Eternal security or conditional security?

[FreeGrace]

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29

No mention of eternal life in Romans 11;29
JLB

I've been through the logic of it. Are you familiar with what logic is and how it works?

Logic is irrefutable.

Now, if A= B, and B = C, then A = C. It's really that simple.

From Rom 6:23 we have A = B:
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift (B) of God is eternal life (A) in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Then, from Rom 11:29 we have B = C:
for the gifts (B) and the calling of God are irrevocable (C).

So, A = C, or, eternal life is irrevocable.

This is logic and it cannot be refuted. Trying to argue against logic is quite illogical.

 

[chessman]

OSAS has taken a part of one scripture, while ignoring the other part, and tried to "splice" it with another scripture that says the gifts and calling are irrevocable.

JLB

Paul plainly warns these Christians in Ephesus with these words ...because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.Therefore do not be partakers with them.

These things: For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater...

Look at what is said in Revelation 21 about these things -

But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8

How do you justify splicing Ephesians 5:6 in with Rev 21:8, yet then turn right around and say it's inappropriate for OSAS to splice Rom 6:23 with Rom 11:29? The anti-OSAS 'argument' that Rom 6:23 isn't a part of the Rom 11:29 verse/context even though both mention gifts, seems self-serving and hypocritical.

As for your other point (honest study of context shows Paul didn't mean Rom 6:23 to be taught along side Rom 11:29):

Then when an honest study of the context is examined, we find that there were indeed some who were broken off, and removed from Covenant Relationship with the Lord, BECAUSE OF UNBELIEF.

20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. Romans 11:20-22

First, where are you getting this idea of removing them (Israel) from Covenant Relationship with the Lord from??? There's no mention of Covenant Relationship in v20-22. That's all the way back to Isaiah 27 and further back in the OT. How could you possibly bring that up??? Oh yea, Paul brings up Isaiah 27:9 in verse 26 and thus brings it into the context of Rom 11. But hay, that's a whole 4 verses removed from 20-22. You can't "splice" them together, right???
I guess it's not really a bad idea to splice Is 27:9 into Romans 11 after all, since Paul does it.

I bet Paul wouldn't have one bit of a problem with OSAS bringing Rom 6:23 into the context of Rom 11:29, contrary to what you say, either. Paul doesn't like it when people divide up his teachings.

Romans 16:17-18 (NKJV) 17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned (i.e. the doctrine of Romans 1-16), and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.​

Second, Paul has very good contextual reasons (indeed contextual reasons going back to Rom 6:23; the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord) for explaining to formerly ignorant Gentile Christians living in Roman why it is that God has partially hardened Israel but will later restore Israel. That is, to show another example of just how irrevocable God's gifts/callings are. None are revocable.

Rom 11:25-:26 (LEB) For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, so that you will not be wise in your own sight, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and so all Israel will be saved, just as it is written, “The deliverer will come out of Zion; he will turn away ungodliness from Jacob.​

1. do not be wise in your own sight, I take this to mean do not attribute your salvation to yourself (to your works OR to your maintenance thereof or to how much fruit you bear). But rather attribute it to God's work. You know, God's gift of eternal life. It's a teaching/doctrine found throughout not only Romans but Paul's other Epistles as well. One of the doctrines he warns us that those with smooth words and flattering speech will teach against.

2. Paul teaches there's a full number of Gentiles that will come in. Anti-OSAS teaches there's a number of Gentiles that come in (N), then get lost forever (N-x).

3. Paul teaches that it's The Deliverer that turns away ungodliness (from Israel and Gentiles), not us and our bellies/appetites. Another reason not to boast.

4. Paul teaches 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable
right smack in the middle of his point/example of comparing how God will ultimately save Israel AND how He will save a full number of Gentiles (N) Not a partial number of Gentiles (N-x) but a full number (N) of them.

 

[MarkT]

How do you justify splicing Ephesians 5:6 in with Rev 21:8, yet then turn right around and say it's inappropriate for OSAS to splice Rom 6:23 with Rom 11:29? The anti-OSAS 'argument' that Rom 6:23 isn't a part of the Rom 11:29 verse/context even though both mention gifts, seems self-serving and hypocritical.

As for your other point (honest study of context shows Paul didn't mean Rom 6:23 to be taught along side Rom 11:29):



First, where are you getting this idea of removing them (Israel) from Covenant Relationship with the Lord from??? There's no mention of Covenant Relationship in v20-22. That's all the way back to Isaiah 27 and further back in the OT. How could you possibly bring that up??? Oh yea, Paul brings up Isaiah 27:9 in verse 26 and thus brings it into the context of Rom 11. But hay, that's a whole 4 verses removed from 20-22. You can't "splice" them together, right???
I guess it's not really a bad idea to splice Is 27:9 into Romans 11 after all, since Paul does it.

I bet Paul wouldn't have one bit of a problem with OSAS bringing Rom 6:23 into the context of Rom 11:29, contrary to what you say, either. Paul doesn't like it when people divide up his teachings.

Romans 16:17-18 (NKJV) 17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned (i.e. the doctrine of Romans 1-16), and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.​

Second, Paul has very good contextual reasons (indeed contextual reasons going back to Rom 6:23; the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord) for explaining to formerly ignorant Gentile Christians living in Roman why it is that God has partially hardened Israel but will later restore Israel. That is, to show another example of just how irrevocable God's gifts/callings are. None are revocable.

Rom 11:25-:26 (LEB) For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, so that you will not be wise in your own sight, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and so all Israel will be saved, just as it is written, “The deliverer will come out of Zion; he will turn away ungodliness from Jacob.​

1. do not be wise in your own sight, I take this to mean do not attribute your salvation to yourself (to your works OR to your maintenance thereof or to how much fruit you bear). But rather attribute it to God's work. You know, God's gift of eternal life. It's a teaching/doctrine found throughout not only Romans but Paul's other Epistles as well. One of the doctrines he warns us that those with smooth words and flattering speech will teach against.

2. Paul teaches there's a full number of Gentiles that will come in. Anti-OSAS teaches there's a number of Gentiles that come in (N), then get lost forever (N-x).

3. Paul teaches that it's The Deliverer that turns away ungodliness (from Israel and Gentiles), not us and our bellies/appetites. Another reason not to boast.

4. Paul teaches 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable
right smack in the middle of his point/example of comparing how God will ultimately save Israel AND how He will save a full number of Gentiles (N) Not a partial number of Gentiles (N-x) but a full number (N) of them.

What he said in Romans 11:29 has to be related to 11:26 -28. It has to be, otherwise you are taking Romans 11:29 out of context. Likewise Romans 6:23 has to be taken in context. Romans 6:23 is talking about one thing. Romans 11:29 is talking about something else. We're talking about more than one word. The wise men brought gifts. Does that mean frankincense is irrevocable? Just because eternal life is a gift doesn't mean Paul is talking about eternal life in Romans 11:29, if you read the whole sentence. And what do you call it when somebody takes a part of one sentence and a part of another sentence and puts the two parts together?

So the context is Israel's standing before God. Romans 11:1 Paul said, "and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
27 “and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

Then he says, 'they are enemies of the gospel for our sake (to let us in); but as regards election (being chosen) they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable'. So what does irrevocable mean? It means these things were commanded by God. God made a covenant with Jacob. So if God commands something, a blessing or a gift, it means he will do it. His commandment can not be revoked.

 

[FreeGrace]

What he said in Romans 11:29 has to be related to 11:26 -28. It has to be, otherwise you are taking Romans 11:29 out of context.

As if by "context" one means only the previous 3 verses, huh. What actually "has to be" related to Rom 11:29 is ALL the places in Romans where Paul actually and specifically mentioned God's gifts.

So, let's see, where do we see anything about God's gifts in Romans?

1. spiritual gifts in 1:11
2. justification in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17
3. eternal life in 6:23

And guess what?!! Between 6:23 and 11:29 Paul NEVER mentioned ANY gifts of God, or from anyone else.

So, all of the verses that speak of God's gifts WITHIN Romans become DIRECT CONTEXT for 11:29.

And, just to make the point, there is NOTHING in Rom 11:26-28 that speaks of or refers to gifts of God.

Oh, just in case my recent responses weren't read, here it is again:

Logic is irrefutable.

Now, if A= B, and B = C, then A = C. It's really that simple.

From Rom 6:23 we have A = B:
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift (B) of God is eternal life (A) in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Then, from Rom 11:29 we have B = C:
for the gifts (B) and the calling of God are irrevocable (C).

So, A = C, or, eternal life is irrevocable.

This is logic and it cannot be refuted. Trying to argue against logic is quite illogical.

I think it's time to stop and consider how illogical the idea of loss of salvation is.

Now, if one wants to argue that God is illogical, well, that's another story. And another thread.

But, by applying logic to Scripture, we find that Scripture teaches very clearly that eternal life is irrevocable.

It cannot be revoked, it cannot be removed, it cannot be cancelled, it cannot be lost, it cannot be nullified.

There are NO verses that plainly tell us that one can lose their salvation. Or eternal life.

Jesus plainly taught that one HAS eternal life WHEN one believes, and those (believers) He gives eternal life to WILL NEVER PERISH.

It would be illogical to argue against Jesus.

 

[MarkT]

So how does Romans 11:29 support OSAS? It doesn't.

 

[MarkT]

You have a very unusual way of reading the Bible FG

 

[FreeGrace]

So how does Romans 11:29 support OSAS? It doesn't.

Romans 11:29 informs its readers that the gifts of God are irrevocable. Among the gifts of God that Paul specifically noted in that same epistle are these gifts of God:
1. spiritual gifts in 1:11
2. justification in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17
3. eternal life in 6:23

Why should one ignore what Paul specifically described as gifts of God when reading Rom 11:29, which seems to be what is being proposed by your question here??

I've given very sound logic to prove that eternal life is irrevocable.

How does one refute sound logic? It isn't possible, apart from being very illogical.

Is God illogical?

 

[FreeGrace]

You have a very unusual way of reading the Bible FG

Does this mean that one should approach Scripture with an illogical mindset?

But, speaking of how one reads the Bible, why should anyone think that salvation can be lost, since there are zero verses that say such a thing.

And the verses that are given in defense of the idea need a lot of assumption to assume that they are referring to loss of salvation. It's far easier to understand all the warning verses as temporal discipline/punishment or loss of reward, BOTH of which are clearly taught throughout Scripture.

But one thing is sure: there are no verses that out and out warn anyone that salvation can be lost or revoked.

My reading of Scripture is based on what IS clearly stated, and on sound logic.

I avoid assumption and illogical thinking.

 

[JLB]

How do you justify splicing Ephesians 5:6 in with Rev 21:8,

I don't "splice" Ephesians 5:6 and Revelation 21;8 together.

These scriptures stand on there own, and validate what the other one says.

Splicing together a "part" of Romans 6:23 which says Eternal life is a gift of God, and ignoring the rest of Romans 6:23 that says...
the wages of sin is death, is the text book example of "wrongly dividing the word of truth".

We don't get to take the part of a scripture, that we like and ignore the other part we don't like, and add it to another scripture taken out of context, to form a doctrine that over rules all other scripture. That is called Heresy.

Those Christians who practice a lifestyle of sin, will in the end receive the wages for their sin, which is eternal death.

Those Christians who practice righteousness, and have their fruit unto holiness, will in the end receive eternal life.

and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:22-23

The context is unmistakable:

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? Romans 6:15-16


...to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

Here are two warnings, from two different Apostles, that teach us plainly about righteous and unrighteous people.

Paul -

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Christian's who live their life as homosexual's, adulterer's, idolaters... will not inherit God's Kingdom.


John explains who is righteous -

Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 1 John 3:7


Christians who practice homosexuality, and die without repenting of homosexuality, will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Christians who practice adultery and practicing unrighteousness.


The OSAS doctrine teaches people that they can practice unrighteousness, without ever repenting or turning from this sin, yet somehow still be welcome into God's Kingdom on the Day of Judgement.


JLB

 

[chessman]

What he said in Romans 11:29 has to be related to 11:26 -28. It has to be, otherwise you are taking Romans 11:29 out of context.

I know. That's my point. I agree totally. The only person I've ever heard say that you must establish doctrine only from one verse is JLB And then he doesn't apply that rule to his own doctrinal 'defenses'. Which is odd really since there are no chapter/verses in the original Text to begin with. Many verses (especially of Paul's) literally break up one sentence into multiple verses. So JLB's rule is obviously wrong. But then JLB turned right around (in the very same post, mind you) and did the exact same thing he just said was inappropriate for OSAS to do and spliced Eph 5 in with Rev 21 to try and make his anti-OSAS doctrine work. Odd to the core and quite hypocritical, IMO. Not to mention that the Ephesians didn't have Rev 21 at the time Paul wrote his doctrine to the Ephesians. Paul didn't have Revelation either, he died before it was written. Talk about out of the context of Paul's mind. At least Paul was alive when he wrote both Romans 6:23 and Romans 11:29.

But anyway, nobody disagrees that Paul didn't have Romans 11:26-28 in his mind at the time and context that he also wrote Romans 11:29. Y'all just disagree that he had Romans 6:23 in mind too. For no good reason really, other than the doctrine that it represents. Clearly he was proving a doctrinal point (God's gifts and callings are irrevocable) to the Gentiles based on Israel's example.

Romans 6:23 is talking about one thing. Romans 11:29 is talking about something else.

Huh? You do realize that Romans 6:23 calls Eternal Life a gift and then Romans 11:29 says God's gifts are irrevocable, right? Talking about "something else" huh. I don't believe you. You have no evidence for such and assertion.

Didn't you just get through saying Rom 11:29 should be read in light of Rom 11:26-28? What in the world makes you think the gift of Eternal Life (singular) that Paul mentions in Rom 6:23 isn't one of the gifts (plural) that he mentions in Romans 11:29? Five chapter marks in-between? Obviously Paul meant more gifts than just one as he pulled all the way back to Isaiah to get an example of God's faithfulness. We are just pulling back five chapters AND from within the SAME letter. Your 'reason' for excluding Eternal Life as an irrevocable gift of God's (five man-made chapters separate them) has been noted. I appreciate the attempt, but I don't believe you are correct in saying "Paul is talking about something else" in Romans 11:29 than he was in Romans 6:23. You'd have to come up with something other than just the chapter separation/divisions.

But I am curious, so I'll ask, do you have an upper limit on the number of verses/chapters you require for two different verses to be within the same context? Is your limit one verse or one chapter? And if so, where do you get this idea from?

I just pointed out that Paul puts Isaiah 27 (from way back in the OT, 350 chapters, two different authors and 800 years separated) into the context of Romans 11's God's gifts are irrevocable so evidently Paul didn't have a problem with going beyond one chapter's context to prove a doctrinal point. Especially with dealing with something so doctrinally important as God's gifts and Eternal Life.

I am NOT discounting the broader context in/around Romans 11. I just don't see how that helps your anti-OSAS case.

 

[JohnDB]

FreeGrace ,
Your argument about A=C isn't correct.

A ground fault = short circuit
A phase to phase fault= short circuit
A ground fault is not = phase to phase fault.

You keep using this example but it just isn't logical in the fashion I have just shown. It works for numbers just fine...but not this.

Not saying one side or the other of the theological debate here is right or wrong. ( personally I don't agree with either side)
Just that this logic has a massive flaw and that you might not have known to pick another example.

 

[JLB]

The only person I've ever heard say that you must establish doctrine only from one verse is JLB

It's not nice to lie about people, as I have never said we are to make a doctrine from one scripture.

But then JLB turned right around (in the very same post, mind you) and did the exact same thing he just said was inappropriate for OSAS to do and spliced Eph 5 in with Rev 21 to try and make his anti-OSAS doctrine work.

These scriptures stand on there own, and validate what the other one says.

Splicing together a "part" of Romans 6:23 which says Eternal life is a gift of God, and ignoring the rest of Romans 6:23 that says...
the wages of sin is death, is the text book example of "wrongly dividing the word of truth".

We don't get to take the part of a scripture, that we like and ignore the other part we don't like, and add it to another scripture taken out of context, to form a doctrine that over rules all other scripture. That is called Heresy.


Ephesians 5 Stands on it's own, and needs no other scripture, "spliced" together with it to complete a doctrinal thought.

Here it is written out for all to examine.

3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.7 Therefore do not be partakers with them. Ephesians 5:3-7


Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them.


This scripture stands on it's own, just like Revelation 21:8


8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8


Who will have their part in the lake of fire: all liars.

Who will have their part in the lake of fire: idolaters


What does Paul say: For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Because of these things: the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them.


On the other hand, your scripture does not mention, eternal life or salvation.
For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29

This scripture must have another "part" of a scripture, spliced together with it for there to contain the word eternal life.

But, unfortunately for you and your doctrine, Romans 6:23 has more to it.

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


What else is missing in your theory is even more.

Here is what you say - Eternal life is irrevocable.

The part of Romans 6:23 that you are attempting to use says - the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Eternal life is "in" Christ Jesus, which further dissolves your theory, because Jesus plainly taught that we are to remain "in Him".

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15;6


Jesus warned us to abide in Him, or be gathered up and thrown into the fire.



JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

I don't "splice" Ephesians 5:6 and Revelation 21;8 together.

These scriptures stand on there own, and validate what the other one says.

The charge that i've "spliced" together Rom 6:23 and 11:29 is false.

Splicing together a "part" of Romans 6:23 which says Eternal life is a gift of God, and ignoring the rest of Romans 6:23 that says...
the wages of sin is death, is the text book example of "wrongly dividing the word of truth".

Since no one has yet explained how that part of Rom 6:23 has ANY effect on OSAS, please inform us of why it is being claimed to have an effect.

However, I've shown from logic that eternal life is irrevocable. There is no "splicing" when using logic. It's very straight forward.

We don't get to take the part of a scripture, that we like and ignore the other part we don't like, and add it to another scripture taken out of context, to form a doctrine that over rules all other scripture. That is called Heresy.

Since no one has done that, no need to bring up what hasn't been occurring.

Those Christians who practice a lifestyle of sin, will in the end receive the wages for their sin, which is eternal death.

What??!! Where would one get that from Rom 6:23. Paul is very clearly distinguishing believers from unbelievers. btw, NOT "former" believers.

Please answer WHY sin continues to remain a problem in your theology, since Christ died for all sin. Or, did He?

Those Christians who practice righteousness, and have their fruit unto holiness, will in the end receive eternal life.

I've already quoted the MANY verses that condition eternal life/salvation on faith, apart from ANYTHING else.

The OSAS doctrine teaches people that they can practice unrighteousness, without ever repenting or turning from this sin, yet somehow still be welcome into God's Kingdom on the Day of Judgement.JLB

The Bible teaches that those who believe HAVE eternal life.
The Bible teaches that eternal life is a gift of God.
The Bible teaches that God's gifts are irrevocable.
The Bible NEVER teaches that one can lose eternal life.
The Bible teaches that those who Jesus gives eternal life WILL NEVER PERISH.

All of this directly proves eternal security and refutes LOS doctrine.

LOS doctrine has NO verses that plainly warn of loss of salvation.

 

[FreeGrace]

FreeGrace ,
Your argument about A=C isn't correct.

A ground fault = short circuit
A phase to phase fault= short circuit
A ground fault is not = phase to phase fault.

You keep using this example but it just isn't logical in the fashion I have just shown. It works for numbers just fine...but not this.

I appreciate addressing my example of logic.

Not saying one side or the other of the theological debate here is right or wrong. ( personally I don't agree with either side)

I find this stunning. How can there be a third option, or more??

Eternal security and loss of salvation are mutually exclusive. What other "side" makes sense?

Just that this logic has a massive flaw and that you might not have known to pick another example.

I don't think the use of logic is flawed. That would mean all logic is flawed. The problem is using logic to try to prove 2 dis-similar things are the same thing.

Your example is a good one for showing how to abuse logic's equation. Your equation contained two different kinds of electrical faults that both result (cause) in a short circuit. iow, each kind of fault results in a short circuit.

But my example avoided any cause and effect comparison. Neither God's gifts nor eternal life cause anything. Both are caused. That's the difference between my logic and your example.

But thanks for showing how NOT to use logic. It is important when trying to use logic to prove something.

One cannot use logic to prove that 2 dis-similar things that cause the same result mean that they are the same thing.

If my use of logic is flawed, one would need to explain how the phrase "God's gifts" and "eternal life" are dis-similar things, and that each one causes a same effect. I don't see how that would be possible.

There's probably a name for your example of abusing logic, but that wasn't my field of study in college.

 

[FreeGrace]

These scriptures stand on there own, and validate what the other one says.

Splicing together a "part" of Romans 6:23 which says Eternal life is a gift of God, and ignoring the rest of Romans 6:23 that says...
the wages of sin is death, is the text book example of "wrongly dividing the word of truth".

Please explain how the "rest" of Rom 6:23 is anti-OSAS.

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15;6

Jesus warned us to abide in Him, or be gathered up and thrown into the fire.

Now, one only needs to prove that being "thrown into the fire" equates to the lake of fire.

Especially since Paul wrote this about "fire":
14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

There is absolutely no reason to default to hell or the lake of fire just because one encounters the word 'fire' in Scripture.

 

[JLB]

I've been through the logic of it. Are you familiar with what logic is and how it works?

Logic is irrefutable.

Logic is irrefutable???? 2


Now that's funny.

The charge that i've "spliced" together Rom 6:23 and 11:29 is false.

No, it's true.

You know why?

Because Romans 11:29 doesn't contain the word eternal life.

It comes from presumption... that special "logic" of yours that's irrefutable.


Here's some logic... For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29

Now let's test your logic, and see if this can stand by itself, or does it need the help of adding to it?


Is the word eternal life or salvation found in this verse... For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Yes or No ?



JLB

 

[chessman]

I have never said we are to make a doctrine from one scripture.

This scripture must have another "part" of a scripture, spliced together with it for there to contain the word eternal life.


JLB

LOL.

You taken several scriptures and tried to put them all together to come up with your man made doctrine, like Frankenstein.

One verse of scripture from Jesus puts the matter to rest.

 

[JLB]

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:6


This one scripture from Jesus, settles the matter of OSAS, because there are no scriptures in the bible that teach OSAS.


There are many many scriptures that teach us that we are to continue to believe to the end of this life, to be saved.

There are many many scriptures that teach us those who practice the works of the flesh, will not inherit the kingdom of God.


There are no scriptures that teach a born again Christian who renounces Jesus Christ, and confesses Allah as Lord will be saved.


There are no scriptures that teach a Christian can practice being a liar, and be saved.

There are no scriptures that teach a Christian can become a homosexual and be saved.


However, there are people who teach a Christian can become a homosexual and be saved, which is why homosexuality is spreading and becoming popular among Churches.



JLB

 

[chessman]

One cannot use logic to prove that 2 dis-similar things that cause the same result mean that they are the same thing.

...
There's probably a name for your example of abusing logic, but that wasn't my field of study in college.

It's called equivocation. An informal fallace.

Equating two differing uses of the same word when in fact the author means two different things.

Like saying "I am blue today" to mean feeling sad. Then saying "I am blue today" meaning I wore a blue teeshirt to the Florida game and sat in the blue section.

Two different meanings of the same word.

Though why anyone would go to a Florida Gator's game is beyond me to understand.

 

[MarkT]

I know. That's my point. I agree totally. The only person I've ever heard say that you must establish doctrine only from one verse is JLB And then he doesn't apply that rule to his own doctrinal 'defenses'. Which is odd really since there are no chapter/verses in the original Text to begin with. Many verses (especially of Paul's) literally break up one sentence into multiple verses. So JLB's rule is obviously wrong. But then JLB turned right around (in the very same post, mind you) and did the exact same thing he just said was inappropriate for OSAS to do and spliced Eph 5 in with Rev 21 to try and make his anti-OSAS doctrine work. Odd to the core and quite hypocritical, IMO. Not to mention that the Ephesians didn't have Rev 21 at the time Paul wrote his doctrine to the Ephesians. Paul didn't have Revelation either, he died before it was written. Talk about out of the context of Paul's mind. At least Paul was alive when he wrote both Romans 6:23 and Romans 11:29.

But anyway, nobody disagrees that Paul didn't have Romans 11:26-28 in his mind at the time and context that he also wrote Romans 11:29. Y'all just disagree that he had Romans 6:23 in mind too. For no good reason really, other than the doctrine that it represents. Clearly he was proving a doctrinal point (God's gifts and callings are irrevocable) to the Gentiles based on Israel's example.

Actually he is talking about his countrymen who were hardened so that they would not believe. The point is God promised the call and the gifts to Jacob and his descendants, and Paul cites the scripture "as it is written", and scripture can not be broken. Jesus said so. So that is what he means by 'irrevocable'. There is no need to specify every gift because gift is not the subject. The subject is what was promised Israel. That includes eternal life. But Romans 11:29 is not about eternal life. It doesn't tell you what eternal life is. Neither is Romans 6:23 about eternal life. It doesn't tell you what eternal life is, except to say it is in Christ Jesus.

Didn't you just get through saying Rom 11:29 should be read in light of Rom 11:26-28? What in the world makes you think the gift of Eternal Life (singular) that Paul mentions in Rom 6:23 isn't one of the gifts (plural) that he mentions in Romans 11:29? Five chapter marks in-between? Obviously Paul meant more gifts than just one as he pulled all the way back to Isaiah to get an example of God's faithfulness. We are just pulling back five chapters AND from within the SAME letter. Your 'reason' for excluding Eternal Life as an irrevocable gift of God's (five man-made chapters separate them) has been noted. I appreciate the attempt, but I don't believe you are correct in saying "Paul is talking about something else" in Romans 11:29 than he was in Romans 6:23. You'd have to come up with something other than just the chapter separation/divisions.

I would never say in the light of another sentence so that you can go round and round. I see things in the light of Christ; he is the light. And no, I'm not excluding eternal life.

But I am curious, so I'll ask, do you have an upper limit on the number of verses/chapters you require for two different verses to be within the same context? Is your limit one verse or one chapter? And if so, where do you get this idea from?

I just pointed out that Paul puts Isaiah 27 (from way back in the OT, 350 chapters, two different authors and 800 years separated) into the context of Romans 11's God's gifts are irrevocable so evidently Paul didn't have a problem with going beyond one chapter's context to prove a doctrinal point. Especially with dealing with something so doctrinally important as God's gifts and Eternal Life.

I am NOT discounting the broader context in/around Romans 11. I just don't see how that helps your anti-OSAS case.

You're creating an absurd argument. To knock it down I guess. Of course we can bring forth the old and the new. Jesus said we will. Mt. 13:52 Let me say what context means. We are reading a letter and we take a passage, a part of a discourse, and we put it into context, which means the parts of the discourse which immediately precede and follow the passage.