1 Peter 1:23 is about eternal security

[JLB]

Churches have brought it on themselves, teaching a Savior who can not save. And instead putting that burden on the back of believers rather than Christ Himself.

Does Christ do the believing for believers, or is it believers who are saved?

Your new koolaide teaches that everyone is saved no matter if the believe or not.

Universal Reconciliation.


JLB

 

[smaller]

Does Christ do the believing for believers, or is it believers who are saved?

1 Corinthians 12:3
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

My question to your positions would be twofold.

A. Why do your positions try to damn those He has gifted with calling upon Him to save them by the Holy Ghost?

B. Why do your positions try to remove the work of the Holy Ghost from the equations?

Your new koolaide teaches that everyone is saved no matter if the believe or not. Universal Reconciliation.
JLB

Don't bait me. I stand by Romans 9:18

"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't care either. What's the point?


How come those words aren't in the text or context, if that is what Paul is SAYING??

What can't be refuted is the clear and solid logic from what Paul DID SAY.

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. Obviously.


I know that really bothers those of your position, but the FACT remains:

Major premise: the gifts of God are irrevocable.
Minor premise: eternal life is a gift of God.
Conclusion: eternal life is irrevocable.

That is what Paul taught.


Of course I did that. And, of course, no one from your position has been able to refute the logic or the conclusion.

Rather, just like the Pharisees, who saw the miracles of Jesus continued to deny His deity and Messiahship, those of your position continue to deny the fact that eternal life, a gift of God, is irrevocable.


So, what does it mean to say that "the gifts of God are irrevocable"? In general, I mean. Please answer.


Throwing out accusations does no good. One needs evidence for that to stick. Which no one from your position has done yet.

I've shown these facts:
The gifts of God are irrevocable. Agree or disagree.
Eternal life is a gift of God. Agree or disagree.

My guess is that this will not be answered, because we all know what the conclusion of that will be. That eternal life, a gift of God, is irrevocable. And, like the Pharisees, who in spite of seeing the miracles directly, still rejected the deity of Jesus, just as those of your position continue to reject the truth that eternal life is irrevocable.

The problem is that your position just doesn't like the conclusion that comes from the facts of Scripture.


If you do see clearly, then WHY continue to reject the truth that eternal life, a gift from God, is irrevocable?


It has everything to do about that.


I've shown it from all that Paul wrote. Truth isn't limited to just one context within a whole book. How silly.


What anyone predicts is totally irrelevant. It is the truth that matters, and which your position simply refuses to accept. Just like the Pharisees who saw the miracles of Jesus yet still rejected His deity.


How about dogmatic supported Scripture?

Here's a fact:
The gifts of God are irrevocable. Do you agree with this?
Eternal life is a gift of God. Do you agree with this?

The ONLY conclusion is this: eternal life, being a gift of God, is irrevocable. But I know that you do not agree with this.

So, the only rational explanation has to be that either of the 2 facts can be proven false.

So, which fact is false?

Are the gifts of God revocable? If so, please quote any verse that actually says so.

Is eternal life NOT a gift of God? Well, that has already been established, so it cannot be refuted.

So, when one speaks of "dogmatic unsupported rhetoric", you've just described your own position. lol

Still no contextual defense of your interpretation of Romans 11:29 NASB, I see.
I conclude, then, that you have no defense for your assertion.
Dogmatically restating the argument under consideration is not a defense. You are not right simply because you stubbornly and dogmatically restate your opinion of the verse.

I used the context of Romans 11 to prove my argument. But you have not, because you can not, because it's not there. The rest of us know what Paul meant when he said "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29 NASB) by simply reading the passage. And it's hardly what you are saying.

 

[FreeGrace]

Your going to have to do better than state assumptions in the face of the truth from the scriptures, as all can see that is what you are doing since you have proven that "eternity" is not found in the verses that were quoted nor in the context nor in verse 24.

Once again, here are the facts of Scripture.

The gifts of God are irrevocable. Rom 11:29
Eternal life is a gift of God. Rom 6:23

The conclusion is obvious to everyone who isn't biased against eternal security.

Your left with your logical fallacy with no scriptures or proof.

See above for the proof. But since the charge of "logical fallacy" has been thrown, please prove your claim with actual evidence.

That would mean finding a verse within Romans where Paul specifically excluded the gift of eternal life from the gifts of God that are irrevocable.

 

[FreeGrace]

Still no contextual defense of your interpretation of Romans 11:29 NASB, I see.
I conclude, then, that you have no defense for your assertion.

The entire book of Romans is within context of itself. Every reasonable student of the Word knows that. And since Paul specifically noted 3 of God's gifts BEFORE he penned 11:29 and noted that "the gifts of God" are irrevocable, it is clear to reasonable people that he didn't exclude any of God's gifts in any way.

To reduce the scope of gifts that are irrevocable, he would have added one of these words to indicate that not all gifts are irrevocable:
a few, some, a number of, many, most. Any one of these would have communicated that not all of God's gifts are irrevocable.

But, guess what!! He didn't add any such words. So his statement is a clear statement about ALL of God's gifts. ALL of them are irrevocable.

Dogmatically restating the argument under consideration is not a defense. You are not right simply because you stubbornly and dogmatically restate your opinion of the verse.

Reasonable people have seen the evidence that I've presented. Those who don't "see" it simply don't want to see it.

I used the context of Romans 11 to prove my argument.

What has been proven from your posts is a gross failure in understanding how context works. Paul NEVER described anything as gifts to Israel. So your whole theology collapses like a house of cards.

But you have not, because you can not, because it's not there. The rest of us know what Paul meant when he said "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29 NASB) by simply reading the passage. And it's hardly what you are saying.

So, it should be rather simple to cite any verse in ch 11 where Paul described any gifts to Israel.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

it is clear to reasonable people that he didn't exclude any of God's gifts in any way.

I didn't say he did.

The Jews considered themselves unworthy of the gospel. But their rejection of God's gifts and calling did not make it so that he changed his mind about the Jews still being able to be grafted into the tree through Christ. Paul shows how he is proof of that. THAT is what it means for the gifts and calling of God to not be revocable (Romans 11:29 NASB). It has NOTHING to do with any person believing, then not believing, but still having the gifts and calling of God despite that later rejection of Christ. There's nothing in Romans to even suggest that's what he means, let alone right there in chapter 11. You haven't been able to provide a stitch of evidence from Romans to support that's what he means. All you keep telling us is that's what he means.

 

[JLB]

Once again, here are the facts of Scripture.

The gifts of God are irrevocable. Rom 11:29
Eternal life is a gift of God. Rom 6:23

The conclusion is obvious to everyone who isn't biased against eternal security.

Once again here is the whole truth.

29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

It says the gifts and calling of God together are irrevocable.
And there is till no mention of salvation or eternal life mentioned here.


Once again here is the whole truth.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23


There is no eternal life outside of Christ Jesus our Lord.
The wages of sin is still death, as Paul warns the Romans throughout Romans Chapter 6.


Christians who choose to live as a slave to sin, will receive the wages of sin which is death.
Christians who choose to become a slave to God, with their fruit unto holiness will in the end receive eternal life.


19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death.
22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:19-23


JLB

 

[JLB]

See above for the proof. But since the charge of "logical fallacy" has been thrown, please prove your claim with actual evidence.

That would mean finding a verse within Romans where Paul specifically excluded the gift of eternal life from the gifts of God that are irrevocable.

Those who have faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, have the hope of salvation to come, while we wait for it with perseverance.

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

• Salvation is what Paul says he is hoping for.
• Salvation is what Paul says he is waiting for, with perseverance.

But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance. Romans 8:25


If you are waiting for something with hope, have you actually obtained what what your hoping for?



He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Titus 3:5-7


If you are an heir to inherit something, you don't actually have what you are an heir to, but have the hope of an inheritance.




JLB

 

[JLB]

It would be more convincing toward your claim if Paul would have actually said the faith in Jesus Christ in this passage. He did not.

The context is clear, as Paul refers to "the faith" as the faith in Jesus Christ.


13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.14 These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly;15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 1 Timothy 3:13-4:1


JLB

 

[chessman]

Once again here is the whole truth.

29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

It says the gifts and calling of God together are irrevocable.

At 5:19 AM CDT you made the claim that God's gift of Eternal life is revocable because gifts in the verse above must be understood together with God's calling.

But at 5:33 AM CDT you chopped off Paul's sentence 1/5 the way thru it and do not recognize the Textual fact that Paul is moving on to another point in Chapter 4.

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 1 Timothy 3:13-4:1

That's called hypocrisy.

1 Timothy 4:1-3 (NASB) But [on the other hand] the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer. ​

You my recognize that indeed there have been those very departures being made in the last few days on this forum. That is, everything God created is NOT good.

13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

See, Paul knows how to make the faith in Christ Jesus plain and clear. He does so at least four times in 1 Timothy. But (on the other hand) he does not do so in 4:1. That's because he's talking about the faith that everything God has made is good, not the faith in Christ Jesus. God did not make Christ Jesus. Christ Jesus is God (un-made, begotten). If he meant Jesus as a thing made by God in verse 4:1 (like food and marraige), he'd be teaching hersey.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"it is clear to reasonable people that he didn't exclude any of God's gifts in any way."

I didn't say he did.

Yet, your position continues to be that eternal life is a revocable gift. Why is that, since there are no verses that specifically tell us that it is?

The Jews considered themselves unworthy of the gospel.

No, they didn't. That was just Paul's response to their rejection of what he preached. They actually considered their Law keeping and works would save them.

But their rejection of God's gifts and calling...

So, where does the Bible describe Israel as having gifts from God?

THAT is what it means for the gifts and calling of God to not be revocable (Romans 11:29 NASB). It has NOTHING to do with any person believing, then not believing, but still having the gifts and calling of God despite that later rejection of Christ.

In spite of clear Scripture on the fact that eternal life, a gift of God, is irrevocable, your position continues to be that it is revocable. And all without any evidence.

There's nothing in Romans to even suggest that's what he means, let alone right there in chapter 11.

What Paul clearly meant, and actually SAID, was that eternal life is a gift of God in Rom 6:23. And that the gifts of God are irrevocable.

The connection is unmistakable.

You haven't been able to provide a stitch of evidence from Romans to support that's what he means. All you keep telling us is that's what he means.

I gave rock solid logical proof, which no one has yet unpacked.

Major premise: the gifts of God are irrevocable.
Minor premise: eternal life is a gift of God.
Conclusion: eternal life is irrevocable.

If there was even just one verse that out and out said that either eternal life or salvation could be lost, you'd have proven your position.

But...you haven't because you can't.

 

[FreeGrace]

Once again here is the whole truth.

Your position does not include the whole truth.

Truth: eternal life is a gift of God. Rom 6:23 says so.
Truth: the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. Rom 11:29 says so.
The only reasonable conclusion is that eternal life is irrevocable.

29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

And that includes eternal life, which is a gift of God.

It says the gifts and calling of God together are irrevocable.

Just because I don't always include "and calling" in my posts in no way changes the FACT that eternal life, being a gift of God, is irrevocable.

And there is till no mention of salvation or eternal life mentioned here.

It's mentioned in Rom 6:23 as a gift of God, which DIRECTLY LINKS to Rom 11:29 which says that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.

Once again here is the whole truth.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

This changes nothing regarding my posts. Eternal life IS a gift of God. And God's gifts are irrevocable according to Rom 11:29.

But your position does NOT believe that eternal life is irrevocable. That is neither reasonable nor rational.

There is no eternal life outside of Christ Jesus our Lord.
The wages of sin is still death, as Paul warns the Romans throughout Romans Chapter 6.

Please point out any verse where Paul specificallly warns that eternal life is revocable, or can be lost.

Christians who choose to live as a slave to sin, will receive the wages of sin which is death.

The death in 6:23 is spiritual death, of which ALL members of the human race are born into. So your eisegesis of the verse is in error.

When someone believes in Christ, the Bible promises that they will NEVER perish (John 3:16). And 1 Pet 1:23 says that we have been born again by IMPERISHABLE SEED. That's the reason Jesus said those who believe will NEVER PERISH.

Christians who choose to become a slave to God, with their fruit unto holiness will in the end receive eternal life.

I reject this works based system of salvation. Salvation is BY GRACE through faith. Your position is different, unbiblical.

 

[FreeGrace]

Those who have faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, have the hope of salvation to come, while we wait for it with perseverance.

Such repetition changes nothing. We HAVE in the present tense eternal life WHEN we believed in Christ. That means we ARE SAVED when we believe. Not at the end of our lives, or sometime in eternity.

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

• Salvation is what Paul says he is hoping for.
• Salvation is what Paul says he is waiting for, with perseverance.

But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance. Romans 8:25

There is no point in further discussion. The truth has been given. There is no excuse for repeating errors.

If you are waiting for something with hope, have you actually obtained what what your hoping for?

Since we don't live in eternity now, we are hoping (confident expectation) for it after we die. Very simple.

 

[Runner]

Churches have brought it on themselves, ...

The core problem is: the Bible. Face and accept that fact and you will experience an entirely new and deeper Christianity. The churches will always be plagued by the failings of human nature, but the core problem is: the Bible.

 

[Free]

The core problem is: the Bible. Face and accept that fact and you will experience an entirely new and deeper Christianity. The churches will always be plagued by the failings of human nature, but the core problem is: the Bible.

What do you mean by "The core problem is: the Bible"? And precisely how would accepting that "fact" cause one to "experience an entirely new and deeper Christianity"? What exactly would be new about this Christianity?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I said this:
"it is clear to reasonable people that he didn't exclude any of God's gifts in any way."

Yet, your position continues to be that eternal life is a revocable gift. Why is that, since there are no verses that specifically tell us that it is?


No, they didn't. That was just Paul's response to their rejection of what he preached. They actually considered their Law keeping and works would save them.


So, where does the Bible describe Israel as having gifts from God?


In spite of clear Scripture on the fact that eternal life, a gift of God, is irrevocable, your position continues to be that it is revocable. And all without any evidence.


What Paul clearly meant, and actually SAID, was that eternal life is a gift of God in Rom 6:23. And that the gifts of God are irrevocable.

The connection is unmistakable.


I gave rock solid logical proof, which no one has yet unpacked.

Major premise: the gifts of God are irrevocable.
Minor premise: eternal life is a gift of God.
Conclusion: eternal life is irrevocable.

If there was even just one verse that out and out said that either eternal life or salvation could be lost, you'd have proven your position.

But...you haven't because you can't.

I see. You still have no contextual evidence to support your claim that Paul means in Romans 11:29 NASB that a person can believe and then stop believing and still have Christ's eternal life. All you have is a dogmatic assertion......an opinion. If that's all you got, well, that's all you got.

 

[smaller]

The core problem is: the Bible. Face and accept that fact and you will experience an entirely new and deeper Christianity. The churches will always be plagued by the failings of human nature, but the core problem is: the Bible.

I've seen people to come to that conclusion. Would consider it unfortunate. I might even speculate that Gods Words were meant precisely, at least in part, for that purpose:

Isaiah 29:
10 For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.
11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:
12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

Many believers spend an inordinate amount of effort to prove how another believer is wrong, or even how another believer might be eternally condemned. But, when we look upon our own sorry hides honestly, which is also conveyed be facts of scripture, we do see, as you describe, the failings of our human nature. Some will start from that perspective, personally. And they won't see the ills of other believers so harshly.

But what does happen in these matters is that the heart itself is exposed for what it is. Heb. 4:12. And those reflections are not often very pretty to one another, assuredly. An exact opposite or opposing reflection to Gods very simple command comes forth without any doubt:

John 15:12
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

I might propose that the opposite reflection is meant to come forth for viewing, and in this way the Bible really does a superb Divine Job.

 

[FreeGrace]

I see.

No, you still don't see.

You still have no contextual evidence to support your claim that Paul means in Romans 11:29 NASB that a person can believe and then stop believing and still have Christ's eternal life.

His point is quite clear: the gifts and calling of God are IRREVOCABLE. What you don't want to see is that eternal life is one of those irrevocable gifts of God.

Did Paul suggest, insinuate, or say that not all of God's gifts are irrevocable? No, he did not. Therefore, all of them are irrevocable, which includes the gift of eternal life.

Your position resists the truth that eternal life is irrevocable in the exact same way that the Pharisees resisted the truth that Jesus was the Messiah, as proven from His miracles.

Just as their position was threatened by the Messiah, so your position is threatened by the fact that eternal life is irrevocable.

All you have is a dogmatic assertion......an opinion. If that's all you got, well, that's all you got.

Your opinion has been noted.

However, the motivation for the belief that salvation can be lost is a lack of understanding, or outright rejection of God's grace.

We are saved by His grace, and we are kept by that very same grace.

Jesus Christ died for all sins, which includes the sin of unbelief. So even when a believer ceases to believe, their sin of unbelief is still covered.

Therefore, there cannot be any sin for which one can lose eternal life. All sins have been paid for. And that, by grace.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What you don't want to see is that eternal life is one of those irrevocable gifts of God.

I'm not saying that.

Did Paul suggest, insinuate, or say that not all of God's gifts are irrevocable?

What you have wrong is Paul's application of "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29 NASB). You say he means you can believe, then not believe, but you still have the gift of eternal life. But a simple read of what Paul wrote shows us that he's plainly saying that God did not revoke the gifts and calling even though they have been rejected. Paul uses himself to prove the point. No where does Paul say in the passage that believers who have stopped believing still have Christ's eternal life. All you would have to do is show us where he said that and the debate would be over. But as it is, he simply does not say that in the passage. But I've proven what he is actually saying by simply quoting the passage. But since he did not say what you insist Romans 11:29 NASB means you are unable to post any evidence from the passage to support your opinion.

However, the motivation for the belief that salvation can be lost is a lack of understanding, or outright rejection of God's grace.

No.
The motivation comes from the plain words of scripture:
Matthew 18:6-9 NASB
Revelation 22:19 NASB

Plain as day.

We are saved by His grace, and we are kept by that very same grace.

No question about it. We are saved and kept by a grace that is secured and kept through faith, not by nothing at all as you are insisting.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Paul's grace message. Eternal life/ salvation is not conditional on nothing at all. It is conditional on faith. But you, along with a lot of other misguided folk, think that justification not being conditioned on works means it's not conditioned on anything at all.

when a believer ceases to believe, their sin of unbelief is still covered.

By what?
A sacrifice they no longer believe in and, therefore, can't be applied to their account, because faith is how the sacrifice is applied?
Christ's sacrifice requires faith for it to be applied. What is this sacrifice that does not need faith for it to cover sins? It surely is not Christ's sacrifice. Of course, that means there is no sacrifice for the sin of having no faith in Christ. It does not exist. God never provided such a sacrifice. That's why no sacrifice remains for the person who willfully leaves his faith and returns to his old life (Hebrews 10:26 NASB). God has not provided a sacrifice for the sin of unbelief.

Therefore, there cannot be any sin for which one can lose eternal life.

If that were true, it would not be true that the person who changes the words of Revelation (as you have done) will have his part taken away from the holy city and the tree of life (Revelation 22:19 NASB). And Jesus was lying, then, that believers in him can stumble so as to go to the fiery lake, if, as you say, there is no sin for which one can lose eternal life. These passages are just simple, plain words of scripture. It's impossible to lead someone astray who can see.

Don't be surprised, church, that the church can't see the plain words of scripture right under their noses. For centuries the church could not see the plain words of scripture “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BYFAITH" (Romans 1:17 NASB). The church had become so indoctrinated by a works gospel that they could no longer see the plain words of scripture right under their noses. The same thing has happened with this OSAS stuff. The church is so blinded and indoctrinated by this false teaching it can't see the plain words of non-OSAS right under it's nose. This is why I've been saying the church needs a new reformation, away from this ridiculous and unBiblical and damnable heresy of OSAS and gives people the false confidence that they can slip into unbelief and they are still saved.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"What you don't want to see is that eternal life is one of those irrevocable gifts of God."

Your response:

I'm not saying that.

If you think that eternal life is revocable, you sure are saying that.

What you have wrong is Paul's application of "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29 NASB).

I've got it right. The application of Rom 11:29 applies to EVERY GIFT OF GOD. How could it not? Please advise.

You say he means you can believe, then not believe, but you still have the gift of eternal life.

Here's what I say: eternal life is irrevocable. If that offends, then the offender simply either doesn't understand the magnificent grace of God, or doesn't like it. Your pick.

But a simple read of what Paul wrote shows us that he's plainly saying that God did not revoke the gifts and calling even though they have been rejected.

Right!! Even after receiving the gift of eternal life, to use your own words, "God did not revoke the gifts and calling even though they have been rejected". Correct.

Paul uses himself to prove the point.

The point doesn't need proving. Rom 11:29 is a statement of fact. The gifts of God are irrevocable. Eternal life is one of those gifts.

No where does Paul say in the passage that believers who have stopped believing still have Christ's eternal life.

That's your hangup. Grace covers all sins.

All you would have to do is show us where he said that and the debate would be over.

I don't need to. The debate was over when I showed that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable and that eternal life is one of those gifts. Debate over. Regardless of any scenario that comes to one's mind.

But as it is, he simply does not say that in the passage.

He didn't have to.

But I'll show where "that" has been shown in the Bible, for those who believe the Bible.

1 Chron 10:13-14
13 Saul died because he was unfaithful to the Lord; he did not keep the word of the Lord and even consulted a medium for guidance, 14 and did not inquire of the Lord. So the Lord put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse. NIV

You do understand that "unfaithful" means faith-less, right? So, the Lord killed him for his unfaithfulness (faithlessness).

Now, to see where Saul went after he died:

1 Sam 28:19
The Lord will hand over both Israel and you to the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The Lord will also hand over the army of Israel to the Philistines." NIV

Black.and.white. plain.as.day.

Because of Saul's faithlessness, God killed him. Yet, Saul joined Samuel after he died.

But I've proven what he is actually saying by simply quoting the passage.

You've proven nothing. You've merely given your opinion repeatedly.

But since he did not say what you insist Romans 11:29 NASB means you are unable to post any evidence from the passage to support your opinion.

If you have been reading all of my post, the evidence has been given.

The motivation comes from the plain words of scripture:

Well, the plain words of Scripture are these:
The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.
Eternal life is a gift of God.
Conclusion: eternal life is irrevocable.

You've not been able to refute any of this.

Plain as day.

See summary of King Saul for what is plain.as.day.

God has not provided a sacrifice for the sin of unbelief.

Where is this taught in Scripture? I'm not moved by mere opinion.