One result of being in union with Christ

[FreeGrace]

It was shown to you that Paul himself plainly says what he means by the gifts and calling being irrevocable (Romans 11:29 NASB).

Yes, he certainly did. In Rom 1:11 (spiritual gifts), 3:24 and 5:15,16,17 (justification) and 6:23 (eternal life). He mentioned them specifically as gifts. And he described NOTHING ELSE as a gift of God.

But you have chosen to ignore his plain words and add your own meaning.

I have shown his plain words about what he described as a gift of God. 3 of them, in fact.

So be it. Move on. Your dogmatic statements simply don't change the plain words of the passage for those of us who can see those words:

I've been asking where anyone sees "gifts to Israel" anywhere in ch 9-11.

25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
“THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.”

27“THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.”

28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Romans 11:25-29 NASB)

Still not seeing ANY MENTION of "gifts of God" before v.29. Paul NEVER said anything about God's gifts to Israel. Nor any special "call" just to Israel. In fact, he specifically included Gentiles in the call of God, twice: 1:5 and 9:25.

There is not even a glow or a hint of 'you are still saved even though you stop believing' in the context of this passage.[/QUOT]
What there IS in the letter is the teaching that eternal life is irrevocable.

Paul is plainly saying that salvation has not been shut off to Israel even though they as a nation are enemies of the gospel because of their unbelief in Messiah.

He said that as well. But he was extremely clear as to what he himself described as gifts of God, all of which are included in 11:29.

 

[FreeGrace]

You really should address Romans 11:22 that he threw at you.

I've explained it so much, I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Being "cut off" from the vine has to do with SERVICE, not salvation. The Jews were quite puffed up and arrogant about being God's chosen people. It went to their heads, and they considered themselves superior to Gentiles. To tell Jews that God was cutting them off from service would be a great shock to them, since they considered themselves to be in service to God.

If you just counter with another verse in Romans, then you and he are claiming that Romans is self-contradictory and we should all probably just ignore it.

I've just explained why 11:22 isn't about salvation. So now, please explain how the gifts in 11:29 cannot refer to the specific gifts that Paul described earlier in Romans:
1. spiritual gifts in 1:11
2. justification in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17
3. eternal life in 6:23

If this cannot be done (explain WHY these specific gifts cannot be considered irrevocable), then there is no reason to assume they are revocable.

(JLB should probably do the same with your verses.)

Of course.

I can't speak for anyone but me, but the scripture pong makes me want to shake off the dust and walk away.
... All smoke and mirrors and no real light or truth.

The light of Scripture is that eternal life is a gift of God, and God's gifts are irrevocable. But many don't want to accept that truth. Even though they can't refute.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes, he certainly did. In Rom 1:11 (spiritual gifts), 3:24 and 5:15,16,17 (justification) and 6:23 (eternal life). He mentioned them specifically as gifts. And he described NOTHING ELSE as a gift of God.


I have shown his plain words about what he described as a gift of God. 3 of them, in fact.


I've been asking where anyone sees "gifts to Israel" anywhere in ch 9-11.


Still not seeing ANY MENTION of "gifts of God" before v.29. Paul NEVER said anything about God's gifts to Israel. Nor any special "call" just to Israel. In fact, he specifically included Gentiles in the call of God, twice: 1:5 and 9:25.

Lol, you keep addressing an argument that I'm not even making.
It's quite humorous now, where before it was very irritating. But I've risen above it.

Until you calm down and start discussing this topic in an open minded, honest, cordial way, free of this defensive pride, you will remain in the dark about what I'm saying. Maybe the best thing for you to do is listen in on the discussion between atpollard and me.

 

[FreeGrace]

This is what you posted:
"It was shown to you that Paul himself plainly says what he means by the gifts and calling being irrevocable (Romans 11:29 NASB)."

And this was my response to that comment:
"Yes, he certainly did. In Rom 1:11 (spiritual gifts), 3:24 and 5:15,16,17 (justification) and 6:23 (eternal life). He mentioned them specifically as gifts. And he described NOTHING ELSE as a gift of God.

I have shown his plain words about what he described as a gift of God. 3 of them, in fact.

I've been asking where anyone sees "gifts to Israel" anywhere in ch 9-11.

Still not seeing ANY MENTION of "gifts of God" before v.29. Paul NEVER said anything about God's gifts to Israel. Nor any special "call" just to Israel. In fact, he specifically included Gentiles in the call of God, twice: 1:5 and 9:25."

Lol, you keep addressing an argument that I'm not even making.
It's quite humorous now, where before it was very irritating. But I've risen above it.

The fact is, you've never shown what "Paul himself plainly says what he means by the gifts and calling being irrevocable". I've repeatedly asked where Paul mentioned "gifts" anywhere between ch 9-11, and no one has stepped forward to provided any answer.

Yet, I've repeatedly shown the 3 specific gifts that are from God that Paul described.

Until you calm down and start discussing this topic in an open minded, honest, cordial way, free of this defensive pride, you will remain in the dark about what I'm saying. Maybe the best thing for you to do is listen in on the discussion between atpollard and me.

Our discussion has been on-going way before your discussion with atpollard.

 

[Papa Zoom]

atpollard

Esau was a son who gave up his birthright

Heb 12:15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
Heb 12:16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
Heb 12:17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
I would be interested in your thoughts on this and also Papa Zoom 's

Even though my response here is tagged off of Reba's post, I'm addressing the entire group that's posted here. Keep that in mind.

---------
​

This will likely be long because the topic isn't addressed in simple sound bites. I’ll post it in parts and feel free to ignore it for its length. I don’t like long posts myself. If I want to read a book, I’ll buy one. But the question can’t be answered without fully addressing the issue from all points.

Here’s a premise I work from when it comes to understanding God’s Word:
“I could be wrong but I don’t think I am. Here’s why.” So please understand that this is my starting point.

I've stated before that I don’t think discussions on OSAS are helpful. That’s because the issue is very confusing and there are many competing voices out there. There are but two possibilities: You can be saved (born again - a new creature in Christ) and never lose that which you have been given (it is a gift from God) OR you can be a saved, Born Again Believer, A New Person In Christ, and become unborn again and become a Not-A-New-Person-In-Christ. The Bible does not teach the latter in my view. Losing one’s salvation is the same as becoming unborn-again.

That said, here’s a framework to apply whenever addressing issues such as this:
*No one has a perfect theology. Any one of us could be wrong in our views and so we ought to approach issues with humility.
*The Bible doesn't say anything. You have to read it and YOU have to determine it’s meaning. If the Bible was always crystal clear, people wouldn't hold to so many different views of the same “teachings” of Scripture.
*The person to trust least with regard to understanding a Biblical text is yourself. You are not flawless.
Seek understanding prayerfully but understand that you could still be wrong on a view you hold.

Regarding Esau and Lot’s wife: Their actions did not cause them to lose their salvation. They were either saved or they were not. You can’t lose that which is given to you by God (nor can you lose that which you don’t possess) and you can’t keep that which you never had.

Thoughts to consider:

1 John 2:19 ‘they were not all of us’ They looked saved but they were not born of God. Hebrews 3:14 Perseverance to the end is evidence that a person is in Christ. If one doesn't persevere, they were not of us (those that are saved).

I think it’s a mistake to frame the question of salvation as “Can a person, once saved, always be saved?” (OSAS) This frames the question incorrectly. Better is to ask is: “Is Jesus able to keep a saved person from falling?” The answer to this question is yes. So if Jesus can keep you from stumbling, how can you then also be not kept?

Jude 1:24 To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy--

Can Jesus really keep those He has saved from falling? This is how the question ought to be framed. Instead we put the onus on ourselves and suggest (wrongly in my view) that it’s up to us to keep it. So salvation is by grace but keeping it is by works. I see no way around this problem. If one can lose their salvation, then we have power over our salvation. It’s not all the work of Jesus. The Mormon’s then are right: We are saved by grace after all we can do.

I've spend a lot of time thinking on this and reading all I can to get a proper perspective. I know there will be those that find areas of disagreement. That’s fine. However, if you don’t take the same amount of time and care to respond to my points, you may simply be dogmatic about the issue. I feel I’m following the biblical evidence and the flow of biblical logic concerning salvation. More to come.

In Christ, PZ

 

[Papa Zoom]

Since I'll be addressing more on this question and specifically responding to more of Reba's point, I may not respond much to questions or criticisms. But I do appreciate reading the views others have to offer. In then end, you'll have to examine the arguments and counter arguments and make up your own mind.

 

[reba]

Thank you Papa Zoom
Well written,,,, nicely said

although i do disagree

We see these 2 stories these folks were not overcomers ... they rejected the inheritance offered.. Esau was born wiht it and Lot's wife turned her back on it.

As much as the examples of over comers like Job these also carry a strong lesson ...
my view ...

 

[Jim Parker]

They were either saved or they were not. You can’t lose that which is given to you by God (nor can you lose that which you don’t possess) and you can’t keep that which you never had.

I can lose any gift I don't exercise diligence to keep.
I can throw away any gift that of which I become tired.
There is nothing inherent in a gift which makes it a permanent part of your being. Every gift can be discarded or rejected if it is not treasured, loved, and kept safe. In fact, that's how iron boxes with locks on them came to be called "Safes." We put precious things in them to KEEP them SAFE from being lost.
God does not force anyone to love Him.
God does not force anyone to obey Him.
God does not force anyone to remain in union with Him.
John 15:6 “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."
The use of word "IF" means that there are alternative possible results. God would not have used an "IF" if it were not possible to once be in "In Christ" and then to cease to be "in Christ."

Jhn 15:9-10 “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love."
That verse states that there is a requirement for remaining in Jesus' love: Keep His commandments."
Again, the word "IF" introduces the possibility of two alternative outcomes: (1) remain in His love and (2) be excluded from His love.

None of this is is rocket science. Jesus, though using a metaphor, was speaking clearly to his disciples so that they would understand exactly what He meant. Those of the OSAS tribe consistently obfuscate and confuse what was clearly stated.

Imho

iakov the fool

 

[Papa Zoom]

Thank you Papa Zoom
Well written,,,, nicely said

although i do disagree

We see these 2 stories these folks were not overcomers ... they rejected the inheritance offered.. Esau was born wiht it and Lot's wife turned her back on it.

As much as the examples of over comers like Job these also carry a strong lesson ...
my view ...

I'm going to try to address that upcoming. I wanted to lay out my bottom line first.

 

[Jim Parker]

Actually, Paul says that eternal life is a gift of God in Rom 6:23.

Rom 6:23
For the wages of sin is death,
but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Wages are what we earn.
Gifts are what are given to us without requiring anything of us.
Paul is contrasting "gift" with "wage."
Wages can be lost and so can a gift.
There is absolutely NOTHING that says the gift cannot be lost or rejected.

And Paul says that the gifts of God are irrevocable in Rom 11:29.

You are conflating two different topics; eternal life (the gift given to those who believe in Jesus) and Israel's calling and gifting which had nothing to do with eternal life.

The gift of God to Israel was the promised land, not eternal life.
Deu 5:33 You shall walk in all the way which the LORD your God has commanded you, that you may live, and that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land which you shall possess.

And Israel's calling was to be a kingdom of priests. (those who intercede with God for others, God's representatives on earth to the people of the earth) Again, it had nothing to do with eternal life.
Exo 19:5-6 Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."

Rom 11:29-32 is in reference to Israel's disobedience and to the fact that, as with Gentiles who sin, in the end, after the Gentiles have been saved, God will have mercy on Israel as well and they will also be saved.
Rom 11:25-26a Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved.

So the calling of Israel is to be a kingdom of priests; the gift of God concerning Israel is the promised land and, when taking in its context, your proof-text does NOT say anything in support of OSAS.

But that's what always happens when people take pieces of what people say and attempt to make it sound like they said something entirely different. The media does that all the time. We should try not to imitate them.

 

[reba]

I'm going to try to address that upcoming. I wanted to lay out my bottom line first.

Reading a discussion is a pleasure...

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I've stated before that I don’t think discussions on OSAS are helpful.

I've been helped by several people who have discussed the non-OSAS view in this and other forums. I used to be a fence sitter regarding the subject. Not anymore. Not after considering all the scriptural truth about the matter. Other brothers and sisters have helped me understand the subject better.

Losing one’s salvation is the same as becoming unborn-again.

And you can't be unborn for what reason?
There's nothing hard about God taking the Holy Spirit out of a person as easily as he put Him in there.

*The Bible doesn't say anything. You have to read it and YOU have to determine it’s meaning. If the Bible was always crystal clear, people wouldn't hold to so many different views of the same “teachings” of Scripture.

Actually, the problem with competing doctrines is usually one of them has failed to consider the whole counsel of scripture in their interpretation of scripture. The subject of non-OSAS is addressed so clearly and plainly in scripture that I'm amazed that people actually think otherwise, but I know it can take a long time to bring down a hardened indoctrination in a person. Once a person's vision gets programmed a certain way it can be difficult to deprogram it. That's not necessarily a criticism. That's just the way it is. The church leadership has been programming the church to be OSAS for quite a while now (that is a criticism).

*The person to trust least with regard to understanding a Biblical text is yourself. You are not flawless.

This is easily the biggest reason the church can be so blinded and confused on subjects like this. Most Christians simply do not know the scriptures well enough to be able to discern for themselves truth from error. I wish Christians would see to it that their studies would make them the most trust worthy source of understanding. But until that happens, they will indeed continue to be the least capable to understand the scriptures.

Regarding Esau and Lot’s wife: Their actions did not cause them to lose their salvation.

Hebrews uses Esau as an illustration here:

"14Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord. 15See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled; 16that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. 17For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears." (Hebrews 12:14-17 NASB)

And Jesus uses Lot's wife as an example here:

"29but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30“It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. 31“On that day, the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one who is in the field must not turn back. 32“Remember Lot’s wife. 33“Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it." (Luke 17:29-33 NASB)

The matter being addressed by using their stories is indeed eternal salvation.

Better is to ask is: “Is Jesus able to keep a saved person from falling?” The answer to this question is yes. So if Jesus can keep you from stumbling, how can you then also be not kept?

Jude 1:24 To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy--

This is true for those who cling to him for that help. It is not true for those who stubbornly and arrogantly turn away from him. The saint is kept by the power of God through faith (1 Peter 1:5 NASB). Without faith you have no access to the power of God to keep you.

I'll be back.....gotta go put my ducks in before the coons git 'em. Quack.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Like I said, I'm not going to get in a back and forth. I believe my views are supported by Scripture. So do others regarding their views. Two opposing views both supported by Scripture. And both make the same claim that they have viewed the whole council of God (or even that they were guided by the HS into understanding the issue) and both claim of the other that they are missing something. I've seen this a thousand times. So I simply present my arguments (more to come) and you are free to make of it what you will.

 

[JLB]

Even though my response here is tagged off of Reba's post, I'm addressing the entire group that's posted here. Keep that in mind.

---------
​

This will likely be long because the topic isn't addressed in simple sound bites. I’ll post it in parts and feel free to ignore it for its length. I don’t like long posts myself. If I want to read a book, I’ll buy one. But the question can’t be answered without fully addressing the issue from all points.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts here with us.

Please consider this point, along the lines of be "un-born again".

When we are born again, we have been born of God and are now considered sons of God through faith... in Jesus Christ.

• For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:26

We will be considered sons of God in all fullness, when we attain the resurrection of the dead, in which we will be considered as equal to the angels.

35 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

• Angels are sons of God.

• Angels were cast down to hell.

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; 2 Peter 2:4


The Point: Just because you are a son of God, does not prevent you from being cast into hell.


The devil is still an angel.
The devil did not become an un-angel, or an un-son of God, but will still be cast into the everlasting fires of hell, which were prepared for him and his angels.


“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: Matthew 25:41


If a person honestly wants to know the truth, about who Jesus was speaking to here, then I would encourage a thorough read of Matthew 25, and even starting in Matthew 24 with verse 45.

45 “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing.47 Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods.48 But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’49 and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, 50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of,51 and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 24:45-51


When Jesus said these words - ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: He was speaking to His servants. Not unbelievers.



JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

1 John 2:19 ‘they were not all of us’ They looked saved but they were not born of God.

Now read it in context:

"19They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. 20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. 21I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.

25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.

26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you." (1 John 2:19-26 NASB bold and underline mine)

In verse 24 John warns the believers he's talking to to not to do the same thing in departing from the truth as those did in vs. 19, making it very clear that they, too, can be deceived, depart from the truth and, as a result, no longer abide in the Father and the Son. And vs.25 shows us this matter of abiding is indeed in regard to eternal life (vs.26).

I have found 'not rightly dividing the word' is the hallmark of false doctrine. In this case, OSAS gets based on vs. 19 being not rightly divided away and isolated from the other things John says in the passage that show us he in no way whatsoever was establishing a OSAS doctrine, but rather the exact opposite.

Hebrews 3:14 Perseverance to the end is evidence that a person is in Christ. If one doesn't persevere, they were not of us (those that are saved).

This is the traditional OSAS view. I have complete respect for it because it at least retains the requirement to believe to the end to be saved. Hopefully, you are aware that hyper-grace OSAS says you can denounce Christ after becoming a believer, return to your old lifestyle of flagrant unrepentant sin, outright deny Christ, and you will still be saved, no matter what. I have zero respect for such an outrageous argument. That version of OSAS most certainly is worth talking about for if someone hears that message and decides their struggle with sin is no fun anymore they will be inclined to give up and return to the world thinking they are safe to do so because they've been told they will still be saved on the Day of Wrath.

The error of this doctrine is rooted in an ignorance of Paul's faith vs. works for justification doctrine. Hyper-grace doctrine carelessly says that justification/ salvation are conditioned on nothing at all, and, therefore, there is nothing you can do to lose your justification/salvation, not even unbelief. Well, they foolishly forget that justification most certainly is conditioned on something--faith. You must satisfy that condition for justification right to the very end, just as you had to satisfy that condition to get saved in the first place:

"1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

But they insist that makes the gospel a works gospel. But I have yet to stumble onto the verse of scripture that says faith is a damnable work of the infamous works gospel. To continue to be saved you must continue to believe. Faith is not a self righteous work of man. It wasn't when you first believed, and neither is it when you continue to believe.

 

[FreeGrace]

Papa Zoom said this:
"I've stated before that I don’t think discussions on OSAS are helpful. That’s because the issue is very confusing and there are many competing voices out there. There are but two possibilities: You can be saved (born again - a new creature in Christ) and never lose that which you have been given (it is a gift from God) OR you can be a saved, Born Again Believer, A New Person In Christ, and become unborn again and become a Not-A-New-Person-In-Christ. The Bible does not teach the latter in my view. Losing one’s salvation is the same as becoming unborn-again."

Thank you Papa Zoom
Well written,,,, nicely said

although i do disagree

One either disagrees because of facts, or disagrees because of emotions (no facts, just feelings). His point is that the Bible does not teach that a born again believer can be un-born. A point that I have made over and over. No Scripture comes even close to that idea.

Since the Bible does teach about the new birth, becoming new creatures, if it were possible for one who has experienced the new birth and has become a new creature, the Bible would most surely teach such. But it doesn't.

We see these 2 stories these folks were not overcomers ... they rejected the inheritance offered.. Esau was born wiht it and Lot's wife turned her back on it.

A proper understanding of how the Bible uses "overcomers" and "inheritance", there is no conflict.

 

[FreeGrace]

I can lose any gift I don't exercise diligence to keep.

Then show the biblical teaching as it relates to the gift of eternal life. All this just shows you're treating eternal life as an object, when it is MUCH MORE than an object. It's NEW LIFE.

I can throw away any gift that of which I become tired.

Please show from the Bible that eternal life can be thrown away.

There is nothing inherent in a gift which makes it a permanent part of your being.

Opinion noted. No Scripture to back up your opinion, though.

 

[FreeGrace]

Rom 6:23
For the wages of sin is death,
but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Wages are what we earn.
Gifts are what are given to us without requiring anything of us.
Paul is contrasting "gift" with "wage."

Yes, in Rom 6:23.

Wages can be lost and so can a gift.

Where is your opinion supported in Scripture?

In fact, Paul doesn't allow your opinion because of Rom 11:29, which is about AT THE VERY LEAST, ALL the gifts of God that he had already described in Romans.

There is absolutely NOTHING that says the gift cannot be lost or rejected.

Not in 6:23. That is found in 11:29, since both verses are about the gifts of God.

The gift of God to Israel was the promised land, not eternal life.
Deu 5:33 You shall walk in all the way which the LORD your God has commanded you, that you may live, and that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land which you shall possess.

This verse says NOTHING about the promised land being a gift. And 11:29 isn't about any promise. It's about ACTUAL gifts. 3 of which Paul already described specifically.

 

[FreeGrace]

And you can't be unborn for what reason?

The Bible NEVER suggests such a thing.

There's nothing hard about God taking the Holy Spirit out of a person as easily as he put Him in there.

Then please support your claim from any verse in the NT that warns of the loss of the Holy Spirit.

 

[FreeGrace]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts here with us.

Please consider this point, along the lines of be "un-born again".

When we are born again, we have been born of God and are now considered sons of God through faith... in Jesus Christ.

• For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:26

• Let's consider 1 Pet 1:23 - For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

So, being "born again" is "of IMPERISHABLE SEED", not perishable seed.

This verse clinches eternal security. Because our being born again is of IMperishable seed, those so born again CAN NEVER PERISH.

The same principle found in John 10:28, where Jesus said that those He GIVES eternal life WILL NEVER PERISH. So in order to 'never perish', one must have been given eternal life.

Jesus made the same point in John 3:15,16, 5:24, 6:40, 47.

And Paul made that same point from Rom 6:23 by describing eternal life as a gift of God, and then describing God's gifts as irrevocable.

So Scripture is consistent: those who believe HAVE eternal life, and WILL NEVER PERISH.

And there are NO verses that warn us that eternal life can be removed. Or, that we can be UNborn.