If you believe you can lose your salvation, you are not saved!(explanation)

[FreeGrace]

Yes, you are free to reject the truth of what is stated so plainly for all to see, right here in the scripture.

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 26:16-18

Turning from Satan to God is how a person receives the forgiveness of sins.

The condition named here in this verse, for receiving the forgiveness of sins, is turning from the power of Satan to God, from darkness to light.JLB

I asked what that looks like. iow, how does one do that? And there has been no response.

The Bible tells us plainly one receives forgiveness. Acts 10:43 - “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” That's how it looks. That's what one must do.

Questions?

 

[FreeGrace]

Yes I agree, that's why Muslims are not saved, because the refuse to confess Jesus as Lord, though they believe in Him.

They DON'T believe in Him as Savior. Get real. They only believe that he existed as a human being, and a lesser prophet than Muhammed.

So, to say they "believe in Him" is false and misleading. The Bible uses that phrase for trusting in Christ for salvation.

The Bible never asks people to believe that Jesus existed. It takes that for granted. It asks people to trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. Not that he existed.

The JW's believe that Jesus existed, but that He was only a man, created by God. That is refuted directly by John 20:31 - but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

They deny that He is the Son of God.

 

[FreeGrace]

Ok, let's compare what James says, with what Jesus says, and see if James is referring to salvation of the soul.

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,
16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
James 2:14-18
Here is what Jesus said about these things -

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink;

43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.'
Matthew 25:41-43
These will be cast into the everlasting fires of hell, for the same exact things James mentions in James 2.

James is referring to salvation, the kind that saves a person from the fires of hell.JLB

So then, according to your view, one will go to heaven just by feeding the poor.
(Edited, ToS 2.4, Rudeness, unwelcome spiritual advice. Obadiah.)

 

[Seabass]

You dont maintain a gift.
A gift is free.
You receive it, and it becomes yours.
God does not take it back, when he in fact knew of all the sins you were going to commit for the rest of your life, day by day....the very day he saved you.
He KNEW all the times you would sin after you were saved, and he saved you ANYWAY.
Do you understand this?....Have you ever realized it?
That is because once you are saved, your sins are no longer YOURS, even while you commit them, as they have now become the property of Jesus, who died to take them all from you and pay for them all for you.
Its a done deal, and it cant be undone, as Jesus's BLOOD cant be erased from your record.
You cant out-sin redemption.
Its not possible.
And you cant undo salvation any more then you can stop being born.
Its not possible.

Remember that Eternal life IS Jesus......He IS Eternal life.....Its HIM.
1 John 5:11-13
And if you have him, you have Eternal life, and you have him because every believer has the Holy Spirit inside.
This cant be taken from you based on your behavior or your lack of faith or the number of porn downloads you save.
Salvation is a completion of the operation of securing the Sonship position into the family of God.
It cant be undone.
You cant be "unseated" in heavenly places.
You cant be "unsealed" to the day of redemption.
You cant be "unborn" again.

All you can do is misunderstand Grace, or understand it.
You ither try to make yourself righteous, or you let God do it for free without any of your deeds.



thank you for our discussion, ive enjoyed it... but, im good.

One gains the promise of salvation/eternal life CONDITIONALLY and one must maintain the CONDITIONS in order to maintain the promise:

Rom 5:2 "By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."

One must CONDITIONALLY have faith in order to have access to God's free gift of grace. Therefore one must CONDITIONALLY maintain faith in order to maintain access to God's free gift. If one casts aside his faith, then he no longer has access to Gods free gift of grace.....

2 Cor 6:1 "We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain."

God's free gift of grace having been received can be lost again in vain if those Corinthian Christians quit working together with Him, quit working out their salvation Phil 2:12
=================

Eph 2:6 "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:"

One is "sit together in heavenly places" CONDITIONALLY in Christ Jesus. Therefore if one falls from Christ he no longer will sit in heavenly places. God made no unconditionally promise to anyone they will sit in heavenly replaces regardless of what happens.

Eph 4:30 "And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption."

It is the group called "Christian" that is sealed unto the day of redemption, therefore as long as one CONDITIONALLY remains in this sealed group he will remain sealed unto the day of redemption. Yet if one casts aside his faith and falls from this sealed group, the group remains sealed yet that individual does not remain sealed outside the group. Nowhere did God promise "unconditional sealing" to any individual outside the group "Christian". Paul was writing to the church at Ephesus and yet some 25 to 30 years later in Rev 2:1-7 they had fallen from the sealed group unless they repent.

1 Pet 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

One cannot be physically "unborn again" but one can spiritually become unborn, as the prodigal son who was dead (spiritually dead/unborn) then alive AGAIN (spiritual life). He could not be spiritually alive AGAIN without having been spiritually alive before.


Lastly;
1 Jn 5:11,12,13

There are CONDITIONAL statements within this context:
v11 "God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." Eternal life is CONDITIONALLY IN CHRIST. One falls from Christ he falls from this eternal life that is IN CHRIST.
v12 "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." One must CONDITIONALLY have the Son in order to have life. The verb 'hath' being present tense denoting an ongoing, sustained action. If one quits having the Son then he no longer has life.
v13 "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life..." One must CONDITIONALLY believe in order to have life. Again, the verb 'believe' is present tense showing one must have an ongoing sustained belief for if he quits believing he no longer has life.

THe man made idea of eternal security simply does not exist in the bible.

 

[JLB]

How many times will one reject the truth? Paul defined what he meant by "gifts of God" in Rom 3:24, 5:15,16,17 and 6:23. Is that clear enough? And by gifts, he SAID justification and eternal life.

After 6:23, the very next use of that word 'gift' is found in 11:29 where Paul says that God's gifts are irrevocable

All reasonable and rational people will easily understand that Paul was referring to what he had already defined as gifts of God; that being justification and eternal life. Which is why Paul used the plural for 'gift'.

The only reason this question of yours keep popping up is due to the outright rebellion against God's Word about eternal life being irrevocable.

And you've failed to prove your claim that Paul wasn't referring to eternal life in 11:29 but something else. Yet, there is NO EVIDENCE for anything else that Paul supposedly defined as a gift.

Your view has no evidence and is to be rejected. Scripture is very clear; eternal life and justification are gifts of God. And God's gifts are irrevocable.

Those who won't connect the dots here just don't want to. The evidence is clear. There is no excuse for rejecting what is plainly taught by Paul.

Again you have not produced a verse that states eternal life is irrevocable.

You have stated your opinion, and tagged your opinion with 3 scripture references, as if your opinion is scripture.


Still waiting for the verse, that means 1 verse that says eternal life is irrevocable, not parts of 2 or 3 verse's.

Please write it out so we can all read this verse of scripture, and name which version it's from, like the TOS requires all of us to do.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Just ask yourself..
">Who< Saved you"??
If you try to add anything to HIM, you are theologically lost.

Paul said I access the blood and make it applicable to me through faith. IOW, I must 'add' faith to the blood to make it applicable to me. I believe I have to add something to him. Does that make me theologically lost?

"we have been justified through faith, wea have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand." (Romans 5:1-2 NIV)

"but what about works".
"but what about enduring to the end"
"but what about the unpardonable sin"
"but what about Hebrews, if we sin willfully"
"but what about WATER BAPTISM".

So, as i said.....if you go THERE ^^^^^^, you are ither not saved, or have been taught incorrectly...

...or have Fallen from Grace.

You're confusing me.
I thought you were saying it's impossible to lose the grace of God in Christ?
But now you're telling me that if I add anything to Christ I lose that which I gained by adding nothing to him and who I cannot lose.

...if you try to add to this any from that list of quotes, or your own circular reasoning, you are in the spiritual darkness regarding "born again" and are a devout legalist.

But what about FAITH?
Why are leaving faith out of your list? You seem to never address this question.

It's interesting that the argument will be made that, "you were not justified by works, so you can not keep yourself justified by works" (which I agree with). But if one uses the the same logic and says, "it was by faith I am justified, so I keep myself justified by continuing to believe" they get blasted. And worst of all, that gets called a 'works' gospel (faith is included in the works that Paul says can't justify? That's a joke, right?).

Now let's revisit your list:

"but what about works".

A lack of works will condemn you if they signify you have stopped trusting in the blood of Christ for justification.​

"but what about enduring to the end"

Not enduring to the end will condemn you if it signifies that you have stopped trusting in the blood of Christ for justification.​

"but what about the unpardonable sin"

The unpardonable sin will condemn you since it indicates that you have stopped believing in the blood of Christ for justification.​

"but what about Hebrews, if we sin willfully"

Willful sin will condemn if it signifies that you have stopped trusting in the blood of Christ for justification, and God has turned you over to that.​

"but what about WATER BAPTISM".

Not being water baptized will condemn you if it signifies that you stopped trusting in the blood of Christ for justification somewhere between the day you first trusted him for the forgiveness of sins and the day you were scheduled to be baptized but refused to go through with it for that reason.​

 

[JLB]

So then, according to your view, one will go to heaven just by feeding the poor.

Congratulations for joining the liberal protestant groups who preach the social gospel. And they will be in hell for it.

I have shown you from scripture, where James uses saved, in association with the same things as Jesus.

Where is your scriptures?


JLB

 

[Seabass]

Please. There is NO mention of gifts in ch 7-11 until 11:29, so how can this claim be made? And what is this gift to the Jews that you think Paul was referring to? Please be specific.


Actually, Paul said that God's gifts, which he had already defined clearly, are irrevocable. Denying that fact doesn't make it go away.


So, please show exactly where in ch 11 where Paul defined what he meant by gift in 11:29.

Again, in Rom 11 the Jews are in the context as having been the ones cast aside/broken off.

In verse 28 Paul is speaking about the Jews...the Jews are the enemies for the sake of the Gentiles...
The Jews were the enemies of the gospel for they rejected Christ and His gospel. Yet their rejection of CHrist and His gospel was for the sake of the Gentiles in that it brought the gospel to the Gentiles that much sooner.

but as touching the election
But concerning the election>salvation of the Jews....

they (Jews) are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

The Jews were still beloved by God for the sake of the fathers (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob)

Rom 11:29 "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."
"For" is an explanatory preposition giving explanation to what was just said in verse 28. It explains how the Jews, even though they rejected Christ, can still be of the election/saved and are still called "beloved" as shown by God not revoking/repenting/changing His promise of gifts and calling He made to the fathers. God promised salvation to the Jews and He would not revoke it but left salvation to the Jews through Christ.

"Gifts and calling" refers to the salvation to the Jews;
God's gifts includes eternal life. Rom 6:23.
Calling refers to God's calling of sinners to salvation, the gospel call, 2 Thess 2:14

God promised salvation (gifts and calling) to the fathers and God was not going to revoke what He promised (Numbers 23:19) but have that promise to the Jews fulfilled through Christ.

If you can read the man made idea of "eternal security" into the context, then what is to stop anyone from reading whatever they choose to into the context???

 

[Seabass]

When the Bible repeatedly says "believe" and doesn't add anything else, one can rest assurred that believe goes it alone.

Please prove your claim that "believe" includes baptism. From a lexicon.


Maybe a careful reading of the gospel of John is in order here. That book uses the word "believe" nearly 100 times. Note what Jesus Himself said about eternal life.


Very faulty charge. None of these things are required for eternal life, as I have already proven and you've already rejected. Seems there isn't anything more to discuss. We disagree and that's that.


Please define what the "will of God" actually is. From Scripture.

When the bible says 'believe' you are assuming it means 'believe only'.
To assume that 'believe' means belief only creates contradictions and ignores the verses where Christ made repentance confession and baptism of equal importance and necessity to salvation. Lk 13;3,5; Matt 10:32,33; Mk 16:16.

Believe is used as a synecdoche ( a part stands for the whole) whereby believing includes doing all Christ said including repenting confession and being baptized. In 1 Pet 3:21 Peter said baptism doth also now save us. Does that mean "baptism alone" saves??? No, for baptism is being used as a synecdoche where it includes belief, repentance and confession.

As far as your request to prove belief includes baptism:
Acts 2:41 - Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:
Acts 2:44 - And all that believed were together...

Who were the ones that "believed" in v44? The ones that accepted Peter's words and were baptized or the ones that rejected Peter's words rejecting baptism? Of course the ones that "believed" are the ones that were baptized as thee you have THE BIBLE having the word BELIEVED including baptism.

Furthermore, since there is just ONE way to be saved, no alternatives, and the bible does not contradict itself, then:

Jn 3:16-------believing>>>>>>>>>>>saves
1 Pet 3:21---baptism>>>>>>>>>>>saves

... believing MUST include baptism.


Just cherry-picking out verses that mention "believing" while ignoring all other salvic verses makes for bad theology.

 

[Drew]

Since your ASSUMPTION that eternal life can be discarded, the ONUS is on you to prove it. Not merely assume it to be so.

It's difficult to debate with you since you seem to not follow normal debating protocol. Let's review:

1. You introduced the argument that since salvation is a gift and that since God's gifts are irrevocable, this means that salvation is "locked in" at the point of conversion.

2. Let's forget for the moment that many other texts challenge this conclusion - we will stick with your argument based on the "irrevocability of a gift.

3. I (and possibly others) challenged you on the nature of irrevocability: I pointed out that "irrevocability" only allows you to conclude that the giver will not take back the gift; it does not mean that the receiver can toss it aside.

4. You then demand that I produce Biblical evidence that a gift can be thrown away by a recipient. You wisely did not challenge me on point 3, as I suggest you know that I am in the right about this.

This is simply not fair play on your part - you made a claim, you need to support it: It is not up to me (or others) to prove what you need to prove: that the gift cannot be thrown away. You are the one who is mounting the argument based on the concept of an irrevocable gift.

What you are asking me is like you claiming that there is cat inside the closet and then expecting me to prove there is no cat inside that closet.

And to add to this, you ask for the unreasonable: you simply assume that the absence of a statement to the effect that a gift can be rejected by the recipient proves that it cannot be rejected. This is clearly not the case since there are indeed theological truths that are not supported by a direct Biblical statement. Like the Trinity, for one.

 

[dadof10]

I don't see how this can be true since Paul tells us that Abraham, "19 Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb; 20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform." (Romans 4:19-21 NASB bold mine).

I missed this one. I got busy this weekend, so I went back and looked. This is interesting. You are tying these verses to Gen. 17 instead of Gen. 15. You might have a point. It talks about Abraham's age and the "deadness of Sarah's womb" in Gen. 17, not in Gen 15. I have always looked at his as referring to Gen. 15. If Paul is referring to Gen. 17, I stand corrected....but so do you. The next verse, verse 22 says:

"And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness." (KJV)

This would mean righteousness (justification) was imputed to Abraham when he believed in Gen. 17 (during the covenant of circumcision) also, bolstering my case that justification is a process. It would be possible to say that the obedient faith that Abraham shows in Gen. 17 did, indeed justify him, but the action of circumcision did not. That way Paul does not contradict himself here. Is this how you see it?

The reason we are even talking about Gen. 17 is because of your claim that it's possible to have faith that produces good deeds, but doesn't justify: "Abraham's circumcision is exactly that--obedience prompted by faith in what was said, but which does not justify (Galatians 5:6 NASB)".

Of course, I agree with you that there is such a thing as faith that doesn't justify, even though there are "works attached". But, Gen. 12 doesn't fit into this "obedience prompted by faith" that doesn't justify category. There's too much evidence to the contrary.

 

[Seabass]

Paul answered the jailer's question of what he MUST DO to be saved by telling him "believe (aorist tense) on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved".


So, basically, one must maintain their own salvation then. One must continue to walk in the light to stay saved.

This totally smacks of saving oneself even though that will be strongly denied by those who believe this.

1) "MUST DO" implies salvation is by DOING and not by doing nothing.

2) Paul did NOT command the jailer to 'believe only'. "Believe only" is NOT DOING but a mere mental assent of the mind.

3) Paul would not contradict himself by making believing the only requirement for salvation when in other passages as Acts 26:20; Rom 6:3-7; Rom 10:9,10 etc Paul made repentance, confession and baptism necessary to being saved.

4) Acts 16:34 ASV "And he brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God." The participle phrase "having believed" includes ALL the jailer had just done including his repentance, as seen by washing of stripes, and being baptized per Acts 16:33.


One must maintain his own salvation, one must work out his own salvation (Phil 2:12) and that includes the work of walking in thelight, 1 Jn 1:7.

 

[dadof10]

As previously explained, the obedience involved in getting saved is to place one's full trust (faith, belief) in Christ as Savior. Those who believe in Christ for salvation ARE obeying the command. Those who aren't obeying the command aren't expressing saving faith.


Depends on what one is believing on Him FOR. If it's FOR eternal life, then yes, they are saved. If it is FOR anything else, they are NOT saved. i.e., the health and wealth so-called gospel.


Yes, because we have been regenerated, born again, new creatures, child of God, possessor of eternal life, a free gift that is irrevocable.


Lifestyle obedience has NOTHING to do with getting or staying saved.

If it did, then what Christ did on the cross was meaningless and worthless. Why would anyone believe that?

This is pretty simple. If someone believes that, once "saved", a person can continue to have faith, yet disobey God, even in his "lifestyle" and it won't effect salvation, he believes faith that is disobedient saves. You can object to my terms all you want, or even make up some of your own (lifestyle obedience, as opposed to what? ), but the fact remains that he doesn't have to obey God to be saved. This implicitly means that a person can have a disobedient faith and still be saved.

 

[Drew]

Yeah, please! The idea that eternal life can be discarded is preposterous. Please focus on the issue.

You are rigging the game:

1. You make an argument based on the meaning of concept - in this case the concept of an irrevocable gift;

2. I challenge you on it and show the concept does not support your argument - an irrevocable gift can indeed be tossed aside;

3. You somehow think you can arbitrarily disqualify all the evidence I provide that all kinds of gifts can be discarded - you insist that I focus on this particular gift of salvation and that I prove from the Bible that it cannot be discarded.

4. This is bad reasoning for two reasons: (1) You claim that even though even though all sorts of gifts can be rejected, this particular one to the exclusion of all the other gifts I name - salvation - is mysteriously (you do not provide support for the claim that it cannot be rejected) not subject to being rejected!!! And to make matters worse: (2) You expect me to prove that this gift can be rejected when you know full well that many things that are Biblically correct - for example the Trinity - cannot be "proven" to be correct by a single text.

Ye have caused to me to rend my garment. This happens a lot here: someone breaks so many rules of proper debate that I (and others) spend all our energies on these violations and have no time to actually debate the issue.

 

[dadof10]

Furthermore, we see it was through the obedience of faith that Noah and his household were saved.

7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. Hebrews 11:7

JLB

 

[dadof10]

No, it's not logical in the case of Abraham and Genesis 12:4. I explained this to you.


That is not all I've said. I explained how it is 1) impossible to be re-justified, and 2) it is unnecessary to be re-justified.

We agree that Abraham is actually being justified in Genesis 15:6. That much we agree on. We just disagree on whether that was the first time that happened to him or not. And we also agree that Abraham did not fall into apostasy that can not be forgiven between Genesis 12:4--the first time you say he was justified--and Genesis 15:6 where the Bible actually says he was justified. So the first reason why Abraham could not have been re-justified in Genesis 15:6 is not applicable here. No reason to debate something we already agree on, lol.

So, that leaves the 2nd reason I gave above for why Abraham could not have been re-justified in Genesis 15:6--it's unnecessary. It is not necessary to be re-justified after you have already been justified. And since we both agree he really is being justified right there in Genesis 15:6 (you just argue it's an additional justification), and since it's unnecessary to be re-justified, that justification occurring there HAS to be his first and only justification (as in being MADE righteous). Perfectly legitimate logic.

Whether it's "necessary" that justification is a process, is what we are discussing. Maybe I haven't been clear enough. This is how I see our discussion so far.

Dadof10: Justification is a process, worked out throughout our lives.
Jethro: Justification is a one time event, so it's unnecessary to repeat it.
D: Abraham was justified in Gen. 12 and Gen. 15, therefore it's a necessary process.
J: He was justified in Gen. 15, but not in Gen. 12, because it doesn't say he was justified in Gen. 12
D: It doesn't have to say, because it's inferred by Heb 11.

The ball is now in your court to either prove that my exegesis of Heb. 11 is faulty or that inference is an invalid exegetical tool.

I might add one more verse to my exegesis. Heb 11:31

"By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace."

James tells us that she was justified by her obedient faith when she "received the spies". This is one more example from Heb. 11 that the obedient faith that the "men of old" had was a justifying faith.

 

[Drew]

If you can read the man made idea of "eternal security" into the context, then what is to stop anyone from reading whatever they choose to into the context???

I have not been carefully reading all your posts, but I think I generally agree with your "good works" matter unto salvation stance. While I certainly agree that leading up to Romans 11:29, Paul has been talking specifically about, to use your words, "God promised salvation (gifts and calling) to the fathers and God was not going to revoke what He promised (Numbers 23:19) but have that promise to the Jews fulfilled through Christ."

However, FreeGrace could still argue as follows: The stuff in verse 11:29 is general - it is a statement to the effect that God will not "revoke" any gift, the argument being that one can then particularize that general promise to the matter of the salvation of the Jews.

Do you see what I mean? I still think FreeGrace is mistaken in the sense that s/he thinks that an "irrevocable gift" cannot be cast away by the recipient. However, I think Paul is making a general claim here - no gift that God gives will be revoked.

 

[Stan1953]

I said this:
"God gives the gift. Only He would have the power or authority to take it back, and He has said that His gifts are irrevocable."

It was directed to one of the "insecurity crowd" who was arguing that though Rom 11:29 does say that God won't revoke His gift of eternal life, from Rom 6:23, the believer could "discard" their gift, which is preposterous.

My response was to ask where in Scripture is anyone given this supposed ability to "discard" their gift.

 

[Stan1953]

I said this:
"God gives the gift. Only He would have the power or authority to take it back, and He has said that His gifts are irrevocable."
It was directed to one of the "insecurity crowd" who was arguing that though Rom 11:29 does say that God won't revoke His gift of eternal life, from Rom 6:23, the believer could "discard" their gift, which is preposterous.
My response was to ask where in Scripture is anyone given this supposed ability to "discard" their gift.

OK good, now how does this depict that people cannot become apostate and fall away from the faith?

 

[Sinthesis]

Clearly God can choose to revoke a particular gift.

Mat 18:23 - Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
Mat 18:24 - And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
Mat 18:25 - But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
Mat 18:26 - The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Mat 18:27 - Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
Mat 18:28 - But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
Mat 18:29 - And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Mat 18:30 - And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
Mat 18:31 - So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
Mat 18:32 - Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
Mat 18:33 - Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
Mat 18:34 - And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
Mat 18:35 - So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.​