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

[FreeGrace]

Why are you repeating what you've already said?

Because that's the only way one learns. By repetition.

These verses have ZERO to do with Rom 11:29.
Bye, bye.

More opinion? Where are the facts?

 

[OzSpen]

Your opinion is noted. Where did Paul call those things in 9:1-5 as "gifts"? That's your problem. He didn't. But we know what he DID describe as gifts of God.

Just as the Bible does not have to use the word Trinity to teach the doctrine of the Trinity, in Rom 9:4-5 (ESV) Paul has demonstrated he is talking about the gifts and calling of the Jews:

They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.

The teaching is obvious to those who want to hear.

 

[OzSpen]

At least you do note that my doctrine is Christian. Because is comes directly from the Bible.

I was using your language of Christian OSAS. I do not support it as such. I support perseverance of the saints which I have demonstrated to you over and over from Scripture. I will not repeat.

 

[FreeGrace]

Rational vs Irrational
Reasonable vs Unreasonable

Those who reject eternal security believe that Rom 11:29, which says that "the gifts of God are irrevocable" only refers to Rom 9:1-5, which is a list of things that Israel has. But are NEVER described as gifts anywhere in Scripture.

And they ignore the verses within Romans where Paul actually SAYS what are gifts of God; being justification from 3:24 and 5:15,16,17 and eternal life from 6:23.

In fact, 6:23 clearly states: "the gift of God IS eternal life". Couldn't be more clear.

So, when Paul wrote in 11:29 that "God's gifts are irrevocable", they reject 6:23 as being what Paul meant, and instead, want to use 9:1-5 as what Paul meant in 11:29.

So, what is rational and what is irrational?

To claim that Rom 11:29 refers to what is NEVER called "God's gifts" anywhere in Scripture, or to claim that Rom 11:29 refers to what Paul actually did describe as God's gifts earlier in Romans?

I submit that Paul specifically meant those things he did describe as God's gifts when he penned 11:29.

 

[FreeGrace]

Just as the Bible does not have to use the word Trinity to teach the doctrine of the Trinity, in Rom 9:4-5 (ESV) Paul has demonstrated he is talking about the gifts and calling of the Jews:


The teaching is obvious to those who want to hear.

Please don't ignore post #1297, where I gave 5 reasons to believe eternal security.

We both know that truth cannot be refuted, but only rejected, ignored, or disagreed with.

So, please address my 5 reasons and show me what those verses do teach, since you reject that they teach eternal security.

 

[FreeGrace]

I was using your language of Christian OSAS. I do not support it as such. I support perseverance of the saints which I have demonstrated to you over and over from Scripture. I will not repeat.

Perseverance of the saints is a command of Scripture. Not a fact. Not all believers persevere. The Bible is clear on that. Just as the Bible is clear that Christ died for everyone, and all believers are eternally secure.

 

[OzSpen]

Rational vs Irrational
Reasonable vs Unreasonable
Those who reject eternal security believe that Rom 11:29, which says that "the gifts of God are irrevocable" only refers to Rom 9:1-5, which is a list of things that Israel has. But are NEVER described as gifts anywhere in Scripture.

No, FreeGrace. Here you are using a straw man logical fallacy. When you engage in the use of logical fallacies you use flawed reasoning. This makes logical engagement with you impossible.

I have been trying to show you in context that Rom 11:29 (ESV) refers to the Jews and is a verse that applies to the Jews. But you refuse to hear it. I'll try one more time.

Look at the immediate context of Rom 11:29 (ESV):

• 'a partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in' (11:25);
• 'in this way all Israel will be saved' (11:26) ;
• 'The Deliverer will come from Zion' (11:26);
• 'he will banish ungodliness from Jacob' (11:26);
• 'this will be my covenant with them [Israel] when I will take away their sins ' (11:27);
• 'As regards the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies for your sake' (11:28);
• 'as regards election [of Israel], they [Israel] are beloved for the sake of their forefathers [of Israel]' (11:28);
• Then comes Rom 11:29 (ESV), all in the context of speaking of Israel: 'For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable'. Notice how verse 29 begins with the Greek, gar, which is a causal particle or conjunction meaning for, therefore, because, etc. It means that it is linked to the verses that precede it. It is a conclusion reached, based on the previous discussion. So Rom 11:29 (ESV), based on the Greek grammar, refers to Israel and not Jewish or Gentile Christians.
• So, the gifts and calling of God that are irrevocable (11:29) refer directly to the nation and people of Israel.
  
• To conclude otherwise is to violate both immediate context of Rom 11:29 (ESV) and Greek grammar.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Please don't ignore post #1297, where I gave 5 reasons to believe eternal security.

In that instance you used a red herring logical fallacy that did not relate to the topic being discussed. It was your attempt to divert attention away from the context of Rom 11:29 (ESV).

Oz

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"Rational vs Irrational
Reasonable vs Unreasonable
Those who reject eternal security believe that Rom 11:29, which says that "the gifts of God are irrevocable" only refers to Rom 9:1-5, which is a list of things that Israel has. But are NEVER described as gifts anywhere in Scripture."

No, FreeGrace. Here you are using a straw man logical fallacy. When you engage in the use of logical fallacies you use flawed reasoning. This makes logical engagement with you impossible.

What I said was totally logical and straightforward, and demonstrates the very flawed thought process that you have engaged in. But you are free to choose whatever words you want and describe anything any way you want.

You've never proven that Rom 11:29 refers to the list that Paul gave in 9:1-5. So it's just an assumption, an opinion.

I gave facts of what Paul actually said about God's gifts. What they are and that they are irrevocable.

I have been trying to show you in context that Rom 11:29 (ESV) refers to the Jews and is a verse that applies to the Jews. But you refuse to hear it. I'll try one more time.

This is mere opinion. No facts to back it up at all. Where does Paul describe anything that Israel has as a gift of God?

Look at the immediate context of Rom 11:29 (ESV):

• 'a partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in' (11:25);
• 'in this way all Israel will be saved' (11:26) ;
• 'The Deliverer will come from Zion' (11:26);
• 'he will banish ungodliness from Jacob' (11:26);
• 'this will be my covenant with them [Israel] when I will take away their sins ' (11:27);
• 'As regards the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies for your sake' (11:28);
• 'as regards election [of Israel], they [Israel] are beloved for the sake of their forefathers [of Israel]' (11:28);
• Then comes Rom 11:29 (ESV), all in the context of speaking of Israel: 'For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable'. Notice how verse 29 begins with the Greek, gar, which is a causal particle or conjunction meaning for, therefore, because, etc. It means that it is linked to the verses that precede it. It is a conclusion reached, based on the previous discussion. So Rom 11:29 (ESV), based on the Greek grammar, refers to Israel and not Jewish or Gentile Christians.
• So, the gifts and calling of God that are irrevocable (11:29) refer directly to the nation and people of Israel.
  
• To conclude otherwise is to violate both immediate context of Rom 11:29 (ESV) and Greek grammar.

Oz

Nice list. But I failed to see any mention of "gift" in regard to anything in your list. How do you know that any of these were considered gifts? Where, in the entire Bible, are these things called gifts?

You're straining quite hard to distance Rom 11:29 from Rom 6:23.

Regarding 'gar', let's consider all that the lexicon says about it:
"a causal participle or conjunction, for; it is, however, frequently used with an ellipsis of the clause to which it has reference, and its force must then be variously expressed: Matt 15:27, 27:23 et al.: it is also sometines epexegetic, or introductory of an intimated detaail of circumstances, now, then, to wit, Matt 1:18.

The point remains: Paul told us what he considered gifts of God:
spiritual gifts in 1:11
justification in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17
eternal life in 6:23

You have not shown that Paul did not have these in mind when he penned 11:29. Your opinion about "immediate context" fails to support your opinion. There is nothing in v.25-28 that is described as a gift.

 

[smaller]

Psalm 37:28
For the Lord loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.

Psalm 97:10
Ye that love the Lord, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.

Proverbs 2:8
He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints.