1 Peter 1:23 is about eternal security

[FreeGrace]

I can't show you what you refuse to see.

In fact, you've shown nothing to refute the logic I presented. And chessman did an excellent job of providing a parallel example of logic and the major and minor premises.

We know that eternal life is a gift of God.
We also know that God's gifts are irrevocable.
Therefore, eternal life is irrevocable.

One would have to be extremely illogical to deny any of this.

 

[FreeGrace]

And that the gift might be irrevocable does not require that the recipient of the gift keep it.

OK, let's go with this for a bit. If one has the power to give it away, which is what your statement insinuates, please guide me to any verse that teaches clearly that anyone has the power or authority to give their eternal life away.

Oh, and while you're at it, provide any verse that teaches clearly to whom it can be given away to.

 

[FreeGrace]

A "presumed derivative" ??
Do you know what the meaning of the words "presumed" and "derivative" mean?

So you cling to the straw at because the word is a "presumed derivative" of 3338 it must have the exact same meaning as 3338 IN SPITE of Thayer's SPECIFIC definition being, to the contrary; Thayer renders it "not repented, unregretted" with reference to the use of the word at Ro 11:29.
Let me see, whose linguistic skills should I trust? Yours or Thayer's? hmmmmm............

Rom 11:29-30
for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. NASB

Is your position that the translators of the NASB don't know as much as you regarding the Koine Greek?

 

[FreeGrace]

So ignore all those words, eh?

The problem is that many people have fallen for the pop-theology that is based in "proof texting" and root words, and the like.Those are tools which hucksters use to confuse and fleece people.

Is that your opinion of the Greek scholars who translated the NASB?

Rom 11:29-30
for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
NASB

 

[FreeGrace]

If you have faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, then by default you have the hope of salvation.

The Greek word for 'hope' is confident expectation. Or assurance. And there is no default. De facto is the better word.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

That is why a person must continue in the faith [holding fast], and not be moved away from the hope of the Gospel [Salvation] in order to receive the salvation they are hoping for.

The 'hope' of heb 11:1 is a "know so" belief, not a "hope so" kind of belief.

You have exposed why you argue against the scriptures, and cling to the false doctrine of OSAS.

Those who espouse loss of salvation argue against the Scriptures.

You simple don't understand what faith is.

The simple truth is that you don't understand Scripture.

If you have faith for something, then of course you don't have the reality of that something, but rather, you have the hope of having that something.

This disagrees with what Jesus SAID in John 5:24. That those who believe HAVE eternal life. Your position is that eternal life is received at the end of one's life. Which is unbiblical.

The same thing Peter says we will receive receive and the end of our faith... the salvation of our souls.

Why do you equate "end of our faith" with "end of our life"? There is no basis for that.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"Where did he actually speak about losing eternal life?"

Exactly!

There's nothing in the passage to support your argument that he is saying that once a believer gets eternal life he can never ever under any circumstances lose that eternal life/ salvation.

OK, so WHERE in the Bible is the teaching that there is any circumstance that we can lose that eternal life/salvation? And I mean clearly stated!

But a simple read shows without question that what Paul is talking about is the promises made to Israel will never be revoked but will be fulfilled, despite the fact that the nation of Israel as a whole has been rejected by God because of their disobedience.

If Paul were only talking about promises to Israel, why did he include ALL of God's gifts in his statement? Your view makes no sense.

In fact, Paul NEVER described anything of Israel as being a gift of God. That is the Achilles heel in your view. Especially so since Paul specifically described 3 gifts of God in Romans before he wrote 11:29. So clearly, ALL 3 of those gifts would be included in 11:29, since Paul never excluded any of those 3 previously mentioned gifts when he wrote 11:29.

To exclude any of the 3 previously mentioned gifts from Paul's intention in 11:29 is absurd.

 

[FreeGrace]

said this:
"The loss of salvation view is totally illogical since there are no verses that even make that claim."

What I said stands. There are no verses to that claim salvation or eternal life can be lost.

I think it amazing that you have the courage to change the prophecy of Revelation despite the warning to those who do so.

Where in Revelation do we read about anyone losing eternal life?

 

[JLB]

The 'hope' of heb 11:1 is a "know so" belief, not a "hope so" kind of belief.

...for why does one still hope for what he sees?

If you are hoping for something, do you have it?



24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? Romans 8:24

 

[FreeGrace]

Think about this; What does " born AGAIN" really mean?

It is the believer's new birth, spiritual birth. What do you think it means?

What are God's people " born again " FROM ?

Wrong question. No one is born again from anything. Not physically, not spiritually. We are born TO. To physical life and to spiritual life.

Is it possible we were ALL born IN God before we were birthed into the world with a visible flesh in a visible world that kept us blind from knowing where we were actually created?

What?! No, it's not possible. Or the Word would have said so.

By being birthed into the world with a visible flesh without knowing how we were created, isn't that called the first death, spiritual death?

Not at all. We know how we were created because God's word tells us. And spiritual death is separation from God. That's how we're born. Separated from God. Needing to be born again, which is a spiritual birth.

Once you're "born again", then you will be taught by God through His Holy Spirit that death of the flesh, the second death will not harm you because the visible flesh was the perishable seed that is destroyed by the Fire of God on the day of the Lord.

I see that your views are quite confused. The "second death" is a reference to the Lake of Fire where all unbelievers will be cast after the Great White Throne Judgment in Rev 20.

All those who have died in the flesh have already died their second death.

Please read Rev 20.

There is only ONE RESURRECTION and that is the spiritual one either through the experience of being "born again" during this first generation or when you die your second death.

More confusion. Reading Rev 20 will be quite enlightening.

Rev 20:5-6
(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

If there were only 1 resurrection, then the phrase "first resurrection" would be meaningless.

 

[FreeGrace]

...for why does one still hope for what he sees?

Why don't you accept the Greek word's meaning for 'hope'?

 

[JLB]

Why don't you accept the Greek word's meaning for 'hope'?

For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? Romans 8:24

I accept the Greek word meaning for hope; confident expectation

If you are hoping for something with a confident expectation, do you have it?

1. Yes.
2. No.


I see an alarming lack of understanding of basic English words on your part.

Maybe it would be best for you to consider refraining from teaching us the meaning of Greek words, or bible doctrine, before you have a better understanding of the English language.




JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I know. I pointed that out to you numerous times. Paul knew they were still holding fast IF their believing (past tense) was not in vain. He said so.

Apparently you don't remember: I challenged you and others to show how the fact that they were in fact presently believing, as indicated by the use of the 'if', somehow removes present believing as a condition for salvation for those who have stopped presently believing. No one could answer:

"1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain (that is, if Christ is not risen from the dead-vs.14,17)." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

But the point is, and which I will not let you evade, is that the 'if' in this passage means they are indeed holding fast the word (and are, therefore, saved). But now you want to make it so the 'if' in Romans 11:15 NASB doesn't mean the Israelites have indeed been rejected. But I see how this kind of selective and inconsistent interpretation is what one must do to make OSAS true.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It's up to you to prove God has revoked even just one of His gifts. You've not done that other than your clearly contradictory assertion to what Paul said in Romans 11:1.

I proved it already:
Matthew 18:6-9 NASB
Revelation 22:19 NASB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

OK, so WHERE in the Bible is the teaching that there is any circumstance that we can lose that eternal life/salvation? And I mean clearly stated!

Good grief, man! Can't you read?
Matthew 18:6-9 NASB
Revelation 22:19 NASB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If Paul were only talking about promises to Israel, why did he include ALL of God's gifts in his statement? Your view makes no sense.

The gift of eternal life was offered to the Israelites, too. They rejected it, so God rejected them. But Paul uses himself as proof that God did not revoke the offer of the gifts and calling to future generations of Israelites.

The passage has NOTHING to do with an individual person receiving the gift of eternal life and never ever being able to lose it. It has EVERYTHING to do with the offer of the gifts and calling of God to Israel not being revoked for future Israelites because of unbelief, right up to the end of the age. In fact, he quotes the prophet who speaks of the day when the nation of Israel will indeed receive the gifts and calling of God, showing that the offer of the gifts and calling of God have not, nor never will be, revoked for them. The offer is still on the table for present and future Israelites.

Romans 11 is simply not a passage about a person believing, then not believing, but still having eternal life. All one has to do is read the plain words of the passage to see that.

 

[chessman]

If .NET Framework 4.0 was great, think how much greater .NET Framework 4.5 is!

Unless .NET Framework 4.0 was not great. You forget that.

I've demonstrated twice that the clear logical structure of the "IF THEN ELSE" statement Paul made in 1 Cor 15:1-2 does not say anything about loss of salvation (logically speaking). Clearly the passage is the equivalent to the logical structure of an IF THEN ELSE syntax statement when mapped to what Paul actually said (versus what you say about the passage). You even agreed the passage maps to an IF THEN ELSE statement.

IF you hold fast the Gospel-if you hold firmly (present tense) to the word which I preached (past tense) to you

THEN you are saved-By this faith you aresaved (present tense) reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, and set apart for His purpose

ELSE you are lost-unless you believed (past tense) in vain just superficially and without complete commitment

Apparently you don't remember:

I remember. Apparently it is you that has not remembered.

 

[chessman]

I proved it already:
Matthew 18:6-9 NASB
Revelation 22:19 NASB

Those verses do not say anything about God rejecting His people or revoking His gifts. And they never will, no matter how many times you tag them to your claim that God has rejected His people.

What you've proved is that you don't mind contradicting Paul who said God has not rejected His people, never.

Romans 11:1 (LEB) Therefore I say, God has not rejected his people, has he? May it never be! ​

 

[FreeGrace]

For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? Romans 8:24

I accept the Greek word meaning for hope; confident expectation

If you are hoping for something with a confident expectation, do you have it?

1. Yes.
2. No.

Yes, I HAVE (in the PRESENT TENSE) eternal life. Because SAID SO. In John 5:24. Because of what Jesus SAID, it should be obvious what Paul was referring to, which cannot be salvation it self, otherwise Paul and Jesus would be in disagreement. But that seems to be the foundation of your theology, so I'm not that surprised.

I see an alarming lack of understanding of basic English words on your part.

Maybe it would be best for you to consider refraining from teaching us the meaning of Greek words, or bible doctrine, before you have a better understanding of the English language.
JLB

Rom 8:18-25
I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

The context for v.25 is the "glory that will be revealed in us", an obvious reference to being IN eternity. That is backed up in the next 5 verses by reference to creation waiting for the sons of god to be revealed, etc.

So in v.24 the phrase "for in this hope we were saved" doesn't mean that we 'hope' for salvation, as it seems your view insinuates, but the reality of waiting for eternity, or the next life after this one.

So, maybe it would be best for you to consider the actual context before firing off verses and making comments that are REFUTED by its context.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"OK, so WHERE in the Bible is the teaching that there is any circumstance that we can lose that eternal life/salvation? And I mean clearly stated!"

Good grief, man! Can't you read?
Matthew 18:6-9 NASB
Revelation 22:19 NASB

OK, I guess I'm going to have to quote the verse to prove that your claim about any verse teaches loss of eternal life is wrong.
Matt 18:6-9
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

7 "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Where is the teaching of loss of eternal life? In fact, the passage doesn't even mention eternal life. It does speak of eternal fire. And there is NOTHING about losing eternal life.

One must make huge assumptions, but none of which are biblical, to conclude this passage teaches that eternal life can be lost.

If one takes the words literally, it teaches self mutilation and dismemberment. Is that your theology? In psychology, that is called "cutting".

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"If Paul were only talking about promises to Israel, why did he include ALL of God's gifts in his statement? Your view makes no sense."

The gift of eternal life was offered to the Israelites, too. They rejected it, so God rejected them. But Paul uses himself as proof that God did not revoke the offer of the gifts and calling to future generations of Israelites.

Where in the world would one get the notion that the offer of a gift is the gift itself?? The gift is eternal life itself. Rom 6:23 doesn't speak of any offer.

The passage has NOTHING to do with an individual person receiving the gift of eternal life and never ever being able to lose it.

Rom 11:29 has EVERYTHING to do with the FACT that the gifts of God are IRREVOCABLE. That is irrefutable.

Major premise: the gifts of God are irrevocable. Rom 11:29
Minor premise: eternal life is a gift of God. Rom 6:23
Conclusion: eternal life is irrevocable.

No one has shown this logic to be flawed.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the offer of the gifts and calling of God to Israel not being revoked for future Israelites because of unbelief, right up to the end of the age.

It's interesting to note that none of your claims have been supported by Scripture. The gifts and calling aren't just for Israel. They're for everyone. Those who receive the gift of eternal life cannot lose it because it is irrevocable.

Romans 11 is simply not a passage about a person believing, then not believing, but still having eternal life.

I never said it was. I have proven through rock solid logic that eternal life, which is a gift of God, is irrevocable.

All one has to do is read the plain words of the passage to see that.

Please start, then. Not only are the words plain, but the logic is too.