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

[JLB]

My explanation follows Biblical comparisons.

Why would one think that God uses such family terms of "Father", "son", "child", if He wasn't making a comparison from the physical to the spiritual? Do you have any answer?

Yes I have an answer.

Clearly Father and Son is a biblical concept. It's your, claim that a son can never stop being a son, once they are born, and the way you try to apply this to salvation.

Lucifer is a son of God, just as the angels who were cast down to hell for their Disobefience in the days of Noah.

[Edited. Too inflammatory. WIP]


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

As in born again, right? Just clarifying.

Yes, that would be correct.

 

[FreeGrace]

All you seem to have to your "doctrine" is one scripture taken out of context, that doesn't even contain the words eternal life

This is an odd criticism, since NONE of the warning passages contain either "eternal life" or "salvation".

[Edited. Too inflammatory. WIP]

which must be assumed and is based on the word irrevocable whose meaning is entirely different in the original language, than the modern day definition.

No one has yet shown that the verse doesn't mean "irrevocable".

 

[FreeGrace]

Yes I have an answer.

Clearly Father and Son is a biblical concept. It's your, claim that a son can never stop being a son, once they are born, and the way you try to apply this to salvation.

Where would one get the idea that a son my stop being a son? Certainly not from Scripture.

Lucifer is a son of God, just as the angels who were cast down to hell for their Disobefience in the days of Noah.

I've addressed this sham.

I'm only using the term in the context of those human beings who have received the right to be called the children of God from John 1:12.

Even Adam needed to be born again after he fell, even though the Luke genealogy described him as the son of God.

All of your claims are just excuses to reject the truth that God's gift of eternal life is irrevocable.

 

[OzSpen]

I said this:
"So, you don't understand the difference between fellowship and relationship?"

So, I'll help you understand the difference, then.

I'll use the same example as Scripture uses: birth parent and child.

That is a relationship that cannot be severed, broken, undone, etc.

Fellowship refers to the nature of that relationship.

Are children always obedient and respectful to their birth parent? Of course not. When they aren't, the fellowship suffers, but the relationship is intact, and always will be.

There is no reason to assume any difference in the spiritual realm.

God is our Heavenly Father, and this is a spiritual relationship. Just as the physical birth parent and child is a physical relationship. Neither can be broken.

Fellowship speaks to the nature of the relationship.

When the child of God is "abiding in Christ" (Jn 15) they are in fellowship. They will be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18) and walking by means of the Spirit (Gal 5:16).

However, the opposite is being out of fellowship, and they will be grieving (Eph 4:30) the Spirit and quenching (1 Thess 5:19) the Spirit.

I have used Scripture to support my explanation.

If any of it is wrong, please advise.

One last thing: King Saul died out of fellowship. We know this because 1 Chron 10:14 says that God killed him for going to a medium. Yet, 1 Sam 28:19 reports Samuel telling Saul that Saul would join him the next day.

This is your response to what I said about oxymoron. Your response is in no way related to the content of what I stated. I wish you wouldn't do this. You have given me a red herring fallacy but going in the direction in which you want to go and not dealing with the oxymoron you gave me.

We cannot have a logical discussion when you use fallacious reasoning, i.e. illogic.

 

[OzSpen]

I said this:
"One of the other of God's gifts that is irrevocable is justification: Rom 3:24, 5:15,16,17."

Paul was the one who described both justification and eternal life as gifts of God. Before he then said that God's gifts are irrevocable.

I've imposed nothing on Scripture. I only point out what Paul said.


No one has said anything about isolation. Paul described what he meant by "gifts of God" in his letter to the Romans. That is FACT. Paul also taught that God's gifts are irrevocable. Connecting these dots is so obvious.

If the gifts in 11:29 do not refer back to the gifts of God that Paul had already described, then just what do they refer to? Don't forget to stay within context.

I believe his entire letter to the Romans is THE context for whatever he wrote IN that letter. But, since you don't believe Paul was referring to the gifts that he already described in that letter, just what "gifts" was he referring to, per context?

Where do you get this from?

I'll just say it again: Paul described what he meant by "gifts of God". Then he said those gifts are irrevocable.

Each believer is held accountable for the dots they connect and the dots that they do not want to connect.

And I'll leave it at that.

I provided the answers to these issues in #745. You avoid what I write and then try to make it sound as though I don't know what I'm talking about. We can't have a logical conversation when you use a red herring fallacy and straw man fallacy like you have done here in responding to my post at #745.

If you continue to do this, I will not reply because you avoid the issues I raise that expose your theology. Your logical fallacies involve fallacious reasoning and hijack a logical discussion.

I urge you to learn to understand and correct what you do.

You continue to give this false evidence:

"One of the other of God's gifts that is irrevocable is justification: Rom 3:24, 5:15,16,17."

Those verses teach on justification. They do not teach that justification is irrevocable. You have engaged in postmodern eisegesis by imposing 'irrevocable' into the meaning of justification in these verses. 'Irrevocable' is what you want them to mean to harmonise with your presupposition of eternal security. You have committed another logical fallacy - a begging the question fallacy. This happens when your premises (eternal security) are in the conclusion. That is what you have done with these verses you quoted. 'Irrevocable' is your presupposition. It is not stated in the texts you cited.

Oz

 

[FreeGrace]

This is your response to what I said about oxymoron. Your response is in no way related to the content of what I stated. I wish you wouldn't do this. You have given me a red herring fallacy but going in the direction in which you want to go and not dealing with the oxymoron you gave me.

We cannot have a logical discussion when you use fallacious reasoning, i.e. illogic.

Please describe exactly what you thought was an "oxymoron" in what I posted. I have no idea.

My post was about the difference between fellowship and relationship. And I used as an example a birth parent and child to demonstrate the difference.

There was no oxymoron.

 

[FreeGrace]

I provided the answers to these issues in #745. You avoid what I write and then try to make it sound as though I don't know what I'm talking about.

This is not true. I explained why your view was wrong and gave Scripture to support my view.

We can't have a logical conversation when you use a red herring fallacy and straw man fallacy like you have done here in responding to my post at #745.

I know you love to use these "defenses", but I haven't used either fallacy. Unless one wants to call the verses I use as fallacy.

Those verses teach on justification. They do not teach that justification is irrevocable.

Here's what you keep missing. Paul described justification as a gift in Rom 3:24 and 5:15,16,17. Or do you disagree that he described justification as a gift in those verses?

Rom 11:29 says that the gifts of God are irrevocable. So, because Paul described justification as a gift in numerous places in the letter to the Romans, why wouldn't justification be in view in 11:29? Please explain this thoroughly.

If 11:29 had said this: "for God’s gifts, except justification and eternal life, and his call are irrevocable", only then would I have been using 11:29 wrongly in my views.

But Paul never inserted any exception to his statement in 11:29 about God's gifts. They are irrevocable. And he described what he meant by God's gifts previously.

So, the REAL fallacy is to reject 11:29 as including justification and eternal life.

You have engaged in postmodern eisegesis by imposing 'irrevocable' into the meaning of justification in these verses.

It's in 11:29.

'Irrevocable' is what you want them to mean to harmonise with your presupposition of eternal security.

There is no presumption in Rom 11:29. It's as clear as unlimited atonement is.

You have committed another logical fallacy - a begging the question fallacy. This happens when your premises (eternal security) are in the conclusion. That is what you have done with these verses you quoted. 'Irrevocable' is your presupposition. It is not stated in the texts you cited.
Oz

i've begged no question. I've supported my view that the Bible teaches eternal security. Plainly teaches it.

Both justification and eternal life are gifts of God. Or do you disagree with the verses that SAY that?

And God's gifts are irrevocable. But your post is clear that you still disagree with that, even though the verse is crystal clear.

The fallacy is on conditional security.

 

[WIP]

For the most part, everyone in this discussion is doing a good job of presenting their views but every once in a while some seem to have a need to toss in a statement to inflame the opposition and quite frankly it comes across as arrogant and condescending. In case you haven't noticed I have been removing some of these inflammatory remarks when I noticed them. Please, I understand that you may become frustrated but remember that we are all Christians digging for Truth and we are called to treat each other with love and respect per 1 Peter 3:15. This topic can be troublesome and difficult so please don't force me to start issuing warning points.

Thank you.

 

[JLB]

Where would one get the idea that a son my stop being a son? Certainly not from Scripture.

Never said a son stops being a son.

Lucifer is God's son, though his name was changed to Satan, meaning adversary, or enemy.

The angels who were cast down to hell, were also sons of God. 2 Peter 2:4

Peter warns the Church by this example, as he goes on to say in 2 Peter 2...

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment... in this same vein of though, Peter goes on to warn... 20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 2 Peter 2:4, 20-21


How about the marriage relationship between the Church and the Lord?

30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. Ephesians 5:30-33

One would have to completely ignore the possibility of divorce, through marital unfaithfulness to believe in OSAS.

The marriage covenant with Christ is what we are called to.

But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. 1 Corinthians 6:17

The context from 1 Corinthians 6 is clear.

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10


Your doctrine seems to teach that it is impossible for there to be a divorce.


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

Never said a son stops being a son.

Which is a HUGE point for eternal security.

Lucifer is God's son, though his name was changed to Satan, meaning adversary, or enemy.

Not in the sense that I have used it; those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for eternal life.

The angels who were cast down to hell, were also sons of God. 2 Peter 2:4
Not relevant to the discussion.

Peter warns the Church by this example, as he goes on to say in 2 Peter 2...

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment... in this same vein of though, Peter goes on to warn... 20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 2 Peter 2:4, 20-21

There is nothing in this passage that says anything about eternal life, salvation, or the loss of either.

How about the marriage relationship between the Church and the Lord?

30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. Ephesians 5:30-33

One would have to completely ignore the possibility of divorce, through marital unfaithfulness to believe in OSAS.

Unless there is any evidence in Scripture warning believers of being divorced from Christ, and resultant loss of salvation, there is zero reason to believe in such a thing.

And…only only has to recall God's view of marriage; it is PERMANENT. Why did Moses allow certificates of divorce? Because of the hardness of the peoples' hearts.

Jesus explained God's view of marriage in Matt 19:1-5. And then said this, in v.6 - So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

So your suggestion of spiritual divorce is way out of line according to God's view.

Not only that, Jesus explained WHY divorce was granted in v.7-8: 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

So trying to use the excuse of divorce in the believer's position as "Bride of Christ" to deny eternal security is just extremely unbiblical.

God's view of divorce proves that even when speaking of the Bride of Christ and the groom, divorce cannot be an issue.

Further, in God's laws, it was the man who issued a certificate to his wife. For divorce to be an issue in the debate over eternal security, one would have to argue that Jesus can divorce His Bride. Since we know God's view of divorce, that is not even possible.

Your doctrine seems to teach that it is impossible for there to be a divorce.

I believe that has been thoroughly proven from Scripture. God condemns divorce.

As Jesus said regarding divorce; "it was not this way from the beginning" (Matt 19:8). And "what God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt 19:6).

But all this talk about divorce is just a distraction away from the real issue: God's gift of eternal life is irrevocable, just as justification is.

All who have believed have been sealed with the Holy Spirit of PROMISE, a GUARANTEE for the day of redemption.

I don't know how that could be said any more clear.

None of this has been refuted. Rejected, yes, but refuted? No.

 

[MarkT]

Here's what you keep missing. Paul described justification as a gift in Rom 3:24 and 5:15,16,17. Or do you disagree that he described justification as a gift in those verses?

Rom 11:29 says that the gifts of God are irrevocable. So, because Paul described justification as a gift in numerous places in the letter to the Romans, why wouldn't justification be in view in 11:29? Please explain this thoroughly.

If 11:29 had said this: "for God’s gifts, except justification and eternal life, and his call are irrevocable", only then would I have been using 11:29 wrongly in my views.

But Paul never inserted any exception to his statement in 11:29 about God's gifts. They are irrevocable. And he described what he meant by God's gifts previously.

So, the REAL fallacy is to reject 11:29 as including justification and eternal life.

What you don't understand is it is God's word that is irrevocable. God said Israel would be his people Jer. 31:33 Then in Rom. 11:1 Paul asks, "has God rejected his people?" Then he said, "By no means!" And then he goes on to say God's word is irrevocable.

The call and the gifts of the Spirit come by hearing the word of God with faith. Gal. 3:2

Jesus said, "Take heed then how you hear; for to him who has will more be given, and from him who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.” Luke 8:18

I think you're hearing what you want to hear.

There are plenty of warnings in Jesus' teachings about fall away from the truth or into unbelief even to the point that no human being will be saved. Mrk. 13:20

 

[FreeGrace]

What you don't understand is it is God's word that is irrevocable.

While it is true that God's Word stands forever, what verse says that His Word is irrevocable?

And what you don't understand is that Paul actually and plainly wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable. That would of course include God's very Word, but also all that the Word describes as God's gifts; such as justification and eternal life. Why is there continued disagreement about this (Edited, ToS 2.4, inflammatory statement. Referring to resistance to one person's interpretation of scripture shall not be categorized as resistance to the "truth". There have been multiple requests by staff in this thread to refrain from inflammatory statements. Obadiah.) ?

God said Israel would be his people Jer. 31:33 Then in Rom. 11:1 Paul asks, "has God rejected his people?" Then he said, "By no means!" And then he goes on to say God's word is irrevocable.

Where did Paul say that Israel being God's people was a gift? He didn't. Where else in Scripture does it say that being God's people is a gift? No where.

The call and the gifts of the Spirit come by hearing the word of God with faith. Gal. 3:2

Without a doubt.

Jesus said, "Take heed then how you hear; for to him who has will more be given, and from him who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.” Luke 8:18

And this is totally not relevant to any discussion of God's gifts from Romans.

I think you're hearing what you want to hear.

No, I'm believing what I read in Scripture.

There are plenty of warnings in Jesus' teachings about fall away from the truth or into unbelief even to the point that no human being will be saved. Mrk. 13:20

"If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them."

What is there in this verse that teaches about loss of salvation? It's speaking about the Tribulation, and the fact that it will be so terrible that if lengthened, even the "elect" (Israel) wouldn't survive it.

The verse provided does not support your claim.

 

[OzSpen]

(Post removed. Off topic personal argument. Obadiah.)

 

[OzSpen]

While it is true that God's Word stands forever, what verse says that His Word is irrevocable?

FG.

Irrevocable means, 'Not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered; final' (Oxford dictionaries 2015. S v irrevocable). Which Scriptures support the fact that Scripture is irrevocable?

John 10:35 (ESV) states, 'Scripture cannot be broken'.

Prov 30:5-6 (ESV) affirms:
'Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar'.

2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV): 'All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work'. Heb 6:18 (ESV) affirms, 'it is impossible for God to lie'.

So the one who will not ever lie is the author of Scripture. How then can Scripture not be irrevocable? It is God's final standard and requirement of people.

What did Jesus say according to John 17:17 (ESV)? 'Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth'. The truth of God is truth, i.e.irrevocable, final, unchanging. It cannot be reversed.

Oz

 

[MarkT]

While it is true that God's Word stands forever, what verse says that His Word is irrevocable?

Stands forever means the same thing. It means we can put our faith in his Son Jesus Christ. It means God keeps covenant. God is faithful. Deut. 7:9 God is righteous. It means whatever God declares, he does it. He made a covenant with Abraham. He made a covenant with David. Ps. 132:11 Jesus said 'my words will not pass away. Mt. 24:33

And what you don't understand is that Paul actually and plainly wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable. That would of course include God's very Word, but also all that the Word describes as God's gifts; such as justification and eternal life. Why is there continued disagreement about this and resistance to the truth?

God is faithful to his word. You have to understand what Paul is implying when he says the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

Where did Paul say that Israel being God's people was a gift? He didn't. Where else in Scripture does it say that being God's people is a gift? No where.

That's not what I said. Read Rom. 11, the entire chapter.

"If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them."

What is there in this verse that teaches about loss of salvation? It's speaking about the Tribulation, and the fact that it will be so terrible that if lengthened, even the "elect" (Israel) wouldn't survive it.

The verse provided does not support your claim.

It says no human being would be saved, not survive.

RSV
And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.

Jesus said in the last days many will fall away from him and false teachers and false prophets will lead many astray. Peter calls them (the false prophets) waterless springs 2 Pet. 2:17 Bold and wilful they will be destroyed in the same destruction as the angels who sinned. 2 Pet. 2:1-22 Paul warns new converts may fall into the condemnation of the devil. 1 Tim. 3:6 Jesus warned us to keep his commandments - to show mercy and forgiveness Mt. 6:14-15 Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment. Everyone who says 'You fool' will be liable to the hell of fire. Mt. 5:22 “Judge not, that you be not judged. Mt. 7:1

 

[FreeGrace]

(Post removed. Response to deleted post. Obadiah)

 

[FreeGrace]

FG.

Irrevocable means, 'Not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered; final' (Oxford dictionaries 2015. S v irrevocable). Which Scriptures support the fact that Scripture is irrevocable?

John 10:35 (ESV) states, 'Scripture cannot be broken'.

Prov 30:5-6 (ESV) affirms:
'Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar'.

2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV): 'All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work'. Heb 6:18 (ESV) affirms, 'it is impossible for God to lie'.

So the one who will not ever lie is the author of Scripture. How then can Scripture not be irrevocable? It is God's final standard and requirement of people.

What did Jesus say according to John 17:17 (ESV)? 'Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth'. The truth of God is truth, i.e.irrevocable, final, unchanging. It cannot be reversed. Oz

In fact, Rom 11:29 says that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.

I've never argued about Scripture not being revocable. Of course it is irrevocable.

But Romans 11:29 is about God's gifts, which Paul previously described as justification and eternal life.

Are there any verses that describe God's Word as a gift to mankind?

 

[FreeGrace]

God is faithful to his word.

Correct. He never lies and He always keeps His promises.

You have to understand what Paul is implying when he says the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

Paul isn't implying anything. He already described justification (Rom 3:24, 5:15,16,17) and eternal life (Rom 6:23) as gifts of God. That's exactly what he was referring to in Rom 11:29. Nothing else.

I had said this:
"Where did Paul say that Israel being God's people was a gift? He didn't. Where else in Scripture does it say that being God's people is a gift? No where."

That's not what I said. Read Rom. 11, the entire chapter.

How is this any kind of answer to my question? Prior to Rom 11:29, the ONLY use of "gift of God" occurs in Rom 6:23.

That's where we connect the dots.

 

[MarkT]

FreeGrace

All our Lord wants us to do is to keep his words and do what he said. Those who are called, who are chosen by God, they get the higher gifts. They do have the assurance of the Holy Spirit. They follow the Lord and no one else. Chosen from the foundation of the world, predestined. I agree. But most people are not chosen. Jesus said, Many are called, few are chosen. Mt. 22:14 Most believers are caught in the net. There you will find the good and the bad. They will be separated when the Lord returns. You seem to have the words of eternal security. That’s good. Wish everyone did.