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

[JLB]

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!!

Yes, that is what the words say.

An emphasis, and study of the word "fallen away" would go a long way, to clarify what is being said here.

Those that would pervert the truth, must "redefine" the plain words of truth to accomplish the task of teaching their unbiblical doctrine.

It's all about a life long obedience to the Gospel command Repent.

Look at the language... If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance.

Repent means to turn to God, which by definition means turning away from Satan.

This turning to God is a life long commitment, which is the very definition of the word believe.

If a person "turns to God", then later turns back away from Him, then they no longer believe, that is to say, no longer committed to Him as Lord, to obey.

This is putting Him to an open shame, by deserting Him to go back and serve Satan.

Paul recounts his commissioning from the Lord, to king Agrippa -


14 And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15 So I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, 18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’ Acts 26:14-18


Make no mistake, this is the way to receive the forgiveness of sins -


to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’


The only way to receive the forgiveness of sins, is to obey the Gospel Command, REPENT.


Jesus teaches this principle clearly -

3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.4 And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”



JLB

 

[Drew]

-

To begin with, we are not branches., We are Sons of God.
And "Sonship", is related to being born into a family.
Once this occurs, you can't be out of the family tree, you can only be a family member who is ither a good family member or a bad family member, but in the family tree you will stay, as behavior cannot undo Birthright.

You are, I believe, doing what you are forced to do in order to make your position seem viable: you choose one particular aspect of the concept of "sonship", represent it as essential to the concept of sonship, and then use that aspect to support your argument. Even if that was correct - and it is not - you seem to then feel you can essentially ignore other texts that seem to contradict what you have concluded based on your particular take on the concept of "sonship".

Yes, a son born to a human person will always be that person's son in the very restricted sense that, obviously, one cannot undo the historical fact that the one fathered the other. But, the concept of "son" has other important dimensions as well: the nature of the actual relationship of "son to father" as played out in real life is arguably even more defining of sonship than is the historical fact that A fathered B. In fact, we often use the term "son" to refer to the content of a certain kind of ongoing relationship between people ("He was like a son to me"). Or consider the phase "son of Russia". Also, we can talk about sons being disowned by their parents. In fact, this particular aspect of "sonship" - the conceptual plausibility of being disowned and losing one's promised inheritance - is particularly problematic for your particular implied argument that "since we are sons, we cannot lose our promised salvation.

 

[Drew]

Actually, i think that you are the one who does this.
What i do is use more then Romans or Matthew to create my POV.
The fact is, the reason you never post anything from Colossians, Ephesians, Galatians, is because these letters contradict and end your argument.

First, the fact that I have not posted anything from these texts does not, of course, mean that these letters contradict my argument. If you can produce texts from these letters that contradict my position, please do so.

Second, and more importantly, you are hardly in a position to make such a claim when your own words clearly show that you do not believe all Scripture is inspired. And I quote:

Now, if you can get this, if this can be understood, then you will stop trying to use scriptures that are written by Apostles who didnt have the revelation of the Grace of God when they wrote their letters.
And other believers here, who are confused about it, can rest in the finished work of the Cross, and stop being led astray by scriptures posted by others here, that are written by Apostles who at the time of writing them, didnt understand the GOSPEL of the Grace of GOD, YET.

I should think your keyboard would go up in a blaze of flame when you make the one claim about me, and then obviously do the same thing you suggest I am doing.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"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?

This doesn't say anything about removing oneself from being in union with Christ. And my conclusion is based on what scholars have concluded, according to the history of why this epistle was written.

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!!

Once converted, always converted. Or prove that it isn't.

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.

These people had already embraced faith in Christ. That is quite clear from ch 1-3.

btw, why keep mentioning Paul? There is no evidence that he wrote the epistle. The style isn't even close to his.

[QUTOE]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.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I agree. They will not recover if they continue in animal sacrifice.

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.

Why would one think this speaks of "initial act of repentance"? Believers are commanded to repent of their sins in an on-going manner, just as they are to confess their sins in the same way.

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.

The unknown writer's point is clear; as long as they return to animal sacrifice, they won't repent.

And, my point stands: there are no verses that teach that one can remove themself from being in union with Christ.

 

[MarkT]

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.



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

Let's consider the law to be a separate entity which was added; it was not added to anything, but it was added as a separate thing. Paul tells us it was added. He does not say it was added to anything. So it can be seen that before the law was given, there was the covenant, and then after the law was given, there was the covenant and the law; there was not the covenant alone, but there was the covenant and there was the law.

The law exists apart from the covenant just as faith exists apart from the law, and just as faith is given, so the law was given. So now there are two things at work - the law, which requires doing what the law says and faith, which requires doing what our Lord said. John 14:15

So both the law and faith are at work - the law leading to destruction and faith leading to life. Those who would keep the law have to do everything the law says and keep it perfectly. Those who are no longer under the law are under grace.

 

[FreeGrace]

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!!

I understand your understanding of it, but because of the many passages that clearly affirm eternal security, your view cannot be right. It's as impossible as one who has returned to animal sacrifice will repent.

The point of this passage is that a true believer can become apostate (trusting in the Law for forgiveness rather than being forgiven by Christ's sacrifice). But it doesn't say anything about being removed from union with Christ. It is simply about going so far as to not coming back in repentance.

Connected to this passage is ch 10:26-31, which also addresses the apostate believer. v.31 says it is a 'fearful thing' to fall into the hands of the living God. Since the unknown author doesn't say loss of salvation/eternal life, no one should presume that.

For God to remove an apostate believer by physical death (which may be quite painful) and for that believer to experience eternal loss of reward certainly constitutes a "worse punishment" (v.29).

 

[FreeGrace]

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.

If that were true, then it should be very easy to refute my "overextension". I haven't seen one.

And let's be clear: there most certainly are contexts in which one can indeed "break a seal".

I think the point just keeps getting missed. This is not about just any text which indicates that a seal can be broken. I'm speaking SPECIFICALLY about the texts that name the indwelling Holy Spirit as the seal, and these texts also SAY that this sealing ministry of the Spirit is a PROMISE or PLEDGE (from God Himself) FOR the day of redemption.

How can one ignore that? Paul clearly indicates what this sealing is FOR, and that it is a promise. According to your view, God is BREAKING HIS PROMISE if this seal is broken and the person is not redeemed. Please explain this.

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.

Since no where in Hebrews does anyone read that salvation can be lost, all this is irrelevant to the issue of the sealing ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Now, if there were any passages that addressed the possibility of this sealing with the Spirit as something that can be broken, then you'd have a point and support for you view. As it is, there is none. And many texts that directly refute your view.

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.

lol. Of course I have already made that case. This sealing is a PROMISE from God. That means a GUARANTEE. Esp since there are no texts that tell us that either God breaks His own promise, or that any person CAN break that seal that God has PROMISED.

I suggest, otoh, that you will not be able to make the case that this sealing ministry can be broken, esp since it is the PROMISE of God.

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.

There is nothing in that, or any other text, that addresses your view that salvation can be lost.

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.

Well, if someone thought that God doesn't keep His promises, it would be possible for His promises to not come to pass.

But I think that's an extremely untenable view. God keeps His promises.

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.

So, why compare perfect sovereign and holy God with fallen man, who cannot keep his promises? How is that helpful?

I suppose that if God were no better than mankind, your example would be relevant. But since God is perfect, it isn't.

But at least I do now understand where your view stems from. God makes promises with His fingers crossed.

I reject that view as blasphemous.

 

[JLB]

Let's consider the law to be a separate entity which was added;

Ok

it was not added to anything

Makes no sense what so ever.

Completely violates the meaning of the word.

Lets add this law to nothing???

The law was added until the Seed should come, and the law which 430 years later can not annul the covenant.


If you want to hold to this meaningless line of reasoning, then have at it.


Please don't bother addressing me with this again.




JLB

 

[MarkT]

Ok



Makes no sense what so ever.

Completely violates the meaning of the word.

Lets add this law to nothing???

The law was added until the Seed should come, and the law which 430 years later can not annul the covenant.


If you want to hold to this meaningless line of reasoning, then have at it.


Please don't bother addressing me with this again.




JLB

Be happy to oblige.

 

[Drew]

Once converted, always converted. Or prove that it isn't.

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. [Hebrews 6:4-6, NASB]

In all respect, I cannot think of anything to say except that you appear to simply refuse to believe what this text is clearly saying. The text says what it says!!!

It is impossible for who...? Answer "those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift" [believers obviously]
Impossible to do what "6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance"

What more do you expect in terms of a clear declaration that falling away is indeed possible?

btw, why keep mentioning Paul? There is no evidence that he wrote the epistle. The style isn't even close to his.

I know, I just forgot about this; I agree that Paul did not write Hebrews.

Yes, I agree. They will not recover if they continue in animal sacrifice.

But what you cannot afford to concede even though this text clearly declares it is that this "recovery" is a recovery related to eternal life.

Let's be clear: you are all too happy to connect Jesus' crucifixion to getting salvation (with no connection to how we live). But when the author of Hebrews declares that those who fall away "seek to crucify Jesus again", with the clear implication that they are trying to renew their status as people covered by Jesus' blood and therefore saved (by your own theology), you remain mysteriously silent.

And, my point stands: there are no verses that teach that one can remove themself from being in union with Christ.

Another example of a faulty pattern of argument you have used before:

1. You make an argument that you believe shows that salvation cannot be lost.
Example 1: Salvation is a gift, all God's gifts are irrevocable.
Example 2: We are in union with Christ and that cannot be broken.

2. I (or someone else) points out the flaw.
Example 1: The irrevocability of a gift is about the giver not taking it back, but it can still be discarded.
Example 2: Just because one is in union with something does not necessarily mean that union cannot be broken.

3. You then insist that I do make your case for you, by insisting I give a scripture that shows.....
Example 1: A gift that is rejected;
Example 2: A union that is broken.

Well, that is not proper debate. By the very meaning of the concepts involved (an irrevocable gift can be discarded and a union can be broken), your initial assertion is shown to be indefensible, and we therefore do not need to find the counter-examples you seek.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"Once converted, always converted. Or prove that it isn't."

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. [Hebrews 6:4-6, NASB]

This passage doesn't prove that my statement isn't true.

In all respect, I cannot think of anything to say except that you appear to simply refuse to believe what this text is clearly saying. The text says what it says!!!

I would like to point out the exact issue that you have with Rom 6:23 combined with Rom 11:29. Those 2 texts SAY IT ALL!! Eternal life is a gift of God, and that God's gifts are irrevocable.

It is

impossible for who...? Answer "those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift" [believers obviously]
Impossible to do what "6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance"

What more do you expect in terms of a clear declaration that falling away is indeed possible?

I've already provided a clear explanation of what that passage is about, which isn't loss of salvation.

But the real issue is what more would one expect in terms of a clear declaration that God's gifts, which include justification an eternal life, are irrevocable?

I know, I just forgot about this; I agree that Paul did not write Hebrews.

But what you cannot afford to concede even though this text clearly declares it is that this "recovery" is a recovery related to eternal life.

Actually, there is no mention of "eternal life" in Heb 6:4-6. Unlike Rom 6:23 with 11:29.

Let's be clear: you are all too happy to connect Jesus' crucifixion to getting salvation (with no connection to how we live).

I'm always amazed when others misrepresent my views, esp when I've never said what is being accredited to me.

My view has always been that "getting salvation" (as you've put it) is directly connected to placing one's full trust in Christ for it. If this doesn't clear it up a bit, please ask for further clarification. And second, "how we live" has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "getting salvation" as your view claims.

If salvation is based on "how we live", then salvation is by works, and NOT by grace. It would be earned, and there would be no need for God's grace.

btw, I asked a long time ago why Christ went to the cross, given your view of "how we live" in "getting salvation". And I don't recall ever receiving an answer. Could you please answer this question?

If "how we live" determines whether or not we are saved, what does Christ's dying for our sins have to do with "getting salvation"?

Your view truly is perplexing. I am hoping for clarification.

But when the author of Hebrews declares that those who fall away "seek to crucify Jesus again",

with the clear implication that they are trying to renew their status as people covered by Jesus' blood and therefore saved (by your own theology), you remain mysteriously silent.

I believe your conclusion of your so-called "clear implication" is just wrong. And I've already explained the passage, so there is no need to keep repeating it.

Another example of a faulty pattern of argument you have used before:

1. You make an argument that you believe shows that salvation cannot be lost.

I proved it by Paul's writing in Romans: 6:23 and 11:29.

Example 1: Salvation is a gift, all God's gifts are irrevocable.
Example 2: We are in union with Christ and that cannot be broken.

Both are solidly Biblical and have not been refuted.

2. I (or someone else) points out the flaw.
Example 1: The irrevocability of a gift is about the giver not taking it back, but it can still be discarded.

I disproved that claim a long time ago. We're not talking about some object, that can be discarded. We're talking about being born again, regenerated, forgiven, justified and become sons of God. And no one has yet to show any Scripture that teaches that eternal life or being in union with Christ can be broken.

So, let me be real clear here: THERE IS NO REASON AT ALL TO ACCEPT YOUR THEORY.

Example 2: Just because one is in union with something does not necessarily mean that union cannot be broken.

Only if one believes that God breaks His promise would that be true of being in union with Christ and sealed with the Holy Spirit. Your view continues to be based on general statements rather than on the very specific things I am discussing. i.e. "one is in union with something". I'm NOT talking about "something". I'm talking about being in union with Christ, and sealed with the Holy Spirit. And there are NO verses that speak of this union or seal being broken. Such an idea is totally FOREIGN to Scripture.

3. You then insist that I do make your case for you, by insisting I give a scripture that shows.....
Example 1: A gift that is rejected;
Example 2: A union that is broken.

Because that's how it works, even though you're not seeing it. It is your claim that these examples are true, yet you've already admitted that the Bible does NOT teach either one. So your view can't be supported by Scripture. All you've got are vague and generalized "examples" none of which parallel Scripture because:
1. salvation/eternal life is treated as a mere object that CAN be discarded. No evidence that eternal life can be.
2. sealing with the Holy Spirit is treated as a mere physical seal that can be broken. No evidence that this seal can be.

Well, that is not proper debate.

Your view is the problem. Your claims cannot be supported from Scripture, as mine ARE. Proper debate means that one must prove their view with evidence. Your view fails in that department. My view succeeds in that department.

By the very meaning of the concepts involved (an irrevocable gift can be discarded and a union can be broken), your initial assertion is shown to be indefensible, and we therefore do not need to find the counter-examples you seek.

Well, there it is again; just vague and generalized comments. I'm not talking about vague, generalized objects. I'm talking about the Biblical subjects of eternal life and being in union with Christ and sealed with the Holy Spirit, not "a union" or "a gift". God's gifts are irrevocable. Eternal life is a gift of God. It couldn't be any more clear than that.

 

[JLB]

"Once converted, always converted. Or prove that it isn't."

12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. Luke 8:12-13

These in verse 13 believed and were saved for a while then fell away.

Proof from Jesus that it isn't.


JLB

 

[MarkT]

We know that the gift of God, which is eternal life (Rom 6:23) was "handed to us" is because it is a FREE gift. How can one work for or earn something that is FREE? Not possible.

Jesus paid for our sins, so Paul calls our sanctification a free gift, its end being eternal life. Romans 6:22-23

So how do you know you are loved by God? Jesus answered, If a man loves me he will keep my word, and my Father will love him.

He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered him, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me. John 21-24

So that's how you know you are loved and sanctified. You know because you keep his word.

"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. John 15:9-10

 

[FreeGrace]

12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. Luke 8:12-13

These in verse 13 believed and were saved for a while then fell away.

Proof from Jesus that it isn't.JLB

The phrase "fell away" refers to "believed for a while". Not fell away from salvation. And since eternal life is a gift of God (Rom 6:23) and God's gifts are irrevocable (Rom 11:29), it is clear that eternal life is irrevocable. No way around it.

Instead of trying to distance eternal life from Rom 11:29 by all the passages that have been used in vain, just accept the fact that Paul taught that eternal life, along with justification, are gifts that are irrevocable.

And, one more time, there are no verses that clearly communicate that eternal life can be lost.

 

[FreeGrace]

Jesus paid for our sins, so Paul calls our sanctification a free gift, its end being eternal life. Romans 6:22-23

So how do you know you are loved by God? Jesus answered, If a man loves me he will keep my word, and my Father will love him.

You've "changed the goal posts". Yes, Jesus paid for our sins. But it's not sanctification that is ever defined as a free gift. It is justification, salvation and eternal life that are defined as gifts of God. And, where is the verse that says that God saves those He loves? There aren't any.

But there is this verse: For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 1 Cor 1:21

God saves believers. And it's believers who are commanded to love God.

So, receiving eternal life/salvation isn't about being loved by God. Because the Bible says that God loves the world; that means everyone. But we know that not everyone will be saved.

Here is how one receives salvation: But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name Jn 1:12

He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered him, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me. John 21-24

None of this is about getting saved.

So that's how you know you are loved and sanctified. You know because you keep his word.

John 3:16 says that God loves the world.

"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. John 15:9-10

Please provide a clear explanation of how this verse teaches that God saves only those who He loves.

 

[JLB]

The phrase "fell away" refers to "believed for a while". Not fell away from salvation. And since eternal life is a gift of God (Rom 6:23) and God's gifts are irrevocable (Rom 11:29), it is clear that eternal life is irrevocable. No way around it.

Instead of trying to distance eternal life from Rom 11:29 by all the passages that have been used in vain, just accept the fact that Paul taught that eternal life, along with justification, are gifts that are irrevocable.

And, one more time, there are no verses that clearly communicate that eternal life can be lost.

12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

Jesus said here in verse 12 that the devil "takes away" the word out of their heart, before they can believe... lest they believe and be saved.

13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.
Luke 8:12-13


This is clearly not the case in verse 13, the devil was not able to "take away" the word out of their heart.

Are you saying these in verse 13, need to do more than believe to be saved, because the word of God says they in fact did believe?


What do you say?

1. They need to do more than believe, to be saved?
2. They were saved, because they did believe, but only for a while?

JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

Jesus clearly made the point that soil #1 didn't believe, and wasn't saved.

Jesus said here in verse 12 that the devil "takes away" the word out of their heart, before they can believe... lest they believe and be saved.

Yep. Got that.

13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.Luke 8:12-13

This is clearly not the case in verse 13, the devil was not able to "take away" the word out of their heart.

Are you saying these in verse 13, need to do more than believe to be saved, because the word of God says they in fact did believe?

Huh? There is nothing more anyone can do to be saved. Believing is the ONLY thing that one must do to be saved.

What do you say?
They need to do more than believe, to be saved?

No. They are saved because they believed.

They were saved, because they did believe, but only for a while?

They were saved because they believed, even though they believed only for a while.

The issue is whether one must maintain their faith in order to maintain their salvation. That is not taught anywhere in Scripture. Which is why I reject that idea.

If one must maintain faith in order to keep their salvation, then God's PROMISE for the day of redemption (Eph 1:13,14, 4:30) is a lie. How could it not be? Please answer this question.

2 Cor 1:22 and 5:5 says that the sealing with the Holy Spirit is a GUARANTEE of what is to come, which is a reference to the day of redemption.

So, God has PROMISED the believer the day of redemption in Eph 1:13,14 and 4:30. And God has GUARANTEED what is to come per 2 Cor 1:22 and 5:5.

Please answer this question: Either God's Word is lying, or, your view is in total contradiction with the Bible. Which shall I choose?

Unless one can prove with exegesis that Eph 1:13,14 and 4:30 and 2 Cor 1:22 and 5:5 aren't about eternal security, I believe our discussion is over.

 

[Kidron]

So how do you know you are loved by God? Jesus answered, If a man loves me he will keep my word, and my Father will love him.

Actually MarkT,..... "God IS Love".....and ......."for God so loved the World that he GAVE".

So, you dont have to do anything at all to be loved by God.
Salvation is given to the "ungodly", not the righteous.
Romans 4:5....
"to him that worketh NOT ......but believeth..... on GOD who >Justifies the ungodly<, ..his faith is counted for RIGHTEOUS".

So, you dont work for that, and you dont keep it by working for it.
its a gift.

 

[JLB]

They were saved because they believed, even though they believed only for a while.

The were saved, but only for a while.

When they no longer believed, the returned to the state of unbelief that they previously had before they believed.

A person who once believed, then no longer believes has become an un-believer.

The issue is whether one must maintain their faith in order to maintain their salvation. That is not taught anywhere in Scripture. Which is why I reject that idea.

It's taught everywhere in scripture.

One must willfully disregard what the scriptures teach, to arrive at this faulty conclusion. thata person who no longer believes is still somehow a believer...


JLB

 

[Kidron]

If you can make an actual case that we cannot discard the gift of salvation, then please do so.
What is your actual argument here. You could use the same reasoning to argue that God would never create people He know will ultimately be lost because that would be "wasting His time".

If you can make an actual case that we cannot discard the gift of salvation, then please do so.


Drew,
anytime someone is lost inside a debate, they will say the other person has not made their point.
So, the fact that you would say this to me, only proves MY point has been validated.
Thx.
(but i already knew that).


You could use the same reasoning to argue that God would never create people He know will ultimately be lost because that would be "wasting His time".


Actually Drew, you cant use that reasoning , because God does not "make people".
People make people, (sperm, egg, DNA, etc) and this is entitled "reproduction" with the idea being....to "replenish"< as found in Genesis 1, where God told them to "replenish".