Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
If you believe you can lose your salvation, you are not saved!(explanation)
- Thread starter llama
- Start date
Stan1953
Member
No, because dogma is NOT something properly exegeted, as the word itself connotes. TRUTH is absolute, just as God and Jesus are.
I'm not sure what you refer to here as I was dealing with grammatical rules of theology, wasn't I?
This sentence doesn't even make sense. Romans 11:29 mentions "the gifts of God". Rom 6:23 defines eternal life as a gift of God. And Justification is defined as a gift (obviously from God) in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17.
(Edited, ToW 2.4, Rudeness. Obadiah)
Defined by Paul in Rom 3:24, 5:15,16,17 and 6:23. No need to mention them again. It's called "context".
They don't need to be. Paul already defined them as God's gifts. It's called "context".
Which I've done. I found every instance where Paul defined what he meant by gifts of God, unlike yourself, who only makes huge ASSUMPTIONS AND SPECULATIONS.
Sure. Avoid at all costs the verses that in fact DEFINE what Paul meant by gifts of God. lol
I'll use your same argument. I don't see the word 'gift' anywhere in those verses, or anywhere else in ch 11 other than in v.29. Your own argument against me works against yourself. lol
Where is the definition of 'gift' anywhere in ch 11? There isn't any. We HAVE TO go to where Paul DID define gifts of God to know what he was referrring to.
Last edited by a moderator:
Because I don't speculate on "what if's". I focus on the "what is".
If your assumption were true, then the Bible would teach that concept. So, where is an example of someone discarding their new birth, or their eternal life or their justification?
There are no examples. That MEANS in my understanding the Bible does NOT teach that (Edited, ToS 2.4 Rudeness. Obadiah).
I focus on reality; what the Bible SAYS. Not on ASSUMPTIONS or SPECULATIONS that lead to false doctrines.
Last edited by a moderator:
I asked this:
"Where did Paul refer to any of this as a gift?"
The context was your claim about something in ch 11 as being the gift of God referred to in 11:29.
"Where did Paul refer to any of this as a gift?"
The context was your claim about something in ch 11 as being the gift of God referred to in 11:29.
I asked a question about your view and all I get is this lame question. Why dodge my question? Because there is NO ANSWER. Paul never described or defined ANYTHING in ch 11 as a gift of God. He did that clearly in 6:23, which is the context for 11:29, which no one has yet refuted. The repeated disagreement does not equal refutation.
I've done that and I'll do it again.
Rom 3:24 - being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
Rom 5:15,16,17 - 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.
Rom 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Now, the very next time Paul mentions "gifts" is in 11:29 - for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
(Edited, ToS 2.4, rudeness. Obadiah.)
Please show me "opinion" here where I've quoted every verse about God's gifts?
Last edited by a moderator:
Read post #685 where I've bolded the mention of gifts.
I see no relevance to these questions. The point is what Paul himself defined as gifts of God. He did so by defining justification and righteousness and eternal life as gifts before he wrote 11:29 that God's gifts are irrevocable.
The issue isn't about "usefulness" but whether they are irrevocable or not. Which they are not. According to the Bible.
For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29
Salvation nor eternal life are mentioned in Romans 11:29.
Just a few verse's back Paul warns of being broken off through unbelief.
Jesus clearly states that those branches in Him can indeed be cast out, and burned in the fire.
If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:6
A person can be in Christ, then later be cast out, in which they will be burned in fire.
Pretty much just completely trashes OSAS, in one clear irrefutable sentence spoken by Jesus Christ Himself.
In Christ, then removed from Christ!
JLB
LOL.
You taken several scriptures and tried to put them all together to come up with your man made doctrine, like Frankenstein.
One verse of scripture from Jesus puts the matter to rest.
If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:6
The people were "in Christ", then they were "cast out".
Case Closed.
JLB
Seabass
Member
Yes, but God never promised or made eternal security a gift, therefore eternal security is not a promise/gift that can be revoked since eternal security was never made a promise/gift.
Again, since eternal security is not a promise/gift that God ever made, it therefore cannot part of Rom 11:29 as a gift of God which can never be revoked. Obviously the Jews did not ever have the gift of eternal security for they went from being God's elect to being lost/cast away/broken off. Whether FreeGrace wants to view the "gifts" of Rom 11:29 to be a general claim or as being particular to the Jews does not matter for the "gifts" cannot refer to eternal security since that as never been a gift of God.
It's up to FreeGrace to prove eternal security was ever a gift of God that cannot be revoked.
Seabass
Member
Rom 5:2 is not a man made fallacy...."By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."
Are you ASSUMING one can lose his faith yet still maintain access to God's grace?
It is the GROUP called "CHRISTIAN" that is sealed unto the day of redemption. No individual is unconditionally sealed apart from the GROUP. So as long as one CONDITIONALLY remains in the GROUP he will remain sealed but if he falls from the GROUP he no longer is sealed.
The prodigal is an example of one becoming lost but then alive again. Why would the prodigal need to be made alive AGAIN if it were not possible for him to lose spiritual life to begin with?
It's not about the Christian becoming "unborn" but about the Christian spiritually dying. The idea of one becoming "unborn" is not natural or logical but it is natural, logical in thinking of one going from being born (spiritually) to dying (spiritually).
What you call "unborn" I call spiritually dying.
Seabass
Member
When the jailer asked what must I do Paul did not tell him "do no works lest you try to earn your salvation" but instead gave him the work of believing to do (as Jesus calls believing a work in Jn 6:27-29). Again, coming away from that context claiming the jailer believed only is simply ignoring the context where it says was baptized.
Drew
Member
I think this is incorrect reasoning. A lot of other posters have provided a range of texts that show that one can indeed fall away. You seem to believe that you can "define" those texts away by arguing that salvation is a gift and the Bible never says a gift can be tossed aside. Well, by the very meaning of the concept of "irrevocable gift" you are only entitled to assume that such a gift will never be taken back. But the concept does not allow you to conclude that the gift cannot be discarded by the recipient.
In fact, it is likely precisely because the "irrevocability" of a gift does indeed allow the recipient to discard it that the writers of scripture don't need to say it - it is true by virtue of the meaning of the concept.
I will try to think of an analogy and post it tomorrow.
Stan1953
Member
I see you added words, but if that is quoting from the scripture then you should show what version you are using by doing like I do and typing (NIV) or whatever translation you want, after the verse. The verse you show and the words your type do NOT agree.
Well if you would have answered I would have shown you how they relate. Now all you've done is avoided answering. The POINT is Paul indicated different gifts, and HOW they are different. Why avoid the questions?
The issue seems to be about you wanting to stick to a certain vernacular to prove some point you are not proving? You may think your posts are cohesive, but my questions show they are not, and you can answer or not, but NOT, will show you can't support your assertions. The issue is not what the Bible says in regards to the word "irrevocable", it is what does the word have to do with how you use it?
In the Greek, ἀμεταμέλητος (ametamelētos) connotes "not to be repented of", which implies two things in English. Irrevocable and enduring. The English word irrevocable has more than one connotation; not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered; final. IMO, it is therefore necessary that we focus on the intent of the Greek and not add connotations to the word used. Given this scenario and how it is rendered in the Greek, what does it mean to you? Do you not think people can change theirs minds after they make a decision?
Stan1953
Member
So you don't believe in a triune God, or His Omni attributes? Do you believe we go to heaven when we die, and why if you do seeing as the Bible doesn't teach that either?
Sinthesis
Member
. Interesting - this makes things more complicated. When we read something like what we read in Romans11:29, we need to be careful in how we read it. To generalize: I think we take a big risk when we argue "from the definition of a concept". While I have critiqued others for doing this, I may have stretched this particular approach a little too far at times.
When I read Romans 11:29 in context, it seems clear to me it is about God's gifts to, and calling of, the Jewish people/faith as being a permanent part of God's plan, though somehow distinct from Christianity.
The people as described by branches, were in Him, the later were cast off and removed.
They were gathered up and thrown into the fire and burned.
If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:6
The people were in Him, then cast out.... Gathered up and throw into the fire.
JLB
Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you
Romans 11:20-21
This teaches me that I need to never neglect so precious and great a salvation, but rather work out my own salvation with fear and trembling.
JLB
dadof10
Member
Do believers have to continue to believe as they go through life? Does it matter to their salvation if they do not live their lives "in obedience"?
Not the Jewish people, but the Elect... Those who are In Christ, that is to say, a part of the True Israel of God.
What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. Romans 11:7
and again -
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, Romans 9:6
JLB