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

[FreeGrace]

Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. James 1:15

When sin is fully matured, full grown it brings forth death.

Death - Strong's Number: 2288 - Thanatos

Definition

1. the death of the body
   1. that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body by which the life on earth is ended
   2. with the implied idea of future misery in hell
      1. the power of death
   3. since the nether world, the abode of the dead, was conceived as being very dark, it is equivalent to the region of thickest darkness i.e. figuratively, a region enveloped in the darkness of ignorance and sin
2. metaph., the loss of that life which alone is worthy of the name,
   1. the misery of the soul arising from sin, which begins on earth but lasts and increases after the death of the body in hell
3. the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell
4. in the widest sense, death comprising all the miseries arising from sin, as well physical death as the loss of a life consecrated to God and blessed in him on earth, to be followed by wretchedness in hell

Examine #4 above. "comprising all the miseries arising from sin". Exactly what Jesus was noting in the parable of the prodigal son. This speaks to loss of fellowship, an idea that apparently isn't even considered among the insecurity crowd. How sad.

 

[FreeGrace]

Did the son in the parable ever die physically?

Nope.

Again, as I said, the context dictates.

Sure does. The son was separated from the father, much like what James (since you're fond of quoting his verses) said in 2:26 about the separation of the soul from the body. The son's separation from the father was described as him being "dead" and when he came back as "is alive". Obviously a metaphor, but not about eternal life and death, but about fellowship.

The parable is a teaching about repentance.

And more than that.

[QUTOE]The son in the parable represents a child of God, who strays from his Father's House to live a life of sinful pleasures.

Then the scripture says "he comes to himself" and returns in humility.

This is a picture of repentance, whereby the son turns away from his sinful life back to his Father to serve his Father.

His Father restores him back to son-ship.[/QUOTE]
You were doing good until this last error. The was ALWAYS a son, and Jesus even refers to him as the son throughout the parable. We was restored back to fellowship with his father. He was NOT restored to being a son. That NEVER changed, which refutes the idea of loss of relationship (salvation).

However if the son does not repent and return, he will remain in the place of "death", and be lost forever.

Nope. He remains in the place of being out of fellowship and the loss of blessings that come with being IN fellowship.

Just as the prodigal lost the blessings when he rebelled, so the believer who rebels loses blessings and ultimately eternal reward.

\Likewise, as James teaches, 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

There is nothing in this context to suggest eternal death. It's all about temporal death, or loss of fellowship.

 

[WIP]

Sure does. The son was separated from the father, much like what James (since you're fond of quoting his verses) said in 2:26 about the separation of the soul from the body. The son's separation from the father was described as him being "dead" and when he came back as "is alive". Obviously a metaphor, but not about eternal life and death, but about fellowship.

This discussion is interesting to me but I'd like a little more clarity from scripture to back up your last statement. How do you know or determine that the metaphor is about fellowship and not eternal life? Please do not just requote from Romans 11:29 as you usually do. I'd like to see more than that from your argument to help me get a better understanding of your position, FreeGrace. Thanks.

 

[JLB]

Obviously a metaphor, but not about eternal life and death, but about fellowship.

Metaphor about a son of God, turning away from God, and coming back to God by repentance.

Obviously through your own admission, you have unwittingly proved that OSAS is truly a false doctrine, since the son who once was "alive" became "dead" by disconnecting from God, the source of Life.

Thanks for disproving OSAS!!


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

This discussion is interesting to me but I'd like a little more clarity from scripture to back up your last statement. How do you know or determine that the metaphor is about fellowship and not eternal life? Please do not just requote from Romans 11:29 as you usually do. I'd like to see more than that from your argument to help me get a better understanding of your position, FreeGrace. Thanks.

With pleasure.

Throughout the entire parable, the son was described as a son. That did not change. So it cannot about changing from either physical life and death or eternal life and death.

Is there anywhere else in Scripture that describes one changing from eternal life to death, and then back again? I haven't found any such passage.

So, if the parable is about eternal life and death, then we can conclude that one can have eternal life, lose it and regain it again. But how? Through returning to the father??

But the whole issue (imho) is resolved by the fact that the gift of eternal life is irrevocable (sorry to have to repeat myself), plus the fact that Paul settled the issue clearly regarding the sealing with the Holy Spirit.

I've asked, but no one from the loss of salvation crowd has even tried to explain the verses to prove that Paul wasn't talking about eternal security.

Here's the verses:

Paul clearly taught eternal security in these verses:

Eph 1:13,14 - 13InHim, 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 4:30 - Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

2 Cor 1:22 - who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.

2 Cor 5:5 - Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.

So, what has Paul taught here?

First, having believed, we are SEALED IN HIM (union with Christ) with the Holy Spirit of PROMISE, given as a PLEDGE FOR the day of redemption of God's own possession. This seal is a PLEDGE from God.

And consider this verse:
Heb 6:18 - so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.

So, for one to accept your view of loss of salvation, 2 things are required:
1. Either prove by exegesis that Eph 1:13,14 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22 and 5:5 do NOT teach eternal security, or
2. Accept that God DOES break His promises and pledges, which makes Him a liar. Even though Scripture SAYS that it is impossible for God to lie. Titus 1:2 and Heb 6:18

 

[FreeGrace]

Metaphor about a son of God, turning away from God, and coming back to God by repentance.

Yes, and not a thing about loss of eternal life, and regaining it again.

Obviously through your own admission, you have unwittingly proved that OSAS is truly a false doctrine, since the son who once was "alive" became "dead" by disconnecting from God, the source of Life.

Where is your refutation of the sealing with the Holy Spirit, to prove that Paul was not talking about eternal security.

Thanks for disproving OSAS!!

lol

 

[WIP]

With pleasure.

Throughout the entire parable, the son was described as a son. That did not change. So it cannot about changing from either physical life and death or eternal life and death.

Is there anywhere else in Scripture that describes one changing from eternal life to death, and then back again? I haven't found any such passage.

So, if the parable is about eternal life and death, then we can conclude that one can have eternal life, lose it and regain it again. But how? Through returning to the father??

But the whole issue (imho) is resolved by the fact that the gift of eternal life is irrevocable (sorry to have to repeat myself), plus the fact that Paul settled the issue clearly regarding the sealing with the Holy Spirit.

I've asked, but no one from the loss of salvation crowd has even tried to explain the verses to prove that Paul wasn't talking about eternal security.

Here's the verses:

Paul clearly taught eternal security in these verses:

Eph 1:13,14 - 13InHim, 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 4:30 - Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

2 Cor 1:22 - who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.

2 Cor 5:5 - Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.

So, what has Paul taught here?

First, having believed, we are SEALED IN HIM (union with Christ) with the Holy Spirit of PROMISE, given as a PLEDGE FOR the day of redemption of God's own possession. This seal is a PLEDGE from God.

And consider this verse:
Heb 6:18 - so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.

So, for one to accept your view of loss of salvation, 2 things are required:
1. Either prove by exegesis that Eph 1:13,14 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22 and 5:5 do NOT teach eternal security, or
2. Accept that God DOES break His promises and pledges, which makes Him a liar. Even though Scripture SAYS that it is impossible for God to lie. Titus 1:2 and Heb 6:18

Thank you for this reply. One question that seems to keep gnawing at me is will God force us to be saved for eternity with Him even if we turn our backs on his gift of salvation, turn to follow Satan, and desire not to be saved?

Considering the prodigal son, the father did not chase after him once he chose to leave and once he left, in the eyes of his father he was dead and lost. Not until the son repented and came back to his father did his father accept and welcome him with open arms and rejoicing.

"I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance." Luke 15:7

 

[FreeGrace]

Thank you for this reply. One question that seems to keep gnawing at me is will God force us to be saved for eternity with Him even if we turn our backs on his gift of salvation, turn to follow Satan, and desire not to be saved?

I believe that when God gives the gift of eternal life to one who has believed, it is irrevocable, and therefore, He does not take it back. What you've described here is a rebellious child, quite like any human child who rebels against their parent and wishes they weren't his parent, or he wasn't their kid. However, just as in the human relationship of birth parent to child, which cannot be undone, so also in the spiritual sense, our relationship with God the Father cannot be undone.

Considering the prodigal son, the father did not chase after him once he chose to leave and once he left, in the eyes of his father he was dead and lost. Not until the son repented and came back to his father did his father accept and welcome him with open arms and rejoicing.

I understand the father's terms for "dead/lost/alive/found" refer to fellowship, not relationship, because the son never ceased to be the son, and the father never ceased to be the father. In fact, when the son "came to his senses" (I love that phrase!), he made reference to his father. Even though in the parable, he thought to return to his father as one of the "hired help", the father would have none of that.

I just don't see anything about loss of relationship throughout the parable.

I disagree about the comment of when the father "accepted and welcomed" him. It wasn't until the son returned. Consider this verse:
"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him and kissed him." v.20

It seems to me that the father had been looking for him all the while. The only way the father would see the son who was still "a long way off" would be if the father was looking for him.

It wasn't like the son knocked on the door and then the father accepted him back.

Again, this appears to be about fellowship. The son lost fellowship through his rebellion, and regained it when he confessed and repented.

"I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance." Luke 15:7

Amen!

 

[MarkT]

Yes, I fully agree!! Both justification and eternal life go together, and those who have these gifts also have the gifts of the Spirit.


Not necessarily. The Greek word for "call" is klesis and means "to invite". iow, God's invitation is not revoked. And we know from Matt 22:14 that many are invited (called), but few are chosen.


This is not the discussion. Rom 11:29 is about the gifts that Paul had already described as gifts within the context of his letter. So, justification (3:24, 5:15,16,17) and eternal life (6:23) are irrevocable gifts. Along with the gifts of the Spirit (1:11). These are the only gifts mentioned by Paul before he wrote 11:29.

Sorry, but he is not talking about sin and death (6:23) He is not talking about righteousness. (5:17) He is not talking about justification. In Romans 11 he is talking about his race when he says his people. We know he is because he asks, "has God rejected his people" Ro. 11:1 and he said, "I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham" Ro. 11:2 Did Israel fail to obtain what it sought. Did they stumble so as to fall? Ro. 11:11 Paul says, no. Then he gives us the covenant; "the Deliverer will banish ungodliness from Jacob; and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins." Ro. 11:26-27

The gifts and the call of God are linked together in Ro. 11:29 so that who ever gets the call, whether they are Jew or Gentile, they get the gifts. That's the only way you can understand it.

 

[MarkT]

When he said, 'as regards election, Israel is beloved for the sake of their forefathers, we are reminded of the covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the words of the prophets, "he is mindful of his covenant forever" 1 Chron. 16:15-17 "an everlasting covenant" Isa. 55:3 "My covenant will stand firm." Ps. 89:28 "He will swallow up death forever" Isa. 25:8

This is what Paul was saying when he said the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable when he was talking about his people. The gifts and the call of God belong to the everlasting covenant.

 

[FreeGrace]

Sorry, but he is not talking about sin and death (6:23)

Uh, the verse says, "for the wages of SIN is DEATH". Your statement is baffling.

He is not talking about righteousness. (5:17) He is not talking about justification.

Another baffling statement. Let's look at the context for v.17, which begins in v.15. 5:15-17 - 15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

I believe the bolded and underlined phrase says that the gift results in justification. So what's the difference? Not much, really.

Further, in 3:24 we also find Paul talking about the gift: being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus

I don't think it could be said any more clear than this.

In Romans 11 he is talking about his race when he says his people. We know he is because he asks, "has God rejected his people" Ro. 11:1 and he said, "I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham" Ro. 11:2 Did Israel fail to obtain what it sought. Did they stumble so as to fall? Ro. 11:11 Paul says, no. Then he gives us the covenant; "the Deliverer will banish ungodliness from Jacob; and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins." Ro. 11:26-27

Actually, none of this has anything to do with what Paul meant by God's gifts.

The gifts and the call of God are linked together in Ro. 11:29 so that who ever gets the call, whether they are Jew or Gentile, they get the gifts. That's the only way you can understand it.

Sure. And Paul has already defined what he meant by "gifts of God"; justification and eternal life.

 

[FreeGrace]

When he said, 'as regards election, Israel is beloved for the sake of their forefathers, we are reminded of the covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the words of the prophets, "he is mindful of his covenant forever" 1 Chron. 16:15-17 "an everlasting covenant" Isa. 55:3 "My covenant will stand firm." Ps. 89:28 "He will swallow up death forever" Isa. 25:8

This is what Paul was saying when he said the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable when he was talking about his people. The gifts and the call of God belong to the everlasting covenant.

You've already said that it isn't important what the gifts are. Which is very odd since Paul actually defined what they are previously within the epistle to the Romans. And that makes them totally relevant contextually.

 

[MarkT]

Uh, the verse says, "for the wages of SIN is DEATH". Your statement is baffling.


Another baffling statement. Let's look at the context for v.17, which begins in v.15. 5:15-17 - 15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

I believe the bolded and underlined phrase says that the gift results in justification. So what's the difference? Not much, really.

Further, in 3:24 we also find Paul talking about the gift: being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus

I don't think it could be said any more clear than this.


Actually, none of this has anything to do with what Paul meant by God's gifts.


Sure. And Paul has already defined what he meant by "gifts of God"; justification and eternal life.

A drivers licence can be revoked. A licence, as you know, gives us the right to drive a car. Now what if I said, my right to drive a car has been revoked? What do I mean by that? In a manner of speaking, I'm saying my drivers licence has been revoked. See. Even though I did not specifically mention the drivers licence when I said, my right to drive was revoked, still you would get what I mean.

So even though Paul doesn't specifically mention the covenant in Romans 11:29, we know he is talking about the covenant God made with Paul's forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Israel is beloved for the sake of the forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So in a manner of speaking, when he says the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable, he means the covenant is irrevocable.

So there is nothing in Paul's statement that would lead a believer to think eternal life can not be lost if the believer falls into unbelief.

 

[reba]

Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Gen 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Lev 26:40 If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me;
Lev 26:41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:
Lev 26:42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.

Deu 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:

Seems to me the Covenant of old was conditional .. God does not break His Holy Word but we do

 

[FreeGrace]

A drivers licence can be revoked. A licence, as you know, gives us the right to drive a car. Now what if I said, my right to drive a car has been revoked? What do I mean by that?

Frankly, I don't care. It has nothing to do with the discussion at all. Sorry.

In a manner of speaking, I'm saying my drivers licence has been revoked. See. Even though I did not specifically mention the drivers licence when I said, my right to drive was revoked, still you would get what I mean.

So even though Paul doesn't specifically mention the covenant in Romans 11:29, we know he is talking about the covenant God made with Paul's forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

This is not rational. Paul had previously and specifically described what God's gifts are. So how can one rationally ignore THAT when coming to 11:29?

Israel is beloved for the sake of the forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So in a manner of speaking, when he says the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable, he means the covenant is irrevocable.

No, he does NOT mean that. In fact, since there is no place in Scripture where God's covenant with Israel is described as a gift, it is not rational to claim that the PLURAL "gifts" in 11:29 refers to any covenant.

Because of the PLURAL form "giftS", we know that Paul is referring back to what he previously described as God's gifts: both justification and eternal life.

So there is nothing in Paul's statement that would lead a believer to think eternal life can not be lost if the believer falls into unbelief.

There is EVERYTHING in Paul's statement to believe that Paul taught eternal security. The gifts of justification and eternal life are IRREVOCABLE. That is exactly and precisely what Paul meant.

But…there are deniers everywhere.

 

[FreeGrace]

Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Gen 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Lev 26:40 If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me;
Lev 26:41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:
Lev 26:42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.

Deu 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:

Seems to me the Covenant of old was conditional .. God does not break His Holy Word but we do

Agreed. But breaking Gd's covenants does not lead to loss of salvation, or that very important idea would have been clearly communicated. And there is no "clear communication" of that idea anywhere in Scripture.

Of course man continually fails to obey God. Even mature believers, like King David, who committed at least adultery if not out and out rape, and then murder to cover up his sin.

How about King Saul, for whom God killed for consulting a medium? 1 Chron 10:13,14 - 13 So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the LORD, because of the word of the LORD which he did not keep; and also because he asked counsel of a medium, making inquiry of it, 14 and did not inquire of the LORD. Therefore He killed him and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse.

In spite of this very clear termination of Saul, we know that Saul is WITH Samuel today. Because Samuel told him he would be.

1 Sam 28:19 - “Moreover the LORD will also give over Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines, therefore tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. Indeed the LORD will give over the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines!”

btw, the next day was the day that Saul fell on his sword and died. And joined Samuel.

This example completely refutes the notion that one can lose salvation for their behavior, no matter how bad.

 

[gr8grace3]

Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Gen 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Lev 26:40 If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me;
Lev 26:41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:
Lev 26:42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.

Deu 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:

Seems to me the Covenant of old was conditional .. God does not break His Holy Word but we do

.Ezekiel 16~~ 58“You have borne the penalty of your lewdness and abominations,” the LORD declares. 59For thus says the Lord GOD, “I will also do with you as you have done, you who have despised the oath by breaking the covenant.

nevertheless~~Grace

60“Nevertheless, I will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. 61“Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your sisters, both your older and your younger; and I will give them to you as daughters, but not because of your covenant. 62“Thus I will establish My covenant with you, and you shall know that I am the LORD,

 

[MarkT]

Frankly, I don't care. It has nothing to do with the discussion at all. Sorry.


This is not rational. Paul had previously and specifically described what God's gifts are. So how can one rationally ignore THAT when coming to 11:29?


No, he does NOT mean that. In fact, since there is no place in Scripture where God's covenant with Israel is described as a gift, it is not rational to claim that the PLURAL "gifts" in 11:29 refers to any covenant.

Because of the PLURAL form "giftS", we know that Paul is referring back to what he previously described as God's gifts: both justification and eternal life.


There is EVERYTHING in Paul's statement to believe that Paul taught eternal security. The gifts of justification and eternal life are IRREVOCABLE. That is exactly and precisely what Paul meant.

But…there are deniers everywhere.

Paul said, if God did not spare the natural branches, what chance does the Gentile have? He said you Gentiles stand fast on faith alone. Romans 11:20-22 Same letter. Comes before his statement, Ro.11:29 So faith is required. So what does he mean by the gifts and the call of God? Romans 11:29 Of course he means the gifts which were promised to Abraham and his descendants, the natural branches. But branches were broken off to let in the Gentiles. So the Lord called us from the Gentiles, as a shepherd calls his sheep, and he gave us the gifts we have received.

So why are the gifts and the call of God irrevocable? Are they irrevocable because Paul said so? Or because God said so? Of course they are irrevocable because God said so and God keeps promise. Deuteronomy 7:9 And how are the gifts received? Are they received by promise or by law? Gal.3:18

Ro. 11:29 says what it says. Unfortunately it doesn't say believers who fall into unbelief are saved.

 

[FreeGrace]

Paul said, if God did not spare the natural branches, what chance does the Gentile have? He said you Gentiles stand fast on faith alone. Romans 11:20-22 Same letter. Comes before his statement, Ro.11:29 So faith is required.

I have no idea why there is so much persistence about the branches. It was an agricultural metaphor about service. The Jews, as God's chosen people, failed in their service, and He set them, as a people, aside and has turned to the Gentiles. Why? To make them jealous, per Rom 11:11. Hm. SAME chapter, no less.

Unless one understands context properly, one cannot understand what God's Word is saying. The branches comment has NO relevance to loss of salvation.

So what does he mean by the gifts and the call of God?

Paul had previously described what he means by the gifts of God. Justification and eternal life are the ONLY things described as gifts of God.

Romans 11:29 Of course he means the gifts which were promised to Abraham and his descendants, the natural branches.

In order to believe this, please provide clear Scripture where God's promises to Abraham and his descendants are described as gifts. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe this.

But branches were broken off to let in the Gentiles. So the Lord called us from the Gentiles, as a shepherd calls his sheep, and he gave us the gifts we have received.

The gifts that "we have received" would be the SAME GIFTS as were described by Paul earlier: justification in 3:24 and eternal life in 6:23.

So why are the gifts and the call of God irrevocable? Are they irrevocable because Paul said so?

Well, Paul did say so. What is your point?

Or because God said so? Of course they are irrevocable because God said so and God keeps promise.

Glad you're finally getting on board here.
"This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life." 1 Jn 2:25

Why would one continue to resist the idea that God's promise of eternal life could be revoked?

Ro. 11:29 says what it says. Unfortunately it doesn't say believers who fall into unbelief are saved.

Since eternal life is given at the moment of faith in Christ, and this promised gift is irrevocable. your statement is patently false.

On the other side of the coin, the insecurity crowd cannot explain how those who have been born again become unborn again, or unregenerated again.

And there are NO VERSES that support such ideas.

What does your crowd do with King Saul, who was killed by God for consulting a medium (1 Chron 10:13,14) yet was told by Samuel that he would join Samuel the next day (1 Sam 28:19)?

King Saul was a failure as king. And God killed him because of his repeated disobedience. Yet, at his death, he joined Samuel. And there is no explanation from your side.

 

[JLB]

What does your crowd do with King Saul, who was killed by God for consulting a medium (1 Chron 10:13,14) yet was told by Samuel that he would join Samuel the next day (1 Sam 28:19)?

King Saul was a failure as king. And God killed him because of his repeated disobedience. Yet, at his death, he joined Samuel. And there is no explanation from your side.

God killed King Saul?

Please show the scripture that states this?

A more accurate argument would be: King Saul committed suicide, and still went to paradise with Samuel.


JLB