Saved by Grace Through Faith, Not by Works

[FreeGrace]

It's interesting how it's all about context in 2 Timothy 2 for the Hyper-grace argument, yet it completely and utterly resists context in Romans 11:28-31 NASB.

No it doesn't.

Please show me EXACTLY where Paul excluded the gift of eternal life from irrevocable gifts anywhere in Rom 11.

 

[FreeGrace]

You do not find that it has to do with Christ in human form, performing miracles.

One sure does in context.

It is an evil speaking(continual) of the Holy Spirit.

Not in context.

This can be exemplified by someone speaking evil about the working of the Spirit in another's life, and it can also be found by denying the power of the Spirit to lead us away from sin. It is simply a denial, any and all, of the Spirit of God.

Not according to the context.

 

[FreeGrace]

I see your argument perfectly.

Really?

What I have noticed in these debates is the failure of OSAS to even understand the non-OSAS argument, let alone agree with it.

Here is what I've learned from the posts of those in OSNAS:
One is saved only as long as one believes in Christ.
One loses salvation by various sins.

My post about the competency of the High Priest proved that once again.

How "competent" is One who saves people, but then loses them because of what they do? That doesn't look very competent.

OSAS is completely blinded to the non-OSAS understanding of the perfect ministry of the High Priest.

If OSNAS views Christ's ministry as "perfect", then how in the world can it be said that some of those saved can lose it? That's not perfect.

I'm confident that you can not prove that you even understand the non-OSAS understanding of Jesus' perfect ministry.

I understand perfectly what the Bible teaches. Jesus saves and Jesus keeps, all based on His work on the cross.

Explaining it back to me would prove you understand it. But I don't think you are able to do that. You will make up an excuse of why you won't even try.

lol. I just hope you've read all of this post. Proving your opinion wrong once again.

 

[FreeGrace]

Very interesting how context is of supreme importance except when it chaffs against one's doctrine like it does for Hyper-grace in Romans 11:28-31 NASB.

Where in that context does Paul exclude the gift of eternal life from God's irrevocable gifts?

 

[FreeGrace]

Pro 15:10
There is severe discipline for him who forsakes the way;
whoever hates reproof will die.

OK, prove with scholarly sources that "will die" refers to eternal death, not physical death. Just look at 1 Cor 11:30 to find the scope of God's discipline toward believers: weak, sickly, and sleep. Paul wasn't speaking of nighty night with "sleep". He used a euphemism for physical death. Just as Jesus did in John 11 in reference to Lazarus, who died physically and Jesus brought back from death.

 

[Nathan]

.

This answer by Nathan is referring to 2 Tim 2:12, and its context to me is the quality of reward of reigning or not reigning with Christ due to our enduring (suffering) or not. Rom 8:17 Paul said it this way: "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; IF so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

In one of my posts I compared another reward also mentioned for faithfully keeping the word of God, and that was to be kept from the temptation to come upon all the world. Rev 3:10, i.e., being caught up to be with Jesus pretrib.

I don't think its quality of reward. Denying Christ is not a quality issue - never has been. The word "deny" is the same as rejecting. In context, it would read "if we reject Christ, He will reject us". I've never found anywhere in the Bible that Christ rejecting us is simply rejecting a reward.

deny - arnéomai, ar-neh'-om-ahee; perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the middle voice of G4483; to contradict, i.e. disavow, reject, abnegate:—deny, refuse.

In Matthew, when Jesus is speaking of denying Him, He likens it to not fearing those who can just kill the body - but fearing Him who can destroy both body and soul in hell. To be destroyed in hell is not simply loosing out on some reward - its loosing out on life.

Mat 10:26-33
“So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

God accepts us based on what Christ did, not on what we do. If Christ denies us to the Father, then the Father will not accept us. We cannot circumvent Christ into eternal life. If we deny Christ, He will reject us before the Father. The Father is not going to then welcome us in.

 

[Nathan]

One sure does in context.


Not in context.


Not according to the context.

Context?

Mat 12:31-32
Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Context says that Christ Himself said it was not about Him, rather, it was about the Holy Spirit.

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit and Christ are separate persons of the Godhead? I just had a thought that if you do think they are the same then I can see how you are coming up with your conclusion. However, simply from this passage(not counting others) we can see that they are separate.

 

[Nathan]

OK, prove with scholarly sources that "will die" refers to eternal death, not physical death. Just look at 1 Cor 11:30 to find the scope of God's discipline toward believers: weak, sickly, and sleep. Paul wasn't speaking of nighty night with "sleep". He used a euphemism for physical death. Just as Jesus did in John 11 in reference to Lazarus, who died physically and Jesus brought back from death.

Are you a universalist? How do you define death other than ceasing to live? That is how you define death. Does someone who dies have life in them? Look at creation. It will show you plainly that those things that are dead, which have died, have no life in them.

If I were talking about sleep, as Paul does, then I would use the word sleep. Yes, those who are in Christ - who have not denied Him - and are physically dead, are just sleeping. Why? Because they are in Christ and He is life. Those who have denied Christ have denied His life, and they are dead - eternally. They will not receive eternal life.

Heb 12:7-8
It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

If you 'hate' reproof then you are not being subject to discipline - and then you are not legitimate children. You cannot serve two masters - its impossible.

Luk 16:13
No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

You cannot hate reproof and love it at the same time. If you hate reproof from God, then you hate God.

Jer 7:28
And you shall say to them, ‘This is the nation that did not obey the voice of the LORD their God, and did not accept discipline; truth has perished; it is cut off from their lips.

 

[Eugene]

God accepts us based on what Christ did, not on what we do.

I sure agree with that!!! But I give up. Thanks.

 

[Nathan]

I sure agree with that!!! But I give up. Thanks.

Don't give up - endure.

Sorry, couldn't resist the pun.

 

[FreeGrace]

Context?

Yes, context. The 2 verses provided in your post do not constitute a context.

Mat 12:31-32
Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Context says that Christ Himself said it was not about Him, rather, it was about the Holy Spirit.[/QUOTE]
Let's look at the actual context: v.22-32

22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see.
23 All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”
24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”
25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.
26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?
27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges.
28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
29 “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.
30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Now see that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the issue from v.27?

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit and Christ are separate persons of the Godhead? I just had a thought that if you do think they are the same then I can see how you are coming up with your conclusion.

No. They are separate members of the Trinity.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"OK, prove with scholarly sources that "will die" refers to eternal death, not physical death. Just look at 1 Cor 11:30 to find the scope of God's discipline toward believers: weak, sickly, and sleep. Paul wasn't speaking of nighty night with "sleep". He used a euphemism for physical death. Just as Jesus did in John 11 in reference to Lazarus, who died physically and Jesus brought back from death."

Are you a universalist?

Absolutely NOT.

How do you define death other than ceasing to live?

This may be the root of your problem in understanding Scripture. James defines physical death as separation of soul and body in 2:26.

We understand spiritual death as separation of the person from God. We understand Abraham's impotence as sexual death, or loss of function, as noted in Rom 4:19 and Heb 11:12. And there is the "death" of fellowship, meaning a loss of fellowship, as seen in the prodigal son parable, where the father described his son as 'dead' when he wasn't physically dead. And spiritual death wasn't an issue in that parable.

That is how you define death.

See above.

If I were talking about sleep, as Paul does, then I would use the word sleep. Yes, those who are in Christ - who have not denied Him - and are physically dead, are just sleeping. Why? Because they are in Christ and He is life. Those who have denied Christ have denied His life, and they are dead - eternally. They will not receive eternal life.

It appears that figures of speech or metaphors are unfamiliar to you. Just read John 11 and see how Jesus used "sleep" to mean physical death.

 

[Nathan]

I said this:
"OK, prove with scholarly sources that "will die" refers to eternal death, not physical death. Just look at 1 Cor 11:30 to find the scope of God's discipline toward believers: weak, sickly, and sleep. Paul wasn't speaking of nighty night with "sleep". He used a euphemism for physical death. Just as Jesus did in John 11 in reference to Lazarus, who died physically and Jesus brought back from death."

Absolutely NOT.


This may be the root of your problem in understanding Scripture. James defines physical death as separation of soul and body in 2:26.

We understand spiritual death as separation of the person from God. We understand Abraham's impotence as sexual death, or loss of function, as noted in Rom 4:19 and Heb 11:12. And there is the "death" of fellowship, meaning a loss of fellowship, as seen in the prodigal son parable, where the father described his son as 'dead' when he wasn't physically dead. And spiritual death wasn't an issue in that parable.


See above.


It appears that figures of speech or metaphors are unfamiliar to you. Just read John 11 and see how Jesus used "sleep" to mean physical death.

Death is the separation of the person from God - by your own definition(which I believe is correct). And yet you claim that a person who once believed, and then separates himself from God, will not end up with that same spiritual death?

Is separation not separation?

If a person is separated from Christ, then are they not in that state of spiritual death?

 

[Gregg T]

Peter denied (ἀρνέομαι) Jesus three times, and yet the Lord restored him to fellowship, to a position as Apostle, and to service in the Church.

 

[Nathan]

Peter denied (ἀρνέομαι) Jesus three times, and yet the Lord restored him to fellowship, to a position as Apostle, and to service in the Church.

Great! Now we see some common sense being used. Thank You.

Right, Peter did deny Christ - yet Christ did not reject him - why? Because it was not a constant state of denial. That was the whole point of showing "if" is not just a one time conditional clause.

Peter returned to Christ after denying Him - and I dare say that he did not die in that state of denial.

We do know that Peter did stumble a little later on, and Paul had to rebuke him - but it was not a constant state of denial.

"If we deny Him......" is simply saying we cannot go on the way we want to after being united with Him in death, denying Him by doing our own thing, and then expect for Him to accept us into eternity.

 

[MarkT]

But since the gift of eternal life is given WHEN one believes, per John 5:24, they already HAVE the gift by the time they might fall away from the faith.

Re. Romans 11:29 I said, 'OK But that doesn't mean the person who falls into unbelief is going to share in the gifts.'

Re. John 5:24 Those who hear his word and believe him who sent Jesus do not fall into unbelief. John 10:28-29

We are talking about those who do fall into unbelief.

Does Romans 11 mean the person who falls into unbelief will share in the gifts?

 

[chessman]

Right, Peter did deny Christ

Matthew 26:69-70 (NASB) Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a servant-girl came to him and said, “You too were with Jesus the Galilean.” But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you are talking about.” ​

From the context, "Denial of Christ" is not possible today. Like blasphemy, You'd have to have been physically with Jesus in order to "deny" Christ Jesus.


...
And approached by servant girl.

Oh, and at night.

Oh, and while seated.

P.s. Seated in a courtyard.

Almost forgot, the courtyard would need to be that of the High Priest.

 

[Gregg T]

Peter returned to Christ after denying Him - and I dare say that he did not die in that state of denial.

Christ let Peter's denial go unanswered for a period of time, denying him an immediate restoration of relationship; and then rather, Jesus sought out Peter that he may be restored. Jesus rebuked him publically among several of the disciples, as was fitting for his public denial of Christ.

Peter was grieved in the heart at what he did, knowing his profession of faith and his believing in Christ. Should he have died in that state of denial, he still believed into Christ, and had eternal life in Him. The point is not what might happen if we die physically, but what God does with believers because we are alive in Christ. He desires to teach us His ways. Should we not walk in them, or should we rebel even from the heart, it is God's desire to correct us and to restore us. We stand in His grace, and we belong to Chrst having been set firmly in Him, and we are sealed by His Spirit.

 

[Nathan]

Matthew 26:69-70 (NASB) Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a servant-girl came to him and said, “You too were with Jesus the Galilean.” But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you are talking about.” ​

From the context, "Denial of Christ" is not possible today. Like blasphemy, You'd have to have been physically with Jesus in order to "deny" Christ Jesus.


...
And approached by servant girl.

Oh, and at night.

Oh, and while seated.

P.s. Seated in a courtyard.

Almost forgot, the courtyard would need to be that of the High Priest.

Your right - if you were Peter.

 

[Nathan]

Christ let Peter's denial go unanswered for a period of time, denying him an immediate restoration of relationship; and then rather, Jesus sought out Peter that he may be restored. Jesus rebuked him publically among several of the disciples, as was fitting for his public denial of Christ.

Peter was grieved in the heart at what he did, knowing his profession of faith and his believing in Christ. Should he have died in that state of denial, he still believed into Christ, and had eternal life in Him. The point is not what might happen if we die physically, but what God does with believers because we are alive in Christ. He desires to teach us His ways. Should we not walk in them, or should we rebel even from the heart, it is God's desire to correct us and to restore us. We stand in His grace, and we belong to Chrst having been set firmly in Him, and we are sealed by His Spirit.

Right, we should never despise the correction of God. If we despise it, and reject it, then it will only harden our hearts toward Him.

I find it nice Jesus prayed for Peter to return to Him. No doubt, had Peter not, he would share the same fate as Judas.