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

[Jethro Bodine]

Yep. God's discipline towards His disobedient children is wrath.

Wrong.
The wrath of God is what believers are saved from, not subject to:

"Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come." (1 Thessalonians 1:10 NASB)
"he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment" (John 5:24 NASB)

Believers (not those who never believed, or used to believe) will not see the wrath of God.

Not my view at all. As I've clearly stated. God's discipline toward His disobedient children involves His wrath.

But as the Bible clearly states wrath is NOT what believers get. Your view is not Biblical.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I said this:
"He will get "worse punishment". But, the question is: why would anyone who knows that Go's gifts are irrevocable, would even think that "worse punishment" means loss of salvation?"

And I basically said, "Right. What person, locked into an indoctrination that tells them otherwise, would even think, or can even consider the possibility that there exists a worse punishment than physical death?" Their doctrine doesn't allow them to think that ahead of time so as to be able to consider, right or wrong, the possibility that there is one." Understand? Your statement illustrates the blinding nature of indoctrinations. I had to bust these blinders off in order to see the truth that OSAS doesn't allow one to even consider may exist.

What kind of context puts this verse with Hebrews? This is just trying to cobble together unrelated verses to try to make a point.

Unrelated? How can Jesus explaining a fate worse than death be unrelated to the author of Hebrews warning about a fate worse than death? You wanted to know what that could be, and Jesus told us:

8 "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28 NASB)

The person who walks away from Christ suffers this fate which is worse than the fate of those who despised Moses.

I'm glad to read this, as it directly applies to the conditional security crowd. The FACT is that Paul DEFINED eternal life as a gift, and the VERY NEXT USE OF gift was in Rom 11:29 where he said that God's gifts are irrevocable. But your side flatly rejects this truth.

Like I said, an immovable preconceived premise that blinds a person from seeing in the Bible that which makes it impossible to see, or even consider that Paul can't possibly be contradicting the rest of the Bible by including salvation in the gifts that are irrevocable. The presentation of your doctrine is illustrating this perfectly. Perfectly.

lol Where are the verses that tell us plainly that salvation can be lost? There AREN'T any.

What is plain is that salvation can be lost. What is not so plain and needs the help of OSAS to understand is that salvation can not be lost in the passages that say it can. I will prove my point. Stay tuned. We will see which doctrine, OSAS or non-OSAS, is actually the most straightforward in the Bible and which doctrine depends on some creative twisting and reinterpretation and selective context to make these passages not mean what they plainly say.

Folks, you will be amazed at how many passages plainly speak about losing salvation and which OSAS has to come and help you understand do not really mean what they say. I think we already have an example that has been posted and which I will address....

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes here it is. Let's use this as our first example:

1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless * you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

It's impossible to argue that the very first understanding one gets is it is plainly saying that you are saved by the gospel if you hold fast the word preached to you, and unless you do that your believing will be in vain. Contrary to what FreeGrace says over and over and over again that there is absolutely nothing that says non-OSAS is true, not even a hint or suggestion, yet this is what one gets from a simple read of the passage.

Now, this is what OSAS has to do to help you understand that Paul doesn't really mean that you are saved if you hold fast the word of the gospel:

FreeGrace says:

The single Greek word for "hold fast" has NOTHING to do with your efforts of "holding on". That's just a poor translation. The Greek word is: katechō
1) to hold back, detain, retain
1a) from going away
1b) to restrain, hinder (the course or progress of)
1b1) that which hinders, Antichrist from making hisappearance
1b2) to check a ship’s headway, i.e. to hold or head theship
1c) to hold fast, keep secure, keep firm possession of
2) to get possession of, take
2b) to possess

iow, those who possess the gospel are saved. And we know that those who have believed HAVE received the gift of eternal life (1 Tim 1:16), which is irrevocable (Rom 11:29).​

And yet, it is non-OSAS that is supposed to be the doctrine that has not even a hint of scripture to stand on and which needs the blinders and creative context and limited interpretations, etc. etc. in order for it to be supported in scripture. There are more scriptures that also illustrate this. I will be posting them. It will take time, there are many of them.

I've never seen such resistance to the truth that eternal life, which is a gift of God, is irrevocable. That's what should be guiding one's understanding of warning passages.

No, warning passages should be guiding our understanding of whether eternal life is revocable or not in this age. OSAS is the one that presents the unreasonable resistance to the truth by creatively stripping the warning out of the passages by twisting them so they don't really mean what they so plainly say. You'll see. This was just one example.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I said this:
"The point remains that there is absolutely nothing about losing salvation ANYWHERE in the Bible."

Fact is, my statement stands. None of the verses used by the non-OSAS camp say anything about salvation being lost. It's just a huge assumption of what is being warned about. And totally ignoring all the passages that plainly indicate that we are secure in our salvation.

Okay, here's another one:

20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. 21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach - 23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard" (Colossians 1:20-23 NASB)

Folks, OSAS will help you so that you do not mistakenly assume that Paul is saying you will not be reconciled to God if you do not remain steadfast in faith and moved from the hope of the gospel.

As you can see with your own eyes this claim that there is nothing in the Bible whatsoever that suggests non_OSAS is in any way true is completely false. I'm showing that it's actually the other way around in that it is OSAS that has to take the plain, first read meanings of many non-OSAS passages and help you see that they don't really mean what they say.

There is no "legitimate discussion" of conditional security because the Bible does not teach it.
[...]
There is zero. As has been repeatedly shown but rejected.

It's only zero in your estimation. As we can see from just these two non-OSAS passages I've posted there are plenty of legitimate reasons and points for discussing if non-OSAS is true. You're simply not being honest when you say there are no points of legitimate discussion.

For a doctrine that is sure there are no grounds for even mistakenly believing that non-OSAS is true it sure has some pretty creative ways to address passages they say don't even suggest non-OSAS is true.

 

[Kenny_ms]

(Post removed. A&T forum guidelines state in part "Subsequent responses either opposing or adding additional information should include references to specific supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation of the member's understanding of how that scripture applies." Obadiah)

 

[MarkT]

What in the world does any of this have to do with Rom 11:29. We're NOT talking about some object that can be returned, lost, etc. Scripture itself SAYS that the gifts of God are IRREVOCABLE.

Explain what you're talking about.

How can a gift be irrevocable? It is only irrevocable as it pertains to the covenant and the covenant is irrevocable.

One either believes this or not. Then, one either believes how Paul defined what he meant by gift or not.


The Bible DIRECTLY SAYS that the gifts of God are irrevocable. Rom 11:29


Please quit making up stuff. Where did Paul define anything about the covenant in Rom 11:26-27? He didn't. There is NO WAY one can truthfully claim that Paul had in mind the covenant when he wrote Rom 11:29. Why? Because he didn't define gift in any verse between 6:23 where he defined eternal life as a gift and 11:29 where he SAID that God's gifts (justification - 3:24, 5:15,16,17, and eternal life - 6:23) are irrevocable.

Your view has no ground upon which to stand.

He must have had it in mind since he said it.

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
“and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.” Ro. 11:26-27

And since irrevocable refers to the covenant, and God is mindful of his covenant forever, Ps. 105:8, so Paul says the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

Psalm 14:7
O that deliverance for Israel would come out of Zion! When the Lord restores the fortunes of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, Israel shall be glad.

Psalm 105:8
He is mindful of his covenant for ever, of the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,

Psalm 105:9
the covenant which he made with Abraham, his sworn promise to Isaac,

 

[MarkT]

Yep. God's discipline towards His disobedient children is wrath.


Not my view at all. As I've clearly stated. God's discipline toward His disobedient children involves His wrath.

There's a big difference between being disciplined in this life and being destroyed in the fire of hell.

 

[FreeGrace]

Wrong.
The wrath of God is what believers are saved from, not subject to:

"Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come." (1 Thessalonians 1:10 NASB)
"he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment" (John 5:24 NASB)

Believers (not those who never believed, or used to believe) will not see the wrath of God.

Why would anyone think that a word only has one meaning throughout Scripture?? Jesus was directly referring to the Great White Throne Judgment.

1 Pet 4:7 - For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

I suppose some will claim that Peter taught that believers can lose salvation from this verse. But that is irrational, given that the Bible teaches that eternal life is a gift of God )Rom 6:23) and that God's gifts (justification - 3:24 and eternal life) are irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

In fact, we know Peter was not teaching loss of salvation because he compared judgment "with the household of God" with "the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God". Clearly, there is a difference. But the view of the conditional security folk just default to sin = loss of salvation, etc.

But as the Bible clearly states wrath is NOT what believers get. Your view is not Biblical.

Once again, your claim has been refuted BY Scripture.

 

[MarkT]

The free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus. Romans 6:23 So you leave out 'in Christ Jesus' and say the free gift of God is eternal life, which is true, except it is only true in Christ Jesus. Then you say eternal life is irrevocable to mean it can not be lost. But irrevocable doesn't mean can not be lost. To revoke means to annul, to retract. So there has to be a covenant. Ro. 11:29 refers to that covenant, the covenant God made with Jacob. Ro. 11:26-27

Eternal life is in the words Jesus gave us. If a man doesn't understand the words, Satan comes and takes them away.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"lol Where are the verses that tell us plainly that salvation can be lost? There AREN'T any."

What is plain is that salvation can be lost.

(Edited, ToS 2.4, condescending remark and false accusations as scripture was provided by the poster. This is unnecessary arguing. Obadiah.)

What is not so plain and needs the help of OSAS to understand is that salvation can not be lost in the passages that say it can.

(Edited, ToS 2.4, condescending remarks and unnecessary arguing. There is no need to refer to other posters' interpretations with condescending names. Obadiah.)

I will prove my point. Stay tuned. We will see which doctrine, OSAS or non-OSAS, is actually the most straightforward in the Bible and which doctrine depends on some creative twisting and reinterpretation and selective context to make these passages not mean what they plainly say.

(Edited, ToS 2.4, Trolling. Obadiah.)

Folks, you will be amazed at how many passages plainly speak about losing salvation and which OSAS has to come and help you understand do not really mean what they say. I think we already have an example that has been posted and which I will address....

(Edited, ToS 2.4, Trolling. Obadiah.)

 

[FreeGrace]

Yes here it is. Let's use this as our first example:

1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless * you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

It's impossible to argue that the very first understanding one gets is it is plainly saying that you are saved by the gospel if you hold fast the word preached to you, and unless you do that your believing will be in vain. Contrary to what FreeGrace says over and over and over again that there is absolutely nothing that says non-OSAS is true, not even a hint or suggestion, yet this is what one gets from a simple read of the passage.

Now, this is what OSAS has to do to help you understand that Paul doesn't really mean that you are saved if you hold fast the word of the gospel:

FreeGrace says:

The single Greek word for "hold fast" has NOTHING to do with your efforts of "holding on". That's just a poor translation. The Greek word is: katechō
1) to hold back, detain, retain
1a) from going away
1b) to restrain, hinder (the course or progress of)
1b1) that which hinders, Antichrist from making hisappearance
1b2) to check a ship’s headway, i.e. to hold or head theship
1c) to hold fast, keep secure, keep firm possession of
2) to get possession of, take
2b) to possess

iow, those who possess the gospel are saved. And we know that those who have believed HAVE received the gift of eternal life (1 Tim 1:16), which is irrevocable (Rom 11:29).​

And yet, it is non-OSAS that is supposed to be the doctrine that has not even a hint of scripture to stand on and which needs the blinders and creative context and limited interpretations, etc. etc. in order for it to be supported in scripture. There are more scriptures that also illustrate this. I will be posting them. It will take time, there are many of them.

(Edited, ToS 2.4, Trolling, rudeness. Obadiah.) I proved that verse cannot be speaking of having to "hold onto" one's salvation. Jesus Himself taught that God holds onto believers, not the other way around, as your (Edited, ToS 2.4, rudness. Obadiah.) claims.

Further, where is the idea of "loss" found in 1 Cor 15:3. It's about being saved if one POSSESSES the gospel. It's not about how one loses salvation because there are NO WORDS to lead anyone to such an idea.

And, Paul defined eternal life as a gift in Rom 6:23 and the next time he mentioned God's gifts he said that they are irrevocable in Rom 11:29.

There is no basis for conditional security.

No, warning passages should be guiding our understanding of whether eternal life is revocable or not in this age.

In spite of the FACT that Paul defined eternal life as a gift and said that God's gifts are irrevocable???? Really?

That makes no sense at all (to me). (Edited, ToS 2.4, Rudeness. Obadiah.)

OSAS is the one that presents the unreasonable resistance to the truth by creatively stripping the warning out of the passages by twisting them so they don't really mean what they so plainly say. You'll see. This was just one example.

Since eternal life is an irrevocable gift of God, the warning passages CANNOT be about loss of salvation.

 

[FreeGrace]

Okay, here's another one:

20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. 21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach - 23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard" (Colossians 1:20-23 NASB)

Folks, OSAS will help you so that you do not mistakenly assume that Paul is saying you will not be reconciled to God if you do not remain steadfast in faith and moved from the hope of the gospel.

(Edited, ToS 2.4, Trolling. Obadiah.) Where are the words to lead one to assume that salvation can be lost? They AREN'T there.

Here is what is there: in v.23, IF one continues in the faith, then God will present the believer holy and blameless (v.22). In fact, the claim about what OSAS will claim about this verse is patently FALSE. The verse clearly SAYS that "He has NOW reconciled you". So how could any rational person claim otherwise? Impossible.
(Edited, ToS 2.4, Trolling. Obadiah.)

As you can see with your own eyes this claim that there is nothing in the Bible whatsoever that suggests non_OSAS is in any way true is completely false. I'm showing that it's actually the other way around in that it is OSAS that has to take the plain, first read meanings of many non-OSAS passages and help you see that they don't really mean what they say.

In fact, the Bible DOES mean what it says. And it NEVER says anything about warning of loss of salvation, and so far, you've NEVER provided any verse that says so.

The opposite is true: The Bible plainly defines eternal life as a gift of God in Rom 6:23. And Rom 11:29 says that God's gifts are irrevocable. But the conditional security folk rejects that. Without reason. Or excuse.

It's only zero in your estimation. As we can see from just these two non-OSAS passages I've posted there are plenty of legitimate reasons and points for discussing if non-OSAS is true. You're simply not being honest when you say there are no points of legitimate discussion.

Since NEITHER passages teach loss of salvation, nor any others, there are no legitimate reasons to discuss conditional security, which is a false doctrine.

 

[MarkT]

Where in the gospel of Jesus Christ does Jesus say if a believer falls into unbelief he is still saved?

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"The point remains that there is absolutely nothing about losing salvation ANYWHERE in the Bible."

There is no clear discussion on black being white in the Bible either. It's not true so why discuss it?

What in the world does this mean??

However, there are indicators that scream OSNAS.

What are the indicators? And what does OSNAS mean? Esp the "N".

The question I'm starting to ask myself is why are people seem to need to believe this so badly, that they seem to go deaf to those screams?

(Edited, ToS 2.4, Unwanted spiritual advice. Obadiah.) It isn't about "needing to believe so badly", but accepting the clear words of Scripture.

The real question is why the non-OSAS folk are so desperate to believe what isn't taught in Scripture. Again, there are NO verses that warn that salvation can be lost.

Are they doing something they ought not and need a way to allow themselves to continue doing it without fear? Do they have backsliding family that they are worried about and this theology makes everything OK? Something that never crossed my mind?

Just thinking out loud there.

No. Just erroneous assumptions. Truth is truth regardless of anyone's circumstances.

Paul defined eternal life as a gift of God in Rom 6:23. The NEXT TIME he mentioned gifts was in Rom 11:29 where he said that God's gifts are irrevocable.

So, my question: do you believe what Paul wrote: that eternal life is a gift of God, and that God's gifts are irrevocable?

 

[FreeGrace]

Explain what you're talking about.

How can a gift be irrevocable? It is only irrevocable as it pertains to the covenant and the covenant is irrevocable.

The Bible SAYS that God's gifts are irrevocable? Do you believe that or not? (Edited, ToS 2.4, Rudeness, offering unwanted spiritual advice.. Obadiah.)

And since irrevocable refers to the covenant

Kindly point me to the verse where Paul defined the covenant as a gift anywhere in Romans. Otherwise, there is no reason to accept your theory. Paul defined what he meant by gift. We don't get the right to do that. (Edited, ToS 2.4, Rudeness. Obadiah.)

and God is mindful of his covenant forever, Ps. 105:8, so Paul says the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

And he defined what he meant by gift in 3:24 (justification) and 6:23 (eternal life). It is these gifts that are irrevocable.

Psalm 14:7
O that deliverance for Israel would come out of Zion! When the Lord restores the fortunes of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, Israel shall be glad.

Psalm 105:8
He is mindful of his covenant for ever, of the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,

Psalm 105:9
the covenant which he made with Abraham, his sworn promise to Isaac,

None of these verses teach that salvation can be lost, OR have anything to do with gifts that are irrevocable.

Paul defined what he meant by gift. Why should anyone deny that justification and eternal life are irrevocable?

 

[FreeGrace]

There's a big difference between being disciplined in this life and being destroyed in the fire of hell.

Yes, there is. Please show me any verse that teaches that God revokes eternal life from anyone He has given it to. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe that salvation can be lost.

 

[FreeGrace]

Where in the gospel of Jesus Christ does Jesus say if a believer falls into unbelief he is still saved?

It's clearly inferred in Luke 8:12 and 13. In v.12 He notes that anyone who believes will be saved. In v.13 He notes that soil #2 believed for a while. Since they believed, they are saved.

I've answere your question. Now, please answer mine.

Where does the Bible actually say that a believer who falls into unbelief that he loses salvation, or that his eternal life is revoked? That's the real question.

Jesus taught that believers are held in God's hand in Jn 10:28. And He added, "and they will NEVER PERISH".

So, please show me any verse that actually teaches that a believer who falls into unbelief WILL PERISH.

If you can't, there is no reason to accept your theory.

 

[FreeGrace]

The free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus. Romans 6:23 So you leave out 'in Christ Jesus' and say the free gift of God is eternal life, which is true, except it is only true in Christ Jesus.

I never left that out. The point is that everyone who believes in Christ HAS eternal life. Jesus Himself said so in Jn 5:24. And there are NO VERSES that say what you're claiming: that one who falls into unbelief loses salvation or has his eternal life revoked. There is NO SUPPORT for your theory.

Then you say eternal life is irrevocable to mean it can not be lost.

Paul said so. Who has shown that irrevocable doesn't mean irrevocable?

But irrevocable doesn't mean can not be lost. To revoke means to annul, to retract. So there has to be a covenant. Ro. 11:29 refers to that covenant, the covenant God made with Jacob. Ro. 11:26-27

Since Paul NEVER defined the covenant as a gift, your theory has been shown to be full of holes. Paul ALREADY DEFINED gift in 3:24 for justification and 6:23 for eternal life. That is what he meant in 11:29 and your theory has not been supported. If Paul had defined the covenant as a gift, you'd have a point. But as it is, you don't.

Eternal life is in the words Jesus gave us. If a man doesn't understand the words, Satan comes and takes them away.

Uh, the first soil were unbelievers from the start. They NEVER believed, which is clear from Jesus' words.
Luke 8:12 - “Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.

These aren't former believers. They never believed; but Jesus' words are clear: if they had believed, they would be saved.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Why would anyone think that a word only has one meaning throughout Scripture?? Jesus was directly referring to the Great White Throne Judgment.

Folks, this is what he's doing: OSAS makes this passage not say what it so plainly says by redefining the Judgement it is speaking about and making it a loving disciplinary judging of the believer, instead of the vengeance of God on his enemies that it so clearly speaks of:

"a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE."" (Hebrews 10:27-30 NASB capitals in original, bold mine)

This Judgment, this avenging of the enemies of God, is also spoken about here by Paul, and it's hardly a loving chastisement of the disobedient, but believing member of God's household:

" when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus." (2 Thessalonians 1:8 NASB bold mine)

The key word here being the 'vengeance', and 'retribution' (ekdikēsis) of God, and it being given to "those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord" (vs.8 above), not the loving discipline of God given to his believing children (paideia--Ephesians 6:4, 2 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 12:5,8,7,11) as OSAS would want you to believe it is.

So OSAS doctrine can't hide behind selective word meanings and definitions to make the truth of this Judgment not be the wrath of God on his enemies, but instead be the loving chastisement of God as to his children. But this is what OSAS does to non-OSAS passages: It 'helps' you see that the passage doesn't really mean what it plainly says, as it so often does, by redefining terms, ignoring context, etc. This is yet another example--a plain scripture that needs the assistance of OSAS to make it not mean what it plainly says on it's own. We've visited three so far. There are more.

1 Pet 4:7 - For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

I suppose some will claim that Peter taught that believers can lose salvation from this verse. But that is irrational, given that the Bible teaches that eternal life is a gift of God )Rom 6:23) and that God's gifts (justification - 3:24 and eternal life) are irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

....but which is an argument that is actually the one that is irrational because we see the gift of justification (the forgiveness of sins) taught as being able to be revoked in the Bible (Matthew 18:23-35, Hebrews 10:26-30 NASB).

In fact, we know Peter was not teaching loss of salvation because he compared judgment "with the household of God" with "the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God". Clearly, there is a difference. But the view of the conditional security folk just default to sin = loss of salvation, etc.

And true to form, OSAS once again does not know the argument they are contending with. Sin as the result of unbelief is what equals loss of salvation. Unbelief is why people lose the gift of forgiveness--their justification and redemption (Romans 3:24 NASB). The sin associated with that unbelief is simply the sin that one chooses to indulge in their trampling and insulting and rejecting of the blood and grace of God they have received.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

(Removed, response to a deleted post. Obadiah)

FreeGrace, don't you even realize that you illustrated this with the 1 Peter 4:9 verse:

1 Pet 4:7 - For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

I suppose some will claim that Peter taught that believers can lose salvation from this verse.

See? Even you can see that the first read more than suggests non-OSAS! And thus your need to make sure we don't take it for it's first and most obvious read.