Faith without works........is Faith.

[FreeGrace]

Justification in James is in the eyes of others

There is much confusion and misunderstanding of James 2:14-26. When he asked, "can that faith (without works) save?", he wasn't speaking of eternal salvation. If he were, then he would have been contradicting the rest of the Bible, esp Paul. So we need to understand what his point was in that passage. It was about hypocrisy, or rather, the need to not be a hypocrite. The example he gave in 2:15,16 very clearly describes a hypocrite; one who says one thing, but acts in a totally contrary manner.

2:18 makes the point that it is impossible to demonstrate your faith apart from works. iow, how does man "see" our faith? Since mankind isn't omniscient, we depend upon works to demonstrate our faith to others. God doesn't need to see one's faith to know it exists. But man does need to see one's faith, and that is on the basis of one's works.

James was definitely NOT saying that one needs works with faith in order to be saved. If he were, then he would be contradicting the rest of the Bible. So we have to understand that he couldn't possibly be saying that.

So, the question is: "saved from what, specifically?" Because he point was about not being a hypocrite, he wanted his readers to be saved, or delivered, or rescued from the charge of hypocrisy. Which the example clearly illustrates.

James, the Lord's half brother, was very familiar with His teachings. We know how many times He called the Pharisees hypocrites. Many. It makes sense that James was concerned that believers weren't living out their faith in front of others. That is hypocrisy, and he didn't want the believers to be branded hypocrites.

There is nothing more effective at ruining one's character or reputation than being seen as a hypocrite. James was trying to warn his readers about that. I know he never used the word, but look at all of ch 2 and 3:1-12. All of it is about hypocrisy. 2:1-13 is about how believers treated a rich man vs a poor man; favoritism is hypocrisy. 2:14-26 is about not living our your faith before others. 3:1-12 is about the hypocrisy of how believers use their tongue; in what they say, which is again, hypocrisy.

There are a number of verses that supports the idea that James was concerned about how believers live their lives before others.

Rom 12:17 - Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men.

This verse specifically notes the perspective of others.

Rom 14:18 - For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.

This verse directly notes how our lifestyle is acceptable/approved by God and by men.

2 Cor 5:12 - We are not again commending ourselves to you but are giving you an occasion to be proud of us, so that you will have an answer for those who take pride in appearance and not in heart.

Man cannot see the heart; only God can, which is where our faith is. So, by living our our faith, we have an answer for those who take pride in appearance.

2 Cor 8:21 - for we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.

This could not be more clear: in the sight of the Lord (for justification) and in the sight of men (for their approval or justification).

Col 4:5 - Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity.

1 Tim 3:7 - And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Clearly speaking of having a good testimony before others (outside the church-unbelievers), which avoids the charge of hypocrisy.

1 Thess 4:12 - so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.

Ditto

1 Pet 2:12 - Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.

Clearly Peter is emphasizing that believers who live out their faith, not being hypocrites, will have a positive effect upon unbelievers.

1 Jn 3:18 - Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.

This is directly linked to James 2:15,16; the example of the believer who told people "be warmed and filled" but didn't do anything to meet their needs. He was a blatant hypocrite. iow, he "loved only with word or tongue", but definitely not "in deed and truth".

 

[Jethro Bodine]

.

There is much confusion and misunderstanding of James 2:14-26. When he asked, "can that faith (without works) save?", he wasn't speaking of eternal salvation. If he were, then he would have been contradicting the rest of the Bible, esp Paul.

Actually, we know James is indeed talking about eternal life for the very reason that the rest of the Bible speaks to that very truth:

"9 No * one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot * sin, because he is born of God. 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death." (1 John 3:9-10,14 NASB)

John speaks of the unrighteous, hypocritical life as being equal to not having eternal life. James, also, has to mean that, or he would be in contradiction to John.

So we need to understand what his point was in that passage. It was about hypocrisy, or rather, the need to not be a hypocrite. The example he gave in 2:15,16 very clearly describes a hypocrite; one who says one thing, but acts in a totally contrary manner.

Your doctrine is busy defending hypocrites as being categorically saved, while the Bible does not. Here's what Jesus had to say about hypocrites:

"44 "For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will. 45 "Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 "Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes.
48 "But if that evil slave says in his heart, 'My master is not coming for a long time,' 49 and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; 50 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, 51 and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 24:44 NASB)

Hypocrites don't inherit eternal life. Hypocrisy most certainly is a matter of eternal life, not just a matter about what people see and think about them in this life.

2:18 makes the point that it is impossible to demonstrate your faith apart from works. iow, how does man "see" our faith?

While true, the point that the Bible actually makes is it is ultimately impossible to have faith without a demonstration of works:

"6 No * one who abides in Him sins; no * one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. 7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; 8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No * one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot * sin, because he is born of God. 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. " (1 John 3:6-10 NASB)

So, while popular doctrines in the church are assuring people that hypocrites are saved, not-so-popular passages in the Bible are warning people that they are not.

James was definitely NOT saying that one needs works with faith in order to be saved. If he were, then he would be contradicting the rest of the Bible.

Your doctrine only thinks that would contradict the rest of the Bible because it doesn't understand how works have to accompany faith, and yet those works not be the actual agent of one's justification/salvation.

Works have to accompany faith in order for that faith to, as James says, justify the person, not because they have any power to make their faith able to justify, but because the person justified by faith is now a righteous person who does righteous things, just as the unrighteous person does unrighteous things (see John 3 passage above). Righteous people don't live hypocritical, unrighteous lives. Works are the consequence of the faith that saves all by itself. A consequence that, if not present, shows the person to not belong to God. (See John 3 passage above).

So we have to understand that he couldn't possibly be saying that.

To be consistent with the rest of the Bible he HAS to be saying that.

So, the question is: "saved from what, specifically?" Because he point was about not being a hypocrite, he wanted his readers to be saved, or delivered, or rescued from the charge of hypocrisy. Which the example clearly illustrates.

Here, again, is the fate of the hypocrite that the non-hypocrite--the one who is justified by both faith and works--is delivered from, his work being the evidence that justifies him as having the faith that, all by itself, makes one righteous:

"50 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, 51 and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 24:50 NASB)

James, the Lord's half brother, was very familiar with His teachings. We know how many times He called the Pharisees hypocrites. Many. It makes sense that James was concerned that believers weren't living out their faith in front of others. That is hypocrisy, and he didn't want the believers to be branded hypocrites.

Having heard the teachings of Jesus, what James didn't want is for people to go to hell, the place of 'weeping and gnashing of teeth'.

This is directly linked to James 2:15,16; the example of the believer who told people "be warmed and filled" but didn't do anything to meet their needs. He was a blatant hypocrite. iow, he "loved only with word or tongue", but definitely not "in deed and truth".

The person who turns away from the needy brother or sister has to take a hard look at whether they believe, or continue to believe, on Christ and, as a result, the love of God is in them, or not:

"7...love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
16 We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever * has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth." (1 John 4:7-8 NASB, 1 John 3:16-18 NASB)

 

[FreeGrace]

.
Actually, we know James is indeed talking about eternal life for the very reason that the rest of the Bible speaks to that very truth:

Can my points be refuted, one by one? I gave Scripture that supports my points.

"9 No * one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot * sin, because he is born of God. 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death." (1 John 3:9-10,14 NASB)
John speaks of the unrighteous, hypocritical life as being equal to not having eternal life. James, also, has to mean that, or he would be in contradiction to John.

No, he wasn't at all. And not even close to that. In 1 Jn 3, he is speaking to the FACT that no believer sins from his new nature. iow, all of our sin comes from our sinful nature. We cannot sin from our new nature. That was his point.

Your doctrine is busy defending hypocrites as being categorically saved, while the Bible does not.

Hardly. Here are the facts:
When a person believes in Christ, they receive eternal life THEN. Jn 1:12, 5:24, 1 Tim 1:16.
We KNOW from the pure logic of Rom 6:23 and Rom 11:29 that eternal life, a gift of God, is irrevocable.
Finally, we KNOW from Rev 20:11-15 that those who are cast into the lake of fire do NOT HAVE eternal life.

Now, if these statements can be refuted clearly from what Scripture says, then all that has been done is that Scripture has been proven to be contradictory. Good luck with that attempt.

I have nothing else to say about the rest of your post. Since you haven't refuted my points about James 2, and haven't refuted my points about eternal life being irrevocable, your position has not been supported or substantiated in any way.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No, he wasn't at all. And not even close to that. In 1 Jn 3, he is speaking to the FACT that no believer sins from his new nature. iow, all of our sin comes from our sinful nature. We cannot sin from our new nature. That was his point.

What do you mean that was the point? What is it about 'anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God' in the passage I posted (1 John 3:10 NASB) that your doctrine does not understand?

With such plain language how can your doctrine even remotely suggest the passage is simply saying "We cannot sin from our new nature. That was his point." This in no way addresses the fact that John says it's about having eternal life, or not having eternal life.

He and Jesus both say hypocrites don't have eternal life. But your doctrine says they do. Speak directly to this fact of scripture I brought up. I have presented it in direct challenge to what you say that James' discourse about faith without works has nothing to do with being saved or not.

 

[FreeGrace]

What do you mean that was the point? What is it about 'anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God' in the passage I posted (1 John 3:10 NASB) that your doctrine does not understand?

"My" doctrine understands the Word of God. It's your doctrine that hasn't properly divided the Word of Truth. When believers are not practicing righteousness, they are NOT doing so of God. They are doing so of the devil.

Why would anyone think that verse supports conditional security?

With such plain language how can your doctrine even remotely suggest the passage is simply saying "We cannot sin from our new nature. That was his point." This in no way addresses the fact that John says it's about having eternal life, or not having eternal life.

Because that is exactly what John was talking about. Being "born of God" speaks directly to our new nature, new birth, regeneration. From that new nature, we CANNOT sin. We sin from our old nature, the sin nature. The exact same thing that Paul pointed out in Rom 6:16 - Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

He and Jesus both say hypocrites don't have eternal life.

Absolutely NOT true. Not even close.

But your doctrine says they do.

[Violation of ToS 2.4. Declaring one's views as Biblical in a debate about what is Biblical is in essence declaring that the opponent's view is not Biblical. We must respect where others are in their Christian walk. Present the evidence that shows how your view is Biblical and argue based on the evidence from Scripture.]

Speak directly to this fact of scripture I brought up. I have presented it in direct challenge to what you say that James' discourse about faith without works has nothing to do with being saved or not.

James wanted his readers, believers, to live out their faith by doing works so that others can see their faith. I gave all the verses that support that.

The burden is on your side to take each verse and show me that they aren't about our lives before others.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

When believers are not practicing righteousness, they are NOT doing so of God. They are doing so of the devil.

You're trying to say that John means the 'believer' who doesn't practice righteous, but instead practices unrighteousness, belongs to God in salvation but is simply practicing they hypocrisy of his unrighteousness from his old nature. Problem: John said it's impossible for one who is born of God to do that:

"9 No * one who is born of God practices sin" (1 John 3:9 NASB)

Why would anyone think that verse supports conditional security?

(1 John 3:9-10,14 NASB)
It supports eternal life being conditional on faith, and the continuance of faith because it says the person who is born again CAN'T live in hypocritical unrighteousness, because God's seed is in him. The hypocritical sinful life shows that person to not be born again, not just disobediently sinning out of the old nature as your doctrine claims. He said born again people don't practice sin. But your doctrine claims they can, and that they are born again despite that hypocrisy. That's not what John said.

So, if you want to interpret James' faith without works teaching as meaning the 'believer' is simply being disobedient from the sin nature and that the 'can such faith save him?' in James 2:14 NASB isn't referring to being born again and saved, but being saved in regard to shame and lack of testimony, then you put James and John into direct contradiction with each other. But you were sure your doctrine's interpretation of James' teaching was entirely consistent with the rest of the Bible. I've shown it is not. Not even close.

Because that is exactly what John was talking about. Being "born of God" speaks directly to our new nature, new birth, regeneration. From that new nature, we CANNOT sin. We sin from our old nature, the sin nature. The exact same thing that Paul pointed out in Rom 6:16 - Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

But John said the born again person CAN'T do that. The born again person CAN'T live in a hypocritical practice of sin. Your interpretation defies this simple fact plainly laid out by John himself right there in the passage.

Absolutely NOT true. Not even close.

Not even close?
What is it about the 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' of the hypocrite on the day Christ returns that your doctrine does not understand?

James wanted his readers, believers, to live out their faith by doing works so that others can see their faith. I gave all the verses that support that.

James wants them to live out their faith so they can be saved, not assigned a place with the hypocrites--the place of weeping and the gnashing of teeth, as Jesus said will happen to hypocrites. That's the part your doctrine is ignoring. It does not divide the Word of God properly.

The burden is on your side to take each verse and show me that they aren't about our lives before others.

Were not in disagreement about 'justified' in James' teaching meaning the showing of one's righteousness, not the making of one's righteousness. What we disagree on is that the person who can't show their faith by what they do is lost, not simply being disobedient and unable to show his righteousness to others. John said the person who has no works can not be born again because born again people don't live in hypocritical unrighteous lives. But your doctrine says they can.

"My" doctrine is Biblical. Those who have eternal life keep it because it is irrevocable, which your doctrine rejects.

It's interesting that OSAS people can only talk about this subject in the context of OSAS.
For some reason faith and works discussions are always about OSAS for OSAS people. Everything they think is filtered through this indoctrination. Can you even see that it's not necessary to discuss OSAS in determining if faith must have the evidence of works attached to it for that person to be saved? It's hard for you, isn't it?

 

[JLB]

My" doctrine understands the Word of God. It's your doctrine that hasn't properly divided the Word of Truth.

Please answer this question.

Is the phrase "eternal life" mentioned in this verse?

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

A good start on rightly dividing God's word, would be to recognize the truth that "eternal life" does not appear in Roman 11:29.

JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

You're trying to say that John means the 'believer' who doesn't practice righteous, but instead practices unrighteousness, belongs to God in salvation but is simply practicing they hypocrisy of his unrighteousness from his old nature. Problem: John said it's impossible for one who is born of God to do that:

"9 No * one who is born of God practices sin" (1 John 3:9 NASB)

[Violation of forum guidelines. Counter arguments and/or statement should be backed up by Scripture.]

 

[FreeGrace]

Please answer this question.

Is the phrase "eternal life" mentioned in this verse?

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

The gifts of God ARE mentioned.

So, now a question for you: where does Paul define what he meant by God's gifts in Romans?

A good start on rightly dividing God's word, would be to recognize the truth that "eternal life" does not appear in Roman 11:29.JLB

Let's actually really do rightly divide the God's of Truth and realize what Paul really meant when he used the word gift in Romans.

I am eagerly awaiting your answer to my question.

 

[JLB]

Let's actually really do rightly divide the God's of Truth and realize what Paul really meant when he used the word gift in Romans.

For us to "actually really" rightly divide the word of truth, in Romans 11:29, we must actually really see what words are actually really "not mentioned" in the verse.

Eternal life is not actually really mentioned in this verse.

Now that we have divided what words are not in Romans 11:29, we can see that you have presumed these words into what was actually really mentioned in this scripture.

The calling of God to Israel, and the gift of grace that accompanies that calling are irrevocable.

You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 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.
Romans 11:19-21

For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either...

Because of unbelief they were broken off

If they were removed from the covenant, then they were broken off from the One who sustains them.

If a person is removed from being in Covenant with God, then they are lost and without hope.

Because of unbelief...

Now the burden is on you, to show the scripture that says "unbelievers" still have eternal life that believers enjoy.


JLB

 

[MarkT]

We KNOW from the pure logic of Rom 6:23 and Rom 11:29 that eternal life, a gift of God, is irrevocable.
Finally, we KNOW from Rev 20:11-15 that those who are cast into the lake of fire do NOT HAVE eternal life.

Now, if these statements can be refuted clearly from what Scripture says, then all that has been done is that Scripture has been proven to be contradictory. Good luck with that attempt.

I have nothing else to say about the rest of your post. Since you haven't refuted my points about James 2, and haven't refuted my points about eternal life being irrevocable, your position has not been supported or substantiated in any way.

Ro. 11 begins with, 'has God rejected his people?'

So Ro. 11:29 has to be seen in that context. So Ro. 11:29 is saying God has not rejected his people. God keeps his promises.

Ro. 11:29 refers back to the Scripture which says God will banish ungodliness from Jacob/Israel and this will be a covenant with them when he takes away their sins.

“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.” Ro. 11:26-27

And Scripture can not be revoked.

So in saying the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable, Paul is saying God has not rejected his people; the gifts and the call of God belong to the Gentiles and to the Jews as well; to the wild branches and to the natural branches.

So Ro. 11:29 does not support the idea that salvation can not be lost. Even Paul says, 'if they do not persist in their unbelief'. Ro. 11:23 And, 'by the mercy shown to you they also may receive mercy'. Ro. 11:31, which suggests if they do not show mercy, God will not show them mercy.

 

[FreeGrace]

For us to "actually really" rightly divide the word of truth, in Romans 11:29, we must actually really see what words are actually really "not mentioned" in the verse.

The inexplicable stubbornness to not see what Paul defines as a gift of God, and then said that God's gifts are irrevocable is amazing to observe.

I gave the logic to prove that eternal life is a gift of God that is irrevocable. If A = B and B = C, THEN A = C.

No one has even tried to refute this logic. But…please, be my guest.

Eternal life is not actually really mentioned in this verse.

How 'bout that! No kidding!! But what did Paul describe as a gift of God in Rom 6:23? Huh? Please answer.

Now that we have divided what words are not in Romans 11:29, we can see that you have presumed these words into what was actually really mentioned in this scripture.

OK, where does Paul describe as gifts besides eternal life that is what Paul referred to in 11:29? Please answer.

Also, please show where in Romans that Paul specifically excluded the gift of eternal life from 11:29.

The calling of God to Israel, and the gift of grace that accompanies that calling are irrevocable.

Yes, the calling of God to Israel, and in FACT, to everyone He calls, is irrevocable. But please show this forum where Paul calls grace a gift IN Romans, for, you know, context for 11:29.

In fact, this is just a very thinly disguised attempt to deny that eternal life is a gift of God that is irrevocable. Nowhere in Romans did Paul exclude the gift of eternal life from the gifts of God that are irrevocable. So your assumption is quite in error.

You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 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.
Romans 11:19-21

For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either...

Because of unbelief they were broken off

If they were removed from the covenant, then they were broken off from the One who sustains them.

If a person is removed from being in Covenant with God, then they are lost and without hope.

Because of unbelief...

Now the burden is on you, to show the scripture that says "unbelievers" still have eternal life that believers enjoy.

Attempting to use an agricultural metaphor to defend conditional security fails. In this metaphor, Paul uses unproductive branches to illustrate that just as a farmer casts off unproductive branches, so God won't use unproductive believers.

If your understanding of this passage were correct, then salvation is based solely on production of works. That, we call a works based salvation, which is a total rejection of what Scripture says:

We are saved by grace through faith, NOT OF WORKS, lest anyone should boast.

That is crystal clear, but rejected by the conditional security folk.

Paul is the one who defined what he meant by "gifts of God". Not either of us. He did. But your side simply refuses to accept what he DEFINED as a gift of God. So your side has to make up and assume what Paul "meant" by gift even though there is NO EVIDENCE of Paul ever viewing grace as a gift either in Romans or anywhere else.

So, your view is simply made up, fiction, untrue.

Paul defined gift in Rom 6:23; eternal life. And he said that God's gifts were irrevocable. It's fact. Unrefutable.

 

[Malachi]

Paul defined gift in Rom 6:23; eternal life. And he said that God's gifts were irrevocable. It's fact. Unrefutable.

Absolutely. Since no sinner can earn eternal life, and no sinner deserves eternal life, the only way to receive it is as a gift of God's grace. That is the whole point of the Gospel. And all of God's gifts and callings are of grace, therefore irrevocable. And that is why it is called "Amazing Grace".

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I gave the logic to prove that eternal life is a gift of God that is irrevocable. If A = B and B = C, THEN A = C.

No one has even tried to refute this logic.

What are you talking about? Why do you do this, this pretending that nobody can touch what you say, or even tries? What a joke.

I showed you a free gift in the kingdom of God (Matthew 18:23-35 NASB). A free gift that can be taken away, yet you conveniently decide it's not a gift. Obviously your doctrine has to do that in order to not have to admit that the logic that 'gifts of God can't be revoked, therefore, eternal life can't be revoked' is completely without logical basis.

I showed you where the Bible speaks plainly about a gift of God in the kingdom being given and then being taken away. That destroys your logical equation based on the false belief that any and all gifts of God can not be taken back. So what's this about nobody trying to refute your logic, or even trying?

 

[FreeGrace]

Ro. 11 begins with, 'has God rejected his people?'

So Ro. 11:29 has to be seen in that context. So Ro. 11:29 is saying God has not rejected his people. God keeps his promises.

All nice and true. But…so what? Where did Paul DEFINE what he MEANT by the word "gift" in Romans? Well, I'm glad to inform: 1:11 for spiritual gifts, 3:24 and 5:15,16,17 for justification and 6:23 for eternal life.

These are the ONLY places before 11:29 where Paul mentioned "gifts". So 11:29 DOES refer to what Paul defined as "gifts", not what some would like to think that Paul meant by the word.

And the promises of God to Israel were NOT defined by Paul as gifts in Romans. It is simply ridiculous to make up what one wants 11:29 to mean when Paul already did that for us. So let's quit trying to make up your own view of what Paul said in 11:29.

Ro. 11:29 refers back to the Scripture which says God will banish ungodliness from Jacob/Israel and this will be a covenant with them when he takes away their sins.

“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.” Ro. 11:26-27

And Scripture can not be revoked.

Of course Scripture cannot be revoked. So, where in v.26 and 27 did Paul DEFINE the word "gift"? Hmm? There is NO MENTION of the word before 11:29 until one goes back to 6:23, where eternal life is DEFINED as a gift of God.

So in saying the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable, Paul is saying God has not rejected his people; the gifts and the call of God belong to the Gentiles and to the Jews as well; to the wild branches and to the natural branches.

Where did Paul DEFINE "gift" in this way? He didn't. Your view is NOT supported.

So Ro. 11:29 does not support the idea that salvation can not be lost.

This is utterly irrational and illogical. I've shown the logic of it. Please try to refute it.

If A = B and B = C, THEN A = C

Rom 6:23 eternal life {A} is a gift of God {B}.
Rom 11:29 God's gift {B} are irrevocable {C}.

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

 

[FreeGrace]

Absolutely. Since no sinner can earn eternal life, and no sinner deserves eternal life, the only way to receive it is as a gift of God's grace. That is the whole point of the Gospel. And all of God's gifts and callings are of grace, therefore irrevocable. And that is why it is called "Amazing Grace".

But's it's just so sad how people so easily deny the clear truth of God's Word.

 

[MarkT]

What if Paul is referring to the gifts of the Spirit.1 Cor. 2:12, 2:14, 12:4, 12:9, 14:1 as well as eternal life? What about those who have outraged the Spirit of grace? Heb. 10:29

I'm not against OSAS by the way. I do believe the elect will not fall. But that does not preclude the possibility of failure. It's just that we are in God's hand, and no one can snatch us away.

John 10:28
and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.

John 10:29
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I recommend the use of an interlinear to help understand what was actually written. The word "child" is NOT in the original. So, "of the devil" and "of God" simply means how one is influenced.

These are errors that would have been easily avoided if one would use proper tools in their Bible study.

How far will your doctrine stoop to avoid admitting it is wrong?
The Greek word for child in 1 John 3:10 is 'teknon'.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?page=2&strongs=G5043&t=KJV#lexResults

 

[FreeGrace]

What are you talking about? Why do you do this, this pretending that nobody can touch what you say, or even tries? What a joke.

What's the problem? Unable to handle some simple logic?

I showed you a free gift in the kingdom of God (Matthew 18:23-35 NASB). A free gift that can be taken away, yet you conveniently decide it's not a gift.

This is laughable. ONLY Paul has the right to define what he means by gift, neither of us can do that. The problem is that your side just doesn't like what Paul DEFINED as a gift before he wrote Rom 11:29. So there has been this ridiculous attempt to make up some other meaning of 'gift' for 11:29.

I proved that eternal life is irrevocable from simple logic. And no one from the conditional security ilk has even tried to refute it. But we all know that logic cannot be refuted.

Obviously your doctrine has to do that in order to not have to admit that the logic that 'gifts of God can't be revoked, therefore, eternal life can't be revoked' is completely without logical basis.

This statement is just a wrong opinion. No proof, no evidence, no nothing. An empty statement has no bearing on the issue. Please show how simple logic doesn't work. Not just an empty opinion statement about it.

I showed you where the Bible speaks plainly about a gift of God in the kingdom being given and then being taken away.

Why would any Roman believer even think of Matt 18 when reading Paul's letter to them? That isn't even logical. They would be thinking of HOW he defined the word 'gift' in the letter when he penned 11:29.

That destroys your logical equation based on the false belief that any and all gifts of God can not be taken back. So what's this about nobody trying to refute your logic, or even trying?

lol How can an empty opinion claim destroy anything? That's what's laughable.

Paul defined what he meant by gift in Rom 6:23: eternal life. The NEXT use of the word "gift" was in 11:29 where he said that God's gifts were irrevocable.

All the denials by all the conditional security ilk mean nothing. Scripture is clear; but your side just doesn't want to believe the truth.

 

[FreeGrace]

How far will your doctrine stoop to avoid admitting it is wrong?

When someone actually engages my points and shows them to be wrong. Eternal life is a gift of God and God's gifts are irrevocable. That has not been disproven or refuted. Only strongly rejected.

The Greek word for child in 1 John 3:10 is 'teknon'.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?page=2&strongs=G5043&t=KJV#lexResults

I never said the word "child" wasn't in v.10. I specifically referred to the phrase "not a child of God" only. And the word "child" does NOT occur in that phrase. Unfortunately, the NIV inserts the word "child" erroneously.

Regarding Rom 6:23 with Rom 11:29, how far will your side stoop to avoid admitting the truth that eternal life is a gift of God and God's gifts are irrevocable?