Eternal security or conditional security?

[FreeGrace]

It's impossible that Paul was including the gift of eternal life in Romans 11:29 because that directly contradicts what Paul and John say here that one has to continue in the word by which they first believed in order to be saved and have eternal life:

"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." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

" 23Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you."

9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

11 ...God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

(1 John 2:23-26 NASB, 2 John 1:9 NASB, 1 John 5:11-12 NASB)

Besides, simply looking at Romans 11 shows us what Paul means by the gifts and calling to Israel being irrevocable:

28From the standpoint of the gospel they (Israel--see context) are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy." (Romans 11:28-31 NASB)

Instead, it shows that one's interpretation of all these other verses doesn't line up with what Paul clearly stated in Romans. There is absolutely nothing in either the entire text of Romans, or the local context, to show that Paul had something other than what he had already described as gifts of God as being irrevocable.

If Paul had not meant to include the gifts that he had already described as God's gifts, then he would have had to clearly make a statement to that effect.

It would have been unconscionable for Paul to have described several things as gifts from God and then make a statement about God's gifts being irrevocable yet not mean exactly those specific gifts and not mean them specifically.

Israel rejected Christ, and the gospel went to the gentiles as a result. But because the promise of God's gifts and calling to Israel is irrevocable, Israelites who don't reject Christ will be shown mercy (vs. 31) and will inherit the irrevocable promises made to Abraham's natural descendants. A simple read of the passage shows us that's exactly what he's saying. It's hardly a passage to somehow prove that a person can believe and then not believe but stilled be saved because Paul says the gifts and calling of God to Israel are irrevocable. Even in this passage, Paul points out the necessity for the Israelites to have faith to be connected back to the root:

"if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." (Romans 11:23 NASB).

And none of this changes the absolute fact that justification and eternal life were described as gifts of God by Paul and Paul never excluded them from what he meant in Rom 11:29.

 

[FreeGrace]

First note what Paul says in the passage quoted above:

"...after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise..." (Ephesians 1:13 NASB)

The whole counsel of scripture teaches us that you have to continue in the message of truth which you heard to be saved:

"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." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

" 23Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you."

9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

11 ...God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

(1 John 2:23-26 NASB, 2 John 1:9 NASB, 1 John 5:11-12 NASB)

These passage make it impossible that Paul was saying you can never lose the seal of the Holy Spirit (and thus salvation/eternal life) even if you do not continue in the word by which you believed and were saved and sealed with the Holy Spirit.

I will ask just one question: what does Eph 1:13, 14 and 4:30 teach then? What do the words mean?

It's interesting that those who disagree with my belief that Eph 1:13,14, and 4:30 teach ES and OSAS always use other verses as if that proves that these verses "simply can't" be teaching ES or OSAS.

So, if that is true, then just WHAT do they teach????

Surely they teach something. So what is it they are teaching????

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"Third, Jesus tells us WHEN one HAS eternal life; when they believe (Jn 5:24)."

This is not even in contention.
Non-OSAS agrees with scripture that when one believes they receive eternal life at that time. The point of contention is that the condition for keeping the life that is eternal is to keep believing, continuing in the word you first heard and by which you were saved.

The 3rd point in the OP said far more than just Jn 5:24. I used Jn 5:24 to prove that one HAS eternal life WHEN one believes. I'm glad there is agreement about that fact.

From Jn 5:24 I moved on to Jn 10:28, where Jesus said that those who HAVE eternal life WILL NEVER PERISH. It should be clear that Jesus was saying that WHEN one believes, they will NEVER PERISH.

And, LOS doctrine has not ever provided any verse that teaches that eternal life can be removed for any reason. In fact, Paul nailed the fact that eternal life, which is a gift of God, is irrevocable.

Again, the whole counsel of scripture shows us that Jesus' promise to "never perish" is conditioned on the believer continuing in the word by which he was saved:

Not any verse or passage that is presented in support of this claim clearly states that one must continue to believe in order to continue to be saved. Such a conclusion comes only from assumption, which is not the way to develop our doctrines.

 

[FreeGrace]

This post is a "rebuttal" of the 4th point of the OP.

Note in the OP's analysis of the passage:

"regardless of the believer's lifestyle" (bold mine)

This is exactly what non-OSAS says:

I believe I have proved from 1 Thess 5:4-10 that this is exactly what Scriptures teach.

The promises are for believers, even for the worst of struggling believers, not for those who no longer believe. The BELIEVER'S sinful lifestyle can only rob them of eternal life when/if that lifestyle represents a rejection of the blood by which they were sanctified (Hebrews 10:29 NASB).

Apparently this poster's only contention of LOS is that one loses salvation if or when one loses faith. Fair enough. But no one has yet to provide any verse that says so plainly, apart from a lot of assumption.

But, my OP wasn't directly at only one poster, but all who believe in LOS. And we've seen at least one poster claim that EVEN lack of bearing fruit causes one to lose their salvation.

So, the OP addresses all the concerns of all the LOS holders.

 

[FreeGrace]

This is a response to the 5th point of the OP.

There is no argument here.

Good. That should end the discussion, esp when John 10:28 refers to all who have entered through Him.

However, such is not the case.

Non-OSAS asserts that to keep the eternal life that the one who has believed received he must continue in his faith in the word by which he received that eternal life.

OK. So prove the assertion. Where is clear evidence of this view, minus any assumption? That's the sticking point for LOS doctrine. It cannot be found in Scripture. Only assumption from other verses that do NOT plainly state the claim.

To say that a person is forever and irretrievably saved in a past moment of believing regardless of what they believe now directly contradicts both Paul's and John's teaching that you have to continue in the word that you believed at first in order to have salvation/ eternal life...assuming you really believed in the first place (if you want to interpret "unless you believed in vain" as meaning that).

Nothing about OSAS and ES contradicts anything Paul wrote.

In fact, just the opposite is true: LOS doctrine directly contradicts Paul's teaching about the fact that God's gifts are irrevocable, written after he described both justification and eternal life as gifts of God.

How can a justified person end up in the lake of fire? Impossible.
How can a person who HAS eternal life end up in the lake of fire? Impossible.

What Scripture says that God removes eternal life from anyone for ANY reason? None do.

 

[FreeGrace]

This is the response to the 6th point in the OP.

Obviously, all these passages in the OP teach the security and surety of salvation/ eternal life. It's just that the whole teaching of scripture is that the promises are for BELIEVERS, not for ex-believers.

The continuing sticking point for LOS doctrine is that there are no verses that teach that there is ANY reason for God to revoke either justification or eternal life from anyone. It would only take one very clearly stated verse to completely refute the entire OP. But there is no such verse.

I have provided scriptures that reprove and correct and train the OSAS subscriber in the fact that the sure promises are conditioned on a continued present believing, not a one-time past belief that can fail but still secure the promises.

LOS doctrine has not shown any verse that teaches that continuing faith is required to stay saved.

All the verses quoted and cited by LOS doctrine do NOT plainly, clearly state that one must continue to believe in order to continue to stay saved. It requires a huge amount of assumption, plus ignoring Paul's teaching that eternal life is irrevocable.

And note, because of the significance of what Rom 11:29 teaches, it would have been again UNCONSCIONABLE of Paul to have left out ANY reason for God to revoke eternal life if that were possible.

If God does revoke eternal life based on ceasing to believe, then Paul's letter to the Romans is in fact VERY disingenuous to have left out any kind of clear language.

Paul did NOT include ANY exceptions to the fact that eternal life is irrevocable when he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable.

LOS doctrine claims many exceptions to ES. And none of the exceptions can be shown from Scripture.

 

[FreeGrace]

I would like to thank JB for addressing each point of the OP. I believe my responses to each of the 6 "rebuttals" shows that the points of the OP stand.

One thing is sure: The Bible does not contradict itself. If that were true, then God is contradictory and not perfect. I reject such an idea.

Therefore, the only way to determine which doctrine is found in Scripture is to compare what is more clearly stated. I believe that OSAS and ES are very specifically stated. I believe that one must make huge assumptions in order to believe that one can lose salvation for any reason.

 

[Cygnus]

I would like to thank JB for addressing each point of the OP. I believe my responses to each of the 6 "rebuttals" shows that the points of the OP stand.

One thing is sure: The Bible does not contradict itself. If that were true, then God is contradictory and not perfect. I reject such an idea.

Therefore, the only way to determine which doctrine is found in Scripture is to compare what is more clearly stated. I believe that OSAS and ES are very specifically stated. I believe that one must make huge assumptions in order to believe that one can lose salvation for any reason.

Well done.
There is a big difference between letting the bible speak for itself and having someone speak for the bible.
The LoS crowd always seems to attach something to scripture...like, if you stop believing....eternal life if you make it to the end...which isn't in the simple straight forward reading of scripture.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Instead, it shows that one's interpretation of all these other verses doesn't line up with what Paul clearly stated in Romans.

No. What it shows is that your interpretation of less clear Romans 11 doesn't line up with what Paul more clearly said in 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB.

See the reason we have to debate whether or not Paul included eternal life in Romans 11:29 is because he didn't say it does--you have to wonder if it does (not me, I understand the context). But for those who want to debate it, we know he didn't include it because of what he so plainly said in passages like 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB. That's only fair and reasonable. It's not fair and reasonable to discard the clear to the point passage because it doesn't agree with an opinion about a far less clear passage.

The plain understanding of the plain words of 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB don't contradict Romans 11:29 NASB, but your interpretation of Romans 11:29 contradicts the plain words of 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There is a big difference between letting the bible speak for itself and having someone speak for the bible.
The LoS crowd always seems to attach something to scripture...like, if you stop believing....eternal life if you make it to the end...which isn't in the simple straight forward reading of scripture.

But these words are so plain and straight forward and to the point:

"23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father." (1 John 2:23-24 NASB)

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son."
12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life."
(2 John 1:9 NASB, 1 John 5:12 NASB)

It's impossible to claim that non_OSAS has to attach something to these plain words to make them mean what they already so plainly say--that OSAS is false. And to prove my point, what will be argued next will be various arguments that you have to attach something to the scripture above to make it not mean non-OSAS. Watch.

That's what all of these arguments have been--you have to have additional information in order for these plain non-OSAS passages to not mean non-OSAS, but OSAS instead. Watch.

 

[Cygnus]

But these words are so plain and straight forward and to the point:

"23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father." (1 John 2:23-24 NASB)

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son."
12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life."
(2 John 1:9 NASB, 1 John 5:12 NASB)

It's impossible to claim that non_OSAS has to attach something to these plain words to make them mean what they already so plainly say--that OSAS is false. And to prove my point, what will be argued next will be various arguments that you have to attach something to the scripture above to make it not mean non-OSAS. Watch.

That's what all of these arguments have been--you have to have additional information in order for these plain non-OSAS passages to not mean non-OSAS, but OSAS instead. Watch.

Yes, those words are so plain and straight forward and to the point. According to the LoS crowd, that includes you..you have already lost your salvation. I'm not buying the saved by grace...maintained by works theology. I understand that if my keeping salvation is based upon what I do...I have lost it a long, long time ago.
Do you ALWAYS "abide in the teaching of Christ" Jethro? Do you? Or do you fail from time to time? Well, if you fail, then you don't abide....and according to you...you lose your salvation for not abiding.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But, my OP wasn't directly at only one poster, but all who believe in LOS. And we've seen at least one poster claim that EVEN lack of bearing fruit causes one to lose their salvation.

Yes, when that lack of fruit bearing is because of a lack of faith in the gospel of salvation. The author of Hebrews addresses that here:

"7For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.

9But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way. 10For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still ministering to the saints. 11And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end, 12so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Hebrews 6:7-12 NASB)

See the thing that accompanies salvation is fruitfulness, not barrenness. I didn't say it, Hebrews did. The author says barrenness is a sign of no salvation--no faith in the gospel of the forgiveness of sin, and that barren 'field' will be burned 'in the end', an obvious reference to the end time Judgment of fire. John echoes this truth when he talks about the unrighteous person not being a child of God--his unrighteousness being the proof of that (1 John 3:8-10 NASB).

So it's impossible to claim that the person who has left the faith and is barren, having no work to show toward his name is saved, or still saved. The author of Hebrews says it is fruitfulness that accompanies salvation. That fruitfulness being the evidence of the "faith and patience (the enduring of faith)" that produced it (see vs.12 above).

Anybody who is barren of love and good works toward God's name needs to take the passage above to heart and either get saved for the first time, or come back to the faith they have abandoned, and as a result start producing fruit so they won't "(end) up being burned".

 

[MarkT]

Instead, it shows that one's interpretation of all these other verses doesn't line up with what Paul clearly stated in Romans. There is absolutely nothing in either the entire text of Romans, or the local context, to show that Paul had something other than what he had already described as gifts of God as being irrevocable.

If Paul had not meant to include the gifts that he had already described as God's gifts, then he would have had to clearly make a statement to that effect.

It would have been unconscionable for Paul to have described several things as gifts from God and then make a statement about God's gifts being irrevocable yet not mean exactly those specific gifts and not mean them specifically.


And none of this changes the absolute fact that justification and eternal life were described as gifts of God by Paul and Paul never excluded them from what he meant in Rom 11:29.

So your interpretation is based on what Paul did not say? Paul did not exclude eternal life, therefore he meant to say eternal life. You don't even have to understand Paul to see how illogical that is.

 

[Cygnus]

Yes, when that lack of fruit bearing is because of a lack of faith in the gospel of salvation. The author of Hebrews addresses that here:

"7For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.

9But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way. 10For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still ministering to the saints. 11And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end, 12so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Hebrews 6:7-12 NASB)

See the thing that accompanies salvation is fruitfulness, not barrenness. I didn't say it, Hebrews did. The author says barrenness is a sign of no salvation--no faith in the gospel of the forgiveness of sin, and that barren 'field' will be burned 'in the end', an obvious reference to the end time Judgment of fire. John echoes this truth when he talks about the unrighteous person not being a child of God--his unrighteousness being the proof of that (1 John 3:8-10 NASB).

So it's impossible to claim that the person who has left the faith and is barren, having no work to show toward his name is saved, or still saved. The author of Hebrews says it is fruitfulness that accompanies salvation. That fruitfulness being the evidence of the "faith and patience (the enduring of faith)" that produced it (see vs.12 above).

Anybody who is barren of love and good works toward God's name needs to take the passage above to heart and either get saved for the first time, or come back to the faith they have abandoned, and start producing fruit so they won't "(end) up being burned".

I just love the way you tighten up your theology..bangs table....this is what it says!....then loosen up when it concerns Jesus commandments.

Jethro, you should be shouting for JOY!!! ....considering OSAS is truth.....because if your right, you already lost your salvation.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes, those words are so plain and straight forward and to the point. According to the LoS crowd, that includes you..you have already lost your salvation. I'm not buying the saved by grace...maintained by works theology.

How is having faith in Christ's forgiveness equivalent to the works salvation that Paul contrasts faith in Christ with? The argument is that you have to keep your faith, presently and to the very end, to be saved. Works, as little or as much as you have, are the evidence that you are doing that (Hebrews 6:7-12 NASB). Works salvation is defined as trying to earn your salvation by virtue of your own righteous works. Non-OSAS does not argue for works as the way a person earns their salvation. Non-OSAS argues your works are the expected and obligatory outcome of the faith that justifies/saves all by itself apart from the works it most surely produces.

So you don't have to buy a 'saved by grace...maintained by works theology' that is NOT being argued here. Works are only the expected and obligatory outcome of being saved entirely and completely and utterly by faith, all by itself (Romans 4:6 NASB).

I understand that if my keeping salvation is based upon what I do...I have lost it a long, long time ago.

Which it is not.....non-OSAS does not say it is. So you have no argument to make here.

Do you ALWAYS "abide in the teaching of Christ" Jethro? Do you? Or do you fail from time to time? Well, if you fail, then you don't abide....and according to you...you lose your salvation for not abiding.

I have never stopped trusting and believing in the doctrine of the gospel of God's forgiveness in Christ. That's why I'm saved, right now, today. And to stay saved, right now, today, I am told by the scriptures that I must continue to believe right now, today, to continue to be saved. That isn't an argument for works. I didn't even mention works as that which must continue. FAITH in the forgiveness of God--the gospel--is what must continue to the very end for me to be saved in the end when salvation is ready to be revealed (1 Peter 1:4-5 NASB). Works are how I know that I am indeed doing that required believing.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I just love the way you tighten up your theology..bangs table....this is what it says!....then loosen up when it concerns Jesus commandments.

Jethro, you should be shouting for JOY!!! ....considering OSAS is truth.....because if your right, you already lost your salvation.

I'll let you know when I have lost my salvation.....when I stop believing in the forgiveness of God in Christ. In the mean time, I'll be sinning, seeking forgiveness, sinning, seeking forgiveness and relying on the gospel all the way.

"7but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 8If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:7-9 NASB)

It's when I stop relying on the forgiveness of God because I don't want to believe in it anymore, that's when I will lose my salvation. My cycle of sinning, being forgiven, sinning, being forgiven, sinning... does not determine if I lose my salvation or not. My FAITH in God's forgiveness to cover my sinning does.

 

[MarkT]

Everything about OSAS is illogical - if it doesn't say this, then it means that.

Instead, it shows that one's interpretation of all these other verses doesn't line up with what Paul clearly stated in Romans. There is absolutely nothing in either the entire text of Romans, or the local context, to show that Paul had something other than what he had already described as gifts of God as being irrevocable.

It doesn't line up because Paul didn't say anything about eternal life or falling into unbelief. What he did say in Romans 9:4-5 is "They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen. Romans 9:4,5

Re. Romans 11:29 Paul is talking about his countrymen, and the blessings that were to occur/happen to Abraham and his descendants, Gen. 26:4, especially to Jacob and his descendants. Romans 11: 26-27

You can see promises were made to Israel Romans 9:4-5, and we can infer the gifts and the call of God were promised, and we know God keeps his promises. So this is why he said, the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this: (plus a lot more on the subject)
Instead, it shows that one's interpretation of all these other verses doesn't line up with what Paul clearly stated in Romans.

No. What it shows is that your interpretation of less clear Romans 11 doesn't line up with what Paul more clearly said in 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB.

There is nothing "less clear" than that the gifts of God are irrevocable. And since there STILL has been no verse provided to show that Paul wasn't meaning ALL the gifts that he HAD already described in Romans, I believe it is inexcusable to try to force Rom 11:29 to exclude the gift of eternal life as irrevocable.

See the reason we have to debate whether or not Paul included eternal life in Romans 11:29 is because he didn't say it does--you have to wonder if it does (not me, I understand the context).

Here is what Paul actually DID say about the gifts that come from God:
spiritual gifts noted in 1:11
justification noted in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17
eternal life noted in 6:23

So, because that is what he DID say about the gifts of God, there is NO OTHER way to understand 11:29 other than to accept what he DID say about the gifts that he DID note before he got to 11:29.

The ONLY other mention of "gifts" in Romans is here:
12:6 - Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith

It is obvious that this verse and the 3 following verses lists some of the spiritual gifts mentioned in 1:11.

So again, Paul was QUITE CLEAR about what God's gifts are. And no one has shown from the context or anywhere else in Romans that Paul never included or even meant to include eternal life and justification as gifts that are irrevocable.

So it's a very safe bet that there are NO gifts from God that are revocable. Especially since the Bible never says anything about any of God's gifts being revocable, or losable, or give away-able.

But for those who want to debate it, we know he didn't include it because of what he so plainly said in passages like 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB. That's only fair and reasonable.

Actually, it's neither fair nor reasonable. One doesn't force an interpretation on a verse by finding some other verse in some other context not at all related to the context of the verse in question. Such action is called "cherry-picking". It isn't scholarly.

And again this is just another huge assumption by your own words: "we know he didn't include it because of...".
For that to be true, the actual first readers of his epistle to the Romans would have had to have the first Corinthians epistle at hand and Paul would have had to refer to it in order for it to be very clear about what he meant by which of God's gifts that aren't revocable.

My study Bible indicates that Paul wrote Romans between AD 56-58 and 1 Cor between AD 55-57. It's quite possible that Paul wrote Romans BEFORE he wrote 1 Cor, so your so-called "reasonable" argument falls flat on that note. Even if Paul did write 1 Cor first, why should anyone ASSUME that the Romans had a copy in their hands to make the connection being claimed?? That is not reasonable at all.

It's not fair and reasonable to discard the clear to the point passage because it doesn't agree with an opinion about a far less clear passage.

That is my exact argument!! And the phrase "the gifts of God are irrevocable" is so crystal clear as to wipe out any idea that ANY gift of God is revocable!!

And other posters have very eloquently refuted your interpretation of 1 Cor 15:1-2, so I don't need to repeat what has already been said.

The plain understanding of the plain words of 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB don't contradict Romans 11:29 NASB, but your interpretation of Romans 11:29 contradicts the plain words of 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB.

Correct! Because they don't contradict Rom 11:29, means that 1 Cor 15:1-2 don't teach that one must continue to believe in order to be saved.

 

[FreeGrace]

Cygnus said: ↑
There is a big difference between letting the bible speak for itself and having someone speak for the bible.
The LoS crowd always seems to attach something to scripture...like, if you stop believing....eternal life if you make it to the end...which isn't in the simple straight forward reading of scripture.

But these words are so plain and straight forward and to the point:

"23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father." (1 John 2:23-24 NASB)

"9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son."
12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life."
(2 John 1:9 NASB, 1 John 5:12 NASB)

There is nothing more clear that what Paul said: "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable". There was no exceptions added or included in what he wrote. And he DID describe some of the gifts of God already in the epistle.

 

[FreeGrace]

Yes, when that lack of fruit bearing is because of a lack of faith in the gospel of salvation. The author of Hebrews addresses that here:

Please don't try to pit Scripture against Scripture. Paul's teaching about the gifts of God are SO crystal clear that I'm stunned that not everyone agrees. Paul did NOTHING to clarify in Romans or anywhere else that he never intended for anyone to think that he WAS including eternal life as gifts from God that are irrevocable.

So it's impossible to claim that the person who has left the faith and is barren, having no work to show toward his name is saved, or still saved.

This is what Paul claimed:

15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
Rom 5

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

and, finally, this:
29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Rom 11

There is absolutely no way around these very clear verses. No exceptions, no lee way, no nothing. Eternal life is a gift of God and God's gifts are (without exception) irrevocable.