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption NIV

Also, your notion leads to the conclusion that what Jesus said about the Holy Spirit isn't true:
John 14:16
"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever NASU

Is your view that Jesus didn't get what He asked His Father for? Or that He just didn't mean what He said?

The challenge for your view requires proof that the Holy Spirit can be removed from anyone in the NT.

"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​

Solid LOGIC is never circular reasoning. So your claim is just fallacious.

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.

No. The evidence is Rom 6:23 and 5:15,16,17 where Paul actually described 2 of God's gifts: justification and eternal life.

It's your side that denies that these are gifts of God that are irrevocable.

It's like saying 'the sky is blue, because the sky is blue'.

When the sky IS blue, the statement is true. And because Rom 6:23 describes eternal life as a gift of God, it is included in Rom 11:29, that speaks of God's gifts. You've not proven otherwise.

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.

This is nonsense. 11:29 says that God's gifts are irrevocable. 6:23 says eternal life is a gift of God. Any reasonable person would easily see the connection between the 2 verses.

What is totally unreasonable and even irrational is to claim that 6:23 has no bearing at all on 11:29.

 

[FreeGrace]

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.

This is directly fallacious. It's your own view that leads to that sad conclusion. To suggest that a person doesn't "really know if they have faith" is ludicrous. A person either knows they believe something, or they know they don't believe something. If they aren't sure about something, that relates to NOT believing it. Proving your claim wrong.

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.

Why are you describing your own view but trying to pass it on as the view of OSAS???

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.

OK, I see. It's that "must continue" bit.

Then why has your side kept citing the passages on "will not inherit the kingdom". The lists of those who will not inherit the kingdom does not include loss of faith.

But, really, the final nail to the coffin of your conditional security is that there are no verses about losing salvation by losing faith. And 1 or 15:1-2 has been explained thoroughly to show why those verses don't support your view.

 

[FreeGrace]

That's nice.
It's a misreading of scripture but at least you've read some of it.

Since it seems "you've read some of it" please provide just one verse that plainly teaches that one who has eternal life/salvation can lose it.

 

[FreeGrace]

I guess they figure that if they repeat it often enough and believe it hard enough, it will magically come true.

Maybe you misread my comment. I was referring to the "eternal IN-security" crowd. But your statement is true, nonetheless.

 

[Mike]

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

Not true. And here lies the debate. As with any debate, both sides present evidence to support their interpretation. Those involved or following along evaluate what they read and align it with scripture themselves.

Scripture is not on trial. Its credibility is not in question. The interpretation it by men is. Make no mistake. You are not the final arbiter of Truth, nor is anyone on this site. What you and everyone else has is interpretation; not the final word.

If you insist that your interpretation is the final word, I'll refer you to the Blogs section. I purposely stay out of the fray in these debates and not take sides. With that, I can say you are doing your position a disservice by dismissing anything that doesn't support your interpretation as "opinion". You do have strong evidence yourself, and I would rely upon that as opposed to declaring and dismissing.

 

[Mustard Socks]

That's nice.
It's a misreading of scripture but at least you've read some of it.

It is nice because it is God's eternal word.

 

[Mustard Socks]

Since it seems "you've read some of it" please provide just one verse that plainly teaches that one who has eternal life/salvation can lose it.

The anti-eternal-security argument will typically interpolate scriptures to say just that. Otherwise, what would be the point of holding the argument that everything Christ died on the cross to give us can be un-done?

 

[Mustard Socks]

I wanted to interject here.

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

I would say it is exactly that simple. And what makes for the debate that is ongoing here. God's word is truth.
I believe in my personal prejudice in how God word speaks to me as an individual in what is to be a personal relationship with Jesus in the Father . For me the word speaks to me as it teaches through Christ and his ministry. When I accept that and enter into discussions like this, I'm defending how I read scripture. It is inevitable I'll meet someone who doesn't read it my way.
I think what makes the debate or argument come to life is the contradictions I glean through scripture sharing with others of a different opinion of those same scriptures.
We each find our way when God guides us. That's what I believe.How can I judge someone elses relationship?

 

[Jim Parker]

It is nice because it is God's eternal word.

Not quite.
It is your personal understanding of God's eternal word.
That understanding can only be sustained by completely ignoring or mangling the scriptures that refute it.
But, It floats you boat and won't keep you out of the kingdom so, enjoy your fantasy!

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

Since it seems "you've read some of it" please provide just one verse that plainly teaches that one who has eternal life/salvation can lose it.

Why?
I've provided a whole raft of them and you refused to believe any of them.
Why should I bother playing that game with you since you clearly don't want to know what you don't want to know?
I'm not fond of useless exercises like trying to show JWs or Mormons or OSASs what the scripture actually says.

 

[Mustard Socks]

Not quite.
It is your personal understanding of God's eternal word.

Thank you for adding my later thoughts in post #595 there.

 

[Mustard Socks]

Thank you for adding my later thoughts in post #595 there.

That understanding can only be sustained by completely ignoring or mangling the scriptures that refute it.

Again thank you for the reiteration of my remarks in #595 from your own perspective.

But, It floats you boat and won't keep you out of the kingdom so, enjoy your fantasy!

Thank you. And may you enjoy yours as well brother.

 

[Jim Parker]

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

That is not the only conclusion.
The selective use of scripture combined with the exclusion of any scripture that refutes a predetermined conclusion does not result in a "proof" that the predetermined solution is correct. It only proves that the one who misuses scripture in such a manner is more dedicated to their religious traditions than to the revelation of scripture.
Those nice folks who knock on the door offering those "Awake!" comic books and inviting people to their "Bible Studies" do the same thing.

 

[Mustard Socks]

That is not the only conclusion.
The selective use of scripture combined with the exclusion of any scripture that refutes a predetermined conclusion does not result in a "proof" that the predetermined solution is correct. It only proves that the one who misuses scripture in such a manner is more dedicated to their religious traditions than to the revelation of scripture.
Those nice folks who knock on the door offering those "Awake!" comic books and inviting people to their "Bible Studies" do the same thing.

It is your conclusion. And yet another proof of personal interpretation and prejudice. Thank you again.
May all people who share the word of God be respected as good people of a prone heart. We shall know and we are known by our example of what we believe.

 

[Jim Parker]

It is your conclusion. And yet another proof of personal interpretation and prejudice. Thank you again.
May all people who share the word of God be respected as good people of a prone heart. We shall know and we are known by our example of what we believe.

That's your personal opinion!
No! That's YOUR personal opinion!
No! That's YOUR personal opinion!
No! That's YOUR personal opinion!
No! That's YOUR personal opinion!
or:

Can we just move on, please?

 

[Jim Parker]

This thread has gone on waaaaaaaaay too long.
(imho)

603 posts and nothing new since about post 35?

 

[Mustard Socks]

This thread has gone on waaaaaaaaay too long.
(imho)

603 posts and nothing new since about post 35?

Post 35 would be your post. Again, thank you.

This thread has gone on just enough to make the points outlined to 31 pages now.
Eternal security is the topic. We are eternally one with Christ those that believe. For God so loved us that he gave unto us his only begotten son. That whosoever believe in Jesus shall not die. But have eternal life.

I believe those who do not see eternity with Christ as something they're eternally worthy of in God's grace aren't making an argument with any other one here.

To God be the glory. Forever and ever amen.

 

[WIP]

I've been offline for the past couple days and haven't been following the discussion, if it can be called that. The last two pages of this thread are so far off the mark it's hard to recognize as a discussion between Christians. Unless these posts are geared to get off each others' backs right quick, this thread will be tossed in the trash along with the other OSAS-nonOSAS threads too many too count! Let's start acting like the Christians we claim to be!