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

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

How does grace not being a work of the law make it so eternal life is not even conditioned on retaining the word of God's grace to the very end?

"...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 2:24 NASB)

Where does the Bible talk about this necessity for possessing to the end the word of God's grace through faith also being a damnable work of merit such that if you say you have to have that to be saved you are guilty of trying to earn your salvation? Where is this in the Bible?

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".

I showed where the gift of God's forgiveness is in fact revocable in the kingdom in Matthew 18:23-35, yet so many OSAS'ers can't bring themselves to acknowledge even the simplest and most basic of facts in the passage that 1) a free gift was given, and 2) it can and will be revoked. It doesn't even matter what one thinks the nature of the forgiveness is, whether it's in relation to salvation, or not. The point, alone, that it is a free gift and that it can be taken away completely and utterly destroys the logical basis for saying, 'gifts can not be taken back, and since eternal life is a gift, it also can't be taken away'. Complete and utter un-Biblical, illogical non-sense.

 

[JLB]

2 Cor 5:17 - Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come
This verse proves that we have a new nature.

Does the phrase "divine nature" occur in this verse?

No. It's more of the same.

1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
2 Peter 2:1-4

That through these YOU MAY be partakers of His divine nature.

As Peter goes on to say in the next few verses -

20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 1 Peter 2:20-21

JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

We'll see who's doctrine can't handle simple logic.

Your doctrine says categorically and without exception that God's gifts are irrevocable. I showed you a gift that is given in the kingdom that can be taken away (Matthew 18:23-35 NASB) but you insist the part of your 'logical' equation that says 'God's gifts can't be taken away' is not false.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

We'll see.
I've reported this obvious lying deceit to the mods.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

The free gift of our salvation is the FORGIVENESS of our sins, yet your doctrine is going to argue that forgiveness is not a gift? Really?

"13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." (Colossians 1:13-14 )

The free gift of our redemption is exactly equal to the forgiveness of our sins. Forgiveness is indeed a free gift, yet you, for the sake of protecting your doctrine are going to claim forgiveness in Matthew 18:23-35 is not a gift? You're only kidding yourself.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I never said the word "child" wasn't in v.10.

This is exactly what you said (bold mine):

I recommend the use of an interlinear to help understand what was actually written. The word "child" is NOT in the original.

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.

From http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Jo&c=3&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1162010:

3:10 ἐν τούτῳ φανερά ἐστιν τὰ τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦδιαβόλου Πᾶς ὁ μὴ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ὁ μὴἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὑτοῦ

the children
g5043
τέκνον teknon

of God
g2316
θεός theos


the children
g5043
τέκνον teknon


of the devil:
g1228
διάβολος diabolos

 

[MarkT]

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.


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?

Irrevocable refers to the covenant and so to the gifts and the call of God. But as Jesus said, 'If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. John 15:6

So it's not a matter of God going back on his word; the gifts and the call are irrevocable. But as a matter of salvation, those who spurn the covenant - how are they saved? Heb. 10:29

 

[WIP]

Putting this in red so it is hopefully noticed. Either leave the attitudes at the door or I will lock the thread down. We can discuss this without the snarky haughtiness.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

'Children' is in fact in the original Greek in 1 John 3:10 NASB, therefore, John is saying specifically that the person who is a hypocrite is a child of the devil not just a 'believer' who is operating in the sin nature of the devil as your doctrine says. Which, if you want to stick with your argument, also destroys your 'once a child always a child' doctrine.

And, our redemption is the forgiveness of our sins (Colossians 1:13-14 NASB), therefore, forgiveness is a gift, contrary to what your doctrine says that it is not; and furthermore, one we see being revoked in Matthew 18:23-35 NASB, thereby making your logic false that reasons that the gift of eternal life can not be revoked because NONE of God's gifts can be revoked.

That logic fails because we do in fact see one of God's gifts, the gift of forgiveness, being revoked in that passage. That fact alone makes it IMPOSSIBLE that Romans 11:29 has to include every and all gifts of God, including eternal life as your doctrine claims. In fact, since Paul is speaking of gifts and calling that are not revocable, it CAN'T include the gift of forgiveness.

In light of these facts, where does your doctrine go from here, FreeGrace?

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"2 Cor 5:17 - Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come
This verse proves that we have a new nature."

Does the phrase "divine nature" occur in this verse?

Why would anyone think that I ever said that believers receive a "divine nature"? That question reveals a serious lack of understanding or attention to what I did post. I said believers receive a new nature. One that cannot sin. That's what "God's seed" means in 1 Jn 3:9.

 

[FreeGrace]

We'll see who's doctrine can't handle simple logic.

Sure. I'm very happy to compare true logic with whatever is thrown at it.

Your doctrine says categorically and without exception that God's gifts are irrevocable.

This is totally untrue. I never ever said anything about "categorically and w/o exception" regarding God's gifts. Please cite the post # so I can see it since that's the charge.

What I did say is that the word "gifts" in Rom 11:29 refers specifically to what gifts Paul DID define for us previous to that verse AND WITHIN the text of Romans. For it would be simply illogical to claim that Paul would have had any other book in mind when he penned Rom 11:29. The context for that verse can be foun ONLY in the book of Romans. Nowhere else. So I NEVER said, implied or suggested anything about "all gifts ever noted in Scripture", as you've insinuated. The charge is false.

btw, either you or JLB claimed that Rom 11:29 referred to the so-called "gift of forgiveness" from Matt 18 even though the word "gift" is NOT FOUND in that passage. According to my study Bible, Romans was written between 56-58 AD, while Matthew was written between 50-70 AD. So it's completely possible that Romans was written BEFORE Matthew, which totally undermines any claim about Matt 18 being the context for the gift in Rom 11:29.

I showed you a gift that is given in the kingdom that can be taken away (Matthew 18:23-35 NASB) but you insist the part of your 'logical' equation that says 'God's gifts can't be taken away' is not false.

And I just now REFUTED your claim about that so-called "gift".

Please cite the verse where the word "gift" is found in Matt 18:23-35.

 

[FreeGrace]

This is exactly what you said (bold mine):
From http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Jo&c=3&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1162010:
3:10 ἐν τούτῳ φανερά ἐστιν τὰ τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦδιαβόλου Πᾶς ὁ μὴ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ὁ μὴἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὑτοῦ
the children
g5043
τέκνον teknon
of God
g2316
θεός theos
the children
g5043
τέκνον teknon
of the devil:
g1228
διάβολος diabolos

My post was clear but my point has been totally misunderstood again.

Here is the NIV for 1 Jn 3:10: This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

The bolded "a child" does NOT appear in the Greek. That was my point.

 

[FreeGrace]

Irrevocable refers to the covenant and so to the gifts and the call of God. But as Jesus said, 'If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. John 15:6

So it's not a matter of God going back on his word; the gifts and the call are irrevocable. But as a matter of salvation, those who spurn the covenant - how are they saved? Heb. 10:29

They are saved the same way anyone who believes in Christ is saved. Why would there be any difference?

Here's the point: we are saved by grace through faith. We don't earn or deserve salvation. That is grace.

As well, we cannot earn or deserve to lose our salvation that was given freely on the basis of grace.

No one has ever shown how salvation by grace can be removed because of anything. If it were, then salvation cannot be of grace. But it is.

 

[FreeGrace]

'Children' is in fact in the original Greek in 1 John 3:10 NASB, therefore, John is saying specifically that the person who is a hypocrite is a child of the devil not just a 'believer' who is operating in the sin nature of the devil as your doctrine says. Which, if you want to stick with your argument, also destroys your 'once a child always a child' doctrine.

I grasp your opinion, though it is flawed. Those who understand figures of speech understand what John means when he speaks of children of God and the devil. When a believer sins, whose child is he/she acting like? The devil's, of course. But that doesn't mean that sin changes our DNA. So once a child means ALWAYS a child. Just as in the physical realm. Whoever gave you birth will ALWAYS be your birth mother.

Who is the believer's birth father? God Himself. That CANNOT change.

And, our redemption is the forgiveness of our sins (Colossians 1:13-14 NASB), therefore, forgiveness is a gift, contrary to what your doctrine says that it is not

If the Bible defines forgiveness as a gift, your claim would be right. However, the Bible NEVER defines forgiveness as a gift, so this is just a made up story.

That logic fails because we do in fact see one of God's gifts, the gift of forgiveness, being revoked in that passage. That fact alone makes it IMPOSSIBLE that Romans 11:29 has to include every and all gifts of God, including eternal life as your doctrine claims. In fact, since Paul is speaking of gifts and calling that are not revocable, it CAN'T include the gift of forgiveness.

Until there is evidence from Scripture that forgiveness is defined as a gift, rather than just your opinion about it, I will ignore every sentence that makes this unsubstantiated claim.

In light of these facts, where does your doctrine go from here, FreeGrace?

Only to those whose eyes are open to the truth. I am totally amazed at the length some will go in order to deny what is clearly taught in Scripture.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This is totally untrue. I never ever said anything about "categorically and w/o exception" regarding God's gifts.
[...]
So I NEVER said, implied or suggested anything about "all gifts ever noted in Scripture", as you've insinuated. The charge is false.

Then which gifts of God does Romans 11:29 not include?

Before you answer, remember in your doctrine it has to include all gifts since one of the logical elements in your logical equation says since eternal life is a gift it is irrevocable because 'God's gift are irrevocable', logical element 'C' in your post below:

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.

Understand? If you are now going to say it doesn't include all of God's gifts your logical statement fails. Want to argue the point?

btw, either you or JLB claimed that Rom 11:29 referred to the so-called "gift of forgiveness" from Matt 18 even though the word "gift" is NOT FOUND in that passage.

Not me.
But if I go with your logic it HAS to include it because our redemption, (the forgiveness of our sins--Colossians 1:14 NASB) is free gift from God, not wages earned from work completed. But if you want to continue to argue that our redemption it is not a gift (which then totally destroys your doctrinal claim about salvation being a gift), explain what we did to earn our redemption such that it can not be called a gift that we have received from God.

According to my study Bible, Romans was written between 56-58 AD, while Matthew was written between 50-70 AD. So it's completely possible that Romans was written BEFORE Matthew, which totally undermines any claim about Matt 18 being the context for the gift in Rom 11:29.

You are the one who decided the context of Romans 11:29 was all gifts of God, whether you realize it or not, because as I've pointed out you stated in your logical equation that the gifts of God are irrevocable (therefore eternal life--a gift--is irrevocable). Do you want to change that part of the equation now, which makes your logical equation completely false, or do you want to acknowledge it has to include ALL of God's gifts. But if you do that, you then have to acknowledge that the Bible does indeed talk about a gift of God that is revocable. Either way your doctrine loses.

And I just now REFUTED your claim about that so-called "gift".

Explain how our redemption (the forgiveness of our sins--Colossians 1:14 NASB) is not a gift from God, then you will have refuted any claim that the forgiveness of our sins (our redemption--Colossians 1:14 NASB) is not a gift. Until then your claim that the forgiveness of sins is not a gift from God, but something earned is what has been refuted here.

Please cite the verse where the word "gift" is found in Matt 18:23-35.

Forgiveness was given to the servant apart from the merit of work, just like our redemption/forgiveness was given to us free of charge apart from the merit of work. In fact, Biblically, that's what defines our redemption as a free gift--it is given freely apart from the merit of work, yet for some reason when the servant receives forgiveness apart from the merit of work suddenly it isn't a free gift? What logic are you grasping at that makes the exact same undeserved grace the servant received apart from the merit of his work in Matthew 18:23-35 NOT a gift as it is in our redemption. Educate me in this logic.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Please support this claim that the "free gift of our salvation is forgiveness" from the Bible.

I did.
" redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:14 NASB)
'The' makes the forgiveness of sins exactly equal to our redemption, our salvation. Do you want to argue that our redemption is not our salvation?

...feel free to show any verse that defines forgiveness of sins a gift.

If the Bible considers forgiveness of sins a gift, please cite the verse. Otherwise, there is no reason at all to believe that it is a gift. The gift, according to the Bible IS salvation itself. Eph 2:8, Rom 6:23.
[...]
Only if forgiveness of sins is ever defined in Scripture as a gift will I accept such a definition of "gift".

By definition, what makes the forgiveness of sins NOT a gift? Explain, convincingly, so I will never call our redemption/ forgiveness a gracious gift of God ever again as the Bible does:

"24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:24 NASB)

When Paul used the word "gift" in Rom 11:29, we have to look at and ACCEPT what he himself defined within the text of Romans as a gift. Which I've cited many times.
In 1:11 he mentioned spiritual gifts. They are irrevocable.
In 3:24, 5:15,16,17 he mentioned the gift of justification. It is irrevocable.
In 6:23 he defined eternal life as a gift of God. It is irrevocable.

No one has refuted any of this.

What's really amazing is how you conveniently gloss right over the gifts that really are right in the context of his discourse about Israel:

"3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. " (Romans 9:3-5 NASB)

And of course your doctrine insists these are not gifts, but you have not explained what Israel did to earn these things so that they can not be called gifts.

Well, someone IS kidding themselves, if they think they can try to force Matt 18 into Rom 11:29. No context whatsoever.

Don't forget, you are the one who made the context of Romans 11:29 all of God's gifts by using the logical statement 'God's gifts are irrevocable' in your logical equation. Do I have to explain to you why it's true that your statement HAS to mean ALL of God's gifts for it to be true, whether you realize it has to or not?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Here is the NIV for 1 Jn 3:10: This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

The bolded "a child" does NOT appear in the Greek. That was my point.

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 3:9-10 NASB)

It says the practice of unrighteousness is what makes the child of the devil obvious, versus them being a child of God. But you say 'not of God' in verse 10 since it doesn't have the word 'child' attached to it means your practice of unrighteousness is the believer walking in his sin nature, not his new nature. But we can plainly see that John says the practice of unrighteousness makes it obvious that you are a child of the devil, not simply acting like the devil.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No one has ever shown how salvation by grace can be removed because of anything. If it were, then salvation cannot be of grace. But it is.

How does the requirement for faith in salvation make grace no longer grace? (Remember, your doctrine is the one that says not even a denial of Christ in a complete rejection of faith can take away salvation, for if it could that makes salvation not of grace anymore).

Paul says faith is the very thing that is entirely unlike the works that are not grace (Romans 4:4-5 NASB). But somehow OSAS has decided that even faith is like works in that if you have to have it to be saved then salvation is no longer by grace. That's absurd.

 

[FreeGrace]

Then which gifts of God does Romans 11:29 not include?

Finally, a reasonable question! The verse does NOT have ANY exclusions. So, how do we know what Paul meant by 'gift' in 11:29? From where he ALREADY defined what he meant by 'gift' in Romans.

So, let's see:
1:11 speaks of spiritual gifts.
3:24, 5:15,16,17 speak of justification as a gift
6:23 defines eternal life as a gift of God

These are exactly what Paul meant by "gifts" in 11:29. There CANNOT be any other meaning of 'gift', because Paul didn't define anything else as a 'gift'.

Before you answer, remember in your doctrine it has to include all gifts since one of the logical elements in your logical equation says since eternal life is a gift it is irrevocable because 'God's gift are irrevocable', logical element 'C' in your post below:

Wrong. The ONLY gifts being referred to in 11:29 would be what Paul already described as gifts in his letter to the Romans. Read 1:11, 3:24, 5:15,16,17 and 6:23 to know EXACTLY what Paul meant by 'gift' in 11:29.

Understand? If you are now going to say it doesn't include all of God's gifts your logical statement fails. Want to argue the point?

lol There is no argument. Within the letter to the Romans, Paul defined what he meant by gift. We don't get to, as you've tried to do from Matt 18, which most likely hadn't even been written when Paul wrote to the Romans.

The ONLY gifts I've ever claimed that Paul was referring to in 11:29 are the gifts he already noted in Romans 1:11, 3:24, 5:15,16,17 and 6:23. Those are the ONLY places where he mentioned the word 'gift' before he penned 11:29.

The "no argument" is with your unsubstantiated view.

[QUOE]You are the one who decided the context of Romans 11:29 was all gifts of God, whether you realize it or not, because as I've pointed out you stated in your logical equation that the gifts of God are irrevocable (therefore eternal life--a gift--is irrevocable). [/QUOTE]
This is really laughable. Paul ALONE decided what he meant in 11;29 about gifts. He described gifts in 1:11, 3:24, 5:15,16,17 and 6:23. THOSE are what he was referring to, and no one has shown anything different from the context of the whole letter to the Romans. Trying to bring in Matt 18 is just a feeble attempt to deny the truth of what Paul wrote.

Explain how our redemption (the forgiveness of our sins--Colossians 1:14 NASB) is not a gift from God

I don't have to because Paul DIDN'T describe forgiveness as a gift in Romans. He defined what he meant by gift in Romans. We don't get to do that. So please STOP TRYING!!

Forgiveness was given to the servant apart from the merit of work, just like our redemption/forgiveness was given to us free of charge apart from the merit of work. In fact, Biblically, that's what defines our redemption as a free gift--it is given freely apart from the merit of work, yet for some reason when the servant receives forgiveness apart from the merit of work suddenly it isn't a free gift? What logic are you grasping at that makes the exact same undeserved grace the servant received apart from the merit of his work in Matthew 18:23-35 NOT a gift as it is in our redemption. Educate me in this logic.

[This statement has no bearing on this discussion and is off topic. Violation of ToS 2.4]

No where does the Bible say that we can lose our salvation. One has to "read between the lines" to come up with that line of thought. If it were true, there is NO DOUBT that we would have very clearly stated verses about it. But there aren't any clearly stated verses. There are clearly stated warnings, but NONE of them include "loss of salvation" terms. And given what Paul wrote in Romans, we KNOW that eternal life, which is a gift of God, is irrevocable.

Where is the evidence that Paul didn't have eternal life in view when he penned 11:29? If he didn't, he would have had to write 11:29 quite differently from what he did write.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"No one has ever shown how salvation by grace can be removed because of anything. If it were, then salvation cannot be of grace. But it is."

How does the requirement for faith in salvation make grace no longer grace?

This question demonstrates a misunderstanding of my post. The point is that salvation is by grace, meaning that it isn't earned or deserved. Therefore, it can't be lost or taken away, revoked, removed by anything we do.

Your view is basically that there are things that we do that earns or deserves loss of salvation. That denies grace. Which is the problem with your view.

(Remember, your doctrine is the one that says not even a denial of Christ in a complete rejection of faith can take away salvation, for if it could that makes salvation not of grace anymore).

That's a Bible doctrine, btw. Paul said so from Rom 8:38 when he stated "nothing future". What does that exclude? Nothing. Paul was saying that there is nothing that may occur in the future that will separate us from the love of Christ.

[This statement does not contribute to the discussion. Violation of ToS 2.4]

Paul says faith is the very thing that is entirely unlike the works that are not grace (Romans 4:4-5 NASB). But somehow OSAS has decided that even faith is like works in that if you have to have it to be saved then salvation is no longer by grace. That's absurd.

What is absurd is the total miscomprehension of my view. Faith is NOT like works at all. In fact, Rom 4:4,5 clearly DIFFERENTIATES faith from works. To claim that OSAS makes faith "like works" is absurd.

Having to have faith to be saved is NOT saying that it is a work. Paul made that clear not only in Rom 4:4,5 but also Eph 2:8,9.