If I ask someone for a gift, did I earn it, or work for it when I got it handed to me?

[Jethro Bodine]

...but became unborn again because they forgot to have faith one day (and they died that one day)

Be honest (God is watching). Do you really think that's what I've been arguing? Tell me the truth.

Hebrews speaks of the person who has been sanctified by the blood of Christ (a believer) who purposely tramples on the blood of Christ, and who then as a result suffer the same wrath as the enemies of God:

"26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but 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? " (Hebrews 10:26-29 NASB bold mine, italics and capitals in original)

They suffer the same fate of the enemies of God because they have now become an unbelieving enemy of God.

 

[JLB]

Adam has no belly button, yet he is created from earth dirt, which God formed as flesh.
Angels are "spirits", not formed as "flesh" from the earth.
Jesus is referred to as the "second Adam", so, this means the first Adam's body was just like Christ's 2nd Adam's body.
If you cut Adam he bled.....If you scourged Jesus He bled.
Your bible does not say that Jesus was the second angel, or the second Lucifer, or the second Gabriel.
But it does say that humans who are born again have become, "flesh of Jesus's flesh and bone of his Bones"..... Ephesians 5:30
And your bible says that Believers, God, and Jesus, are "One". ..... John 17:21
It does NOT say this about angels and God and Jesus and Humans all being "ONE".
You bible never says an angel is "in Christ" or "begotten of the Father", yet HUMANS are born again by the Spirit of God and are "in Christ".

So, as i was saying.
Im not disagreeing that angles are spoken of as "sons of God, but this is certainly not the same status as Jesus or Christians.
Have you ever read where God answers the prayer of an Angel?
Does your bible say that Angels are created in the Image of God?

9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment,
10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries,
11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.
2 Peter 2:9-11

Adam was created directly by God, as is a son of God. Luke 3:38

Angels are sons of God, which includes Lucifer and the one third of the angels - Job 38:7, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Genesis 6:4

The angels that were cast down to hell are sons of God. 2 Peter 2:4

Were are sons of God by faith, and will become sons of God in reality, if we are worthy to attain to the that age and the resurrection of the dead.

34 And Jesus answered and said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage.
35 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage;
36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Luke 20:34-36


The point I am making here is: being a son of God, does not exempt one from being cast down to hell, if you rebel against God.


Those saints who turn away from God and take the mark of the beast will suffer the same fate as the devil.

9 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand,
10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.
Revelation 14:9-12


JLB

 

[MarkT]

The commandment to become circumcised, like the commandment to get out of your fathers house, were the Lord's commands to Abraham.

Just like do not eat of the tree was His law to Adam.

Circumcision was the sign for Abraham and his descendants of the covenant the Lord made with him.

This command to Moses was a continuation of the covenant sign.

Paul teaches by the Spirit that physical circumcision is not the goal but faith from a motive of love, as Abraham was considered as righteous before he was circumcised.


JLB

The point is circumcision was the law 430 years before Moses and Gen 26:5 says Abraham kept God's laws. There's nothing in Gen. about another law. Jesus never referred to another law; he always referred to the law of Moses - "Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?” John 7:19, and he said, 'as Moses commanded', Luke 5:14. Does he mention another law? No. Jesus taught us the two great commandments of the law Mt. 22:37-39, and he said on these two rest the whole law. Mt. 22:40 Did Abraham keep the same laws? I would say so, even though the laws had not been spelled out as yet. The Bible tells us he feared God and he did what the LORD told him; if he loved God and if he loved his neighbour as himself, then he kept the law.

The commandment was do not eat; the law kicked in after they ate.

Paul talks about the law and circumcision a lot, and he calls the law 'the law of sin and death', but when he uses the expression, 'the law of sin and death', it does not mean he is talking about a different law. It's like say money and power, sin and death; the two things just go together.

 

[FreeGrace]

You are doing what FreeGrace does: you take a concept (for you it is the concept of sonship, for him it the concept of "irrevocable gift"), interpret in one particular sense, and think this means you can reject the rather plain teachings of other texts.

Rather, since the concept of "irrevocable gift" is so clearly defined in Romans, all other texts must be understood by what is so clearly stated. Many turn that around to try to make Rom 11:29 NOT about the irrevocability of eternal life.

Yes, we are referred to as "sons of God". But it is only in one restricted sense of the term son that the status of sonship cannot be revoked.

Where is the evidence that being sons of God is "only in one restricted sense"? It has the same sense spiritually as being a son of our parents in the physical sense.

\Yes, we are called Sons of God, but does that give you licence to extend the concept of sonship to all the details of human sonship?

Yes, it sure does. They are parallel concepts.

This is what you and FreeGrace routinely do: you take concepts and stretch them like one would stretch the neckhole of a sweater and then you force the doctrine of OSAS through that stretched and distorted neckhole.

I've not stretched anything. And not a very relevant "example".

OSAS doesn't require any stretching. It's as obvious as ANY neck hole of ANY sweater.

 

[FreeGrace]

Using your reasoning, I could say that because I am son of God, I have:

1. God's DNA (like a real human son would have)

Actually, all believers do. Since God gives the free gift of eternal LIFE, we do have His DNA. Those who have God's LIFE have His DNA.

2. The responsibility to put God in a retirement home when He gets old (like a real human son would do).
3. etc.

Another not very relevant "example". Since God is eternal, and perfect, He doesn't wear out like physical human parents.

For an example to be relevant, it must also be real.

 

[MarkT]

Please don't forget that Paul defined eternal life as a gift of God. Which is irrevocable.

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

Here Paul is talking abut the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh and the promise God made to his descendants. He asks, has God rejected his people? So everything that follows is his answer.

Those things, ie. the call and the blessings, are irrevocable. God's promise of gifts to Abraham's descendants are still in effect and God will keep his word re eternal life, provided they believe. Ro.11:23

It does not include those who have fallen into unbelief Ro.11:20 and those who have departed from the truth and false teachers and false prophets and those who follow them.

So this says nothing about eternal life being irrevocable. It's God's promise that is irrevocable.

 

[JLB]

Jesus taught us the two great commandments of the law Mt. 22:37-39, and he said on these two rest the whole law.

No He didn't say that, sorry.

On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

By pairing the law with the prophets He is referencing the whole Torah, which includes Genesis.

Genesis was before the law of Moses.

The law of Moses was added, 430 years after the Covenant of Abraham,until the Seed should come.

The law of Moses contained ordinances that the Abrahamic Covenant didn't have.


Please show me where the law is in the law of Moses which says, you shall not eat of the tree...


The law of Moses was a unique addition to the Covenant of Abraham, temporarily, til the Seed should come and establish the New Covenant.

The New Covenant is a refreshed Abrahamic Covenant.


JLB

 

[JLB]

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

Here Paul is talking abut the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh and the promise God made to his descendants. He asks, has God rejected his people? So everything that follows is his answer.

Those things, ie. the call and the blessings, are irrevocable. God's promise of gifts to Abraham's descendants are still in effect and God will keep his word re eternal life, provided they believe. Ro.11:23

It does not include those who have fallen into unbelief Ro.11:20 and those who have departed from the truth and false teachers and false prophets and those who follow them.

So this says nothing about eternal life being irrevocable. It's God's promise that is irrevocable.

 

[LovethroughDove]

Since none of these verses speak of the seal of the Holy Spirit being broken, I cannot accept such an idea.

In fact, the very purpose of the sealing with the Holy Spirit is FOR the day of redemption. And it's said to be a promise or pledge of God FOR the day of redemption. That clearly is about eternal security, which is exactly opposite of the idea that any person can break this seal of the Holy Spirit.

You are right that it doesn't literally say that the sealing of the Holy Spirit can be broken. But, it also doesn't say what you have stated above. That everyone sealed with the Holy Spirit will remain sealed.

I look at what JLB has been posting with the remaining in Jesus or else and the majority of the New Testament warnings about remain in the faith and take that as a warning!

I'll post this again. Hebrews 10:29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

I had written this a few hours ago and didn't post it, cause all this back and forth doesn't matter at all. What matters is faith. My faith stands with the warnings and your faith stands on something else. I don't want you to think your faith is any less than mine.

 

[MarkT]

No it isn't. I showed from Scripture WHEN "fire" does refer to hell. Jesus was using an agricultural metaphor when He spoke about branches being thrown into the fire. It had nothing to do with salvation, and all to do with service.

What happens to branches in a fire? They are consumed.

 

[MarkT]

No He didn't say that, sorry.

On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

By pairing the law with the prophets He is referencing the whole Torah, which includes Genesis.

He's is just referring to the words spoken by the prophets.

He is not referencing any such thing. He said the law and the prophets because the law was given by the prophets. and they prophesied his coming.

35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

Luke 24:25
And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!

Luke 24:44
Then he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.”


The law came by the prophets so when he says the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments, he is talking about the law and the prophets by whom the law was given.

Genesis was before the law of Moses.

The law of Moses was added, 430 years after the Covenant of Abraham,until the Seed should come.

The law of Moses contained ordinances that the Abrahamic Covenant didn't have.


Please show me where the law is in the law of Moses which says, you shall not eat of the tree...


The law of Moses was a unique addition to the Covenant of Abraham, temporarily, til the Seed should come and establish the New Covenant.

The New Covenant is a refreshed Abrahamic Covenant.


JLB

No one annuls a man's will by adding to it. Galatians 3:15 To give a human example, brethren: no one annuls even a man’s will, or adds to it, once it has been ratified. Gal. 3:15

The covenant can be seen as God's will. So saying the law was added to the covenant clearly misses the point. No one does that. The law was not added to the covenant.

You have to understand the law was not added to the covenant, therefore, the law did not annul the covenant which was previously ratified by God.

The covenant was the promise. The law was added to the daily lives of the people to make them clean. The promise is one thing, the work of the law is another thing.

It's irrelevant to say the commandment given to Adam is not in the law of Moses. Noah was commanded to build an ark; That's not in the law either. The law of Moses was about moral conduct and purification. ie. The Ten Commandments and clean and unclean things.

Jesus said the law was not abolished. Mt. 5:17-22
17 “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 21 “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.

 

[FreeGrace]

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

Here Paul is talking abut the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh and the promise God made to his descendants. He asks, has God rejected his people? So everything that follows is his answer.

So, where did he define "gift" anywhere in ch 11? We know what he defined as gifts of God in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17 referring to justification and 6:23 referring to eternal life. No where else did Paul define gifts before he wrote 11:29.

Those things, ie. the call and the blessings, are irrevocable. God's promise of gifts to Abraham's descendants are still in effect and God will keep his word re eternal life, provided they believe. Ro.11:23

"And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again."

Pardon me, but I don't find any definition of 'gift' in this verse. Or anywhere else between 6:23 and 11:29.

It does not include those who have fallen into unbelief Ro.11:20 and those who have departed from the truth and false teachers and false prophets and those who follow them.

Since there is no mention or definition of gift between 6:23 and 11:29, I believe your view is an assumption without any support from Scripture.

So this says nothing about eternal life being irrevocable. It's God's promise that is irrevocable.

Where did Paul define "gift of God" as a promise anywhere in Romans? I haven't found where.

 

[JLB]

You have to understand the law was not added to the covenant, therefore, the law did not annul the covenant which was previously ratified by God.

15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it.

Paul speaks of a fictitious covenant between two men. He states that no one "adds" (strongs #1928), which is a word that means to - add to something with the idea of changing was was ordained.

This is the only time this word is used in the New Testament.


16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.

Paul now no longer referring to a fictitious man made covenant, declared that the law which came 430 years later can not do away with the covenant that was confirmed by God.


18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.
Galatians 3:15-19

Paul now uses a different (Greek) word here for added in verse 19, Strongs # 4369, which means to add with the idea of increase, rather than change or annul.

Paul goes on to say -

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not!

The law was added because of transgression's, because the children of Israel were not walking with Him the way Abraham did..,,

Also because they had been in bondage to the Egyptians and had been indoctrinated to the gods of Egypt.

God added the law so that He could continue blessing them with the blessings of Abraham, in order that they could drive out the Giants and thus fulfill His promise to Abraham to give his descendants the promised land.

The law was added to the Abrahamic Covenant until the Seed should come.


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

You are right that it doesn't literally say that the sealing of the Holy Spirit can be broken. But, it also doesn't say what you have stated above. That everyone sealed with the Holy Spirit will remain sealed.

What did Jesus promise about the coming Holy Spirit? “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever" Jn 14:16. I don't know how else to understand this promise other than that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit will be permanent. Indeed, I do not find any reference or suggestion in the NT that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit can be removed.

I look at what JLB has been posting with the remaining in Jesus or else and the majority of the New Testament warnings about remain in the faith and take that as a warning!

Yes, it most certainly IS a warning. But loss of salvation is not mentioned or suggested. Esp since Paul was clear about what he defined as a gift of God, and then noted that God's gifts are irrevocable.

I'll post this again. Hebrews 10:29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Clearly a warning. But where is there any mention of salvation or loss of salvation? The warning is about God's hand of discipline, which can be quite severe.

I had written this a few hours ago and didn't post it, cause all this back and forth doesn't matter at all. What matters is faith. My faith stands with the warnings and your faith stands on something else. I don't want you to think your faith is any less than mine.

What do you think my faith is standing on? I'd really like to know.

Though your faith stands WITH the warnings, what does it stand ON?

 

[FreeGrace]

What happens to branches in a fire? They are consumed.

Jesus' point was being discarded rather than being used for service. The Jews were quite proud of their status as "chosen" or "elect", which is about service.

For a Jew to think that God would discard them rather than use them was a horrible idea.

 

[MarkT]

15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it.

Paul speaks of a fictitious covenant between two men. He states that no one "adds" (strongs #1928), which is a word that means to - add to something with the idea of changing was was ordained.

This is the only time this word is used in the New Testament.


16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.

Paul now no longer referring to a fictitious man made covenant, declared that the law which came 430 years later can not do away with the covenant that was confirmed by God.


18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.
Galatians 3:15-19

Paul now uses a different (Greek) word here for added in verse 19, Strongs # 4369, which means to add with the idea of increase, rather than change or annul.

Paul goes on to say -

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not!

The law was added because of transgression's, because the children of Israel were not walking with Him the way Abraham did..,,

Also because they had been in bondage to the Egyptians and had been indoctrinated to the gods of Egypt.

God added the law so that He could continue blessing them with the blessings of Abraham, in order that they could drive out the Giants and thus fulfill His promise to Abraham to give his descendants the promised land.

The law was added to the Abrahamic Covenant until the Seed should come.


JLB

Increase the covenant? I don't think so.

Paul doesn't say exactly what the law was added to, but it surely wasn't added to the covenant to increase it. Whatever that means. No one adds to a covenant. Again you are saying it was added to the covenant - but that's not true, otherwise why would Paul begin by saying no one adds to a man's will? He states it plainly. You could say it was added to their understanding of good and evil, or to their daily lives, or to their knowledge of sin, or to the law of circumcision. I know the law was added because of trespasses because the people were worshipping idols again.

 

[JLB]

Increase the covenant? I don't think so.

In Jewish thought, the law acted as a "fence", around the Covenant and was added because the covenant laws and commandments that Abraham kept by faith, as he walked with God, were being transgressed, or violated.

This is one aspect or idea of adding without changing what was already ordained, but rather enhancing it.

Also, animal sacrifices were added to atone for the sins of those that transgressed the Covenant stipulations.

Paul doesn't say exactly what the law was added to, but it surely wasn't added to the covenant to increase it. Whatever that means. No one adds to a covenant.

No one adds [Epidiatassomai - #1928] to mans covenant, but the Lord Himself as the Covenant Maker, most certainly adds [Prostithemi - #4369] to His Covenant, as the promise was to the Seed [Himself], which is why the next verse says Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.

Here are the changes to the Abrahamic Covenant:

The law was added to it until the Seed should come, then when the Seed came, He made it the New [fresh, not different] Covenant.

The New Covenant is a refreshed Abrahamic Covenant, without the law of Moses, and that why it's now called the law of Christ, as He is the Mediator between God and man, and is the Seed to whom the promise was made.

It has been added to, as it is now a better Covenant based of better promises.

Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. Galatians 3:16


JLB

 

[Drew]

That is not right. There are no verses that support the idea that one can "get free" or "remove themself" from being in union with Christ.

4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. [Hebrews 6:4-6, NASB]

You have argued that this is about backsliding into animal sacrifice. How do you justify such a conclusion?

Yes, Paul prefaces his remarks with a clear criticism of the futility of doing the "works of the Law of Moses" and these do indeed include animal sacrifice:

Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. [Hebrews 6:1-3]

Let's carefully read verse 1. In this verse, Paul clearly argues against laying again a foundation. What is that foundation that we are not to lay a second time? It is the foundation of giving up dependence on the Law and of embracing faith.

And that, of course, is the essence of conversion!!

Here is the point: Paul's introductory treatment (before verses 4-6) clearly shows that he is against efforts at embracing for a second time the whole package of repenting from following the law and instead embracing faith.

And, of course, this is precisely what one would expect him to say if he believes that such efforts to "Re- repent" are futile. And this is exactly what he goes on to say in 4 to 6: if you slide away badly enough, you cannot recover.

You appear to shrink this down to a rejection of animal sacrifice. Well, yes, Paul certainly does not want his readers to go back to animal sacrifice. But throughout these first 6 verses, the clear point is that one cannot renew an initial act of repentance if you have slidden away, including, of course, a slide back into animal sacrifice.

Your analysis overlooks this clear focus on the impossibility of undertaking a second repentance. Yes, animal sacrifice is not something to return to. But Paul does not merely say "don't do that"; no, he also says that once you have slidden back into that practice from a position of initial repentance from it, you cannot recover.

 

[Drew]

The audience in Hebrews were returning to animal sacrifice (return to the Law). Animal sacrifice was for forgiveness of sin. But since Christ already died for all sin, animal sacrifice was not only obsolete but now worthless.

More about this position of yours. It is clear that that Paul is not only saying that animal sacrifice is worthless; he is saying that efforts to try to escape from that practice after having initially repented from it negate Jesus' sacrifice. I don't really need to argue this point, the text more or less makes its own case:

Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. 3And this we will do, if God permits. 4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. [Hebrews 6:1-6]

I am, frankly mystified that anyone could read this text and not conclude that the point is simply what it says: once you have repented and received the Spirit, you cannot recover if you fall away.

That is simply what the words say!!

 

[Drew]

In fact, to be "in Christ" is just another way to understand ETERNAL SECURITY. How so? Glad you asked.

13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. Eph 1

We note in v.13 the ORDER; having believed, you (the believer) were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit.

I suggest you are doing the same thing you do with the concept of an "irrevocable gift" - you take a concept or a metaphor and overextend it. And let's be clear: there most certainly are contexts in which one can indeed "break a seal". If an astronaut is sealed into the capsule, he may still be able to break that seal to escape if he needs to. Yes, of course, you can provide other examples where a seal is not reversible. But the point is that you are forced to appeal to those particular cases of being sealed that are, in fact, irreversible. And I suggest that when an objective reader reads passages like the one from Hebrews 6 which so clearly declares the possibility of losing one's ultimate salvation, that reader will conclude that "seal" of Ephesians 1 can indeed be broken.

Here is the problem you face: you will not, I suggest, be able to make the case that the concept of "sealing" necessarily implies irreversibility. But even if you did that, you would still have to deal with texts like Hebrews 6. The better way, I suggest, is to take Hebrews 6 as it reads - that salvation can be lost -and conclude that since many seals can be broken, the one in Ephesians must be one such breakable seal.

Now I suspect that the "seal" here is really an allusion to an emperor's seal on some kind of edict or promise. Well, if so that really does not help you much since all that such a seal entails is a promise that the emperor will extend some right or benefit to you. But something that is promised does not necessarily come to pass. A man may promise eternal love to his wife at a marriage ceremony. And he may mean it and never fail to hold up his end of that promise. But the wife, sadly, can still leave him.