Saved by Grace Through Faith, Not by Works

[Nathan]

correct


Peter didn't say the false prophets served God.


If the master hasn't "redeemed" them, yes. The price was paid but the redemption is lacking for the false prophets. However, that is not the case for His servants:

1 Peter 1:18-23 because you know that you were redeemed [to restore "something back, into the possession of its rightful owner – i.e. rescuing from the power and possession of an alien possessor"] from your futile way of life inherited from your ancestors not with perishable things like silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb who was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has been revealed in these last times for you who through him are believing in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for sincere brotherly love, love one another fervently from the heart, because you have been born again, not from perishable seed but imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.​

He's paid the price for all mankind. But the Christian faith, is not a universalist faith. Redemption is necessary.

1 John 2:2 and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. ​

The writer was obviously not talking about our glorified/resurrected bodies, nor Christ's glorified body either.

Saved people "now are" the body (glorified body) of Christ.



You are not using Texts that speak of the imperishable attributes of Christ's glorified body. For obvious reasons.

I thought you looked into the meanings of words? Did you miss that the word "bought" is the same thing as redeem?

Who does a person serve? Their master or another?

Peter states that "the Master" bought(redeemed) them who then denied him. If the redemption of Christ was not on them then Peter could not have said the Master bought them.

Bought - agorázō, ag-or-ad'-zo; from G58; properly, to go to market, i.e. (by implication) to purchase; specially, to redeem:—buy, redeem.

Those teachers Peter speaks of most certainly had been redeemed past tense. That's why Peter could use the term "Master" to describe who they were denying.

You may have missed a question of mine? What is our birthright as new born in Christ?

 

[Nathan]

correct


Peter didn't say the false prophets served God.


If the master hasn't "redeemed" them, yes. The price was paid but the redemption is lacking for the false prophets. However, that is not the case for His servants:

1 Peter 1:18-23 because you know that you were redeemed [to restore "something back, into the possession of its rightful owner – i.e. rescuing from the power and possession of an alien possessor"] from your futile way of life inherited from your ancestors not with perishable things like silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb who was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has been revealed in these last times for you who through him are believing in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for sincere brotherly love, love one another fervently from the heart, because you have been born again, not from perishable seed but imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.​

He's paid the price for all mankind. But the Christian faith, is not a universalist faith. Redemption is necessary.

1 John 2:2 and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. ​

The writer of Hebrews was obviously not talking about our glorified/resurrected bodies in that Text, nor Christ's glorified body either.

Saved people "now are" the body (glorified body) of Christ.



You are not using Texts that speak of the imperishable attributes of Christ's glorified body. For obvious reasons.

On a side note, when you twist up my post and rearrange the order I made my comments, it can be very hard to understand what I'm saying. Much in the same way when we twist the passages of the Bible, and rearrange them, they can be difficult to understand.

Things are always written in an order for a purpose. It's wise to leave them in that order.

 

[FreeGrace]

Being saved is having eternal life in you. Can't have one without the other.

Right.

If Timothy had eternal life already, then why did Paul tell him to take hold of it? Why hold on to something that's impossible to not have once you have it?

So, what do you think Paul was referring to? That Tim didn't have it? Or could lose it? Was Paul speaking literally?

We know that Tim DID have it. We know that one cannot lose it because Paul described eternal life as a gift of God before he penned that God's gifts are irrevocable (Rom 6:23 - 11:29).

1 Timothy 6:12 (ESV)
Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

This is from one of my commentaries on this verse:

"Of course, all believers have eternal life as a present possession (John 5:24, 6:47, 11:26). Paul is saying that believers may in the life to come (eternity) have a fuller experience a more abundant experiene, of eternal life. To do that, one must ly hold on that future fullness of life now. In other words, one must seek that abundant life now to get it later."

I hope this is helpful in understanding what Paul was referring to.

 

[FreeGrace]

So is eternal life perpetual in a person if he is not in Christ anymore?

The error is to assume that one who has been placed "in Christ" can be removed from Him. That is not possible. No how, no way, no sir.

We know this from Eph 1:13,14. All "having believed" (aorist - simple occurrence) are sealed IN HIM with the Holy Spirit. Then Paul continues that the Holy Spirit is a deposit guaranteeing God's possession for the day of redemption.

OSAS means once saved always saved. It also means once sealed, always sealed.

Further, there are no verses that speak of believers losing the Holy Spirit. So we can't assume that we can. and we shouldn't.

 

[Nathan]

Right.


So, what do you think Paul was referring to? That Tim didn't have it? Or could lose it? Was Paul speaking literally?

We know that Tim DID have it. We know that one cannot lose it because Paul described eternal life as a gift of God before he penned that God's gifts are irrevocable (Rom 6:23 - 11:29).


This is from one of my commentaries on this verse:

"Of course, all believers have eternal life as a present possession (John 5:24, 6:47, 11:26). Paul is saying that believers may in the life to come (eternity) have a fuller experience a more abundant experiene, of eternal life. To do that, one must ly hold on that future fullness of life now. In other words, one must seek that abundant life now to get it later."

I hope this is helpful in understanding what Paul was referring to.

So do we have it now, or do we have it later? How can you gain more eternal life, a fuller experience, if you already have it?

You say that eternal life is something we got(past tense) and currently have(present tense) correct? Yet you say that we have it and it cannot go away because its eternal, yet you say that there is still more to come? Seems very contradictory to me - quite confusing.

Maybe if we looked at what the words used mean, then we could better understand.

1Ti 6:12
Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

epilambánomai, ep-ee-lam-ban'-om-ahee; middle voice from G1909 and G2983; to seize (for help, injury, attainment, or any other purpose; literally or figuratively):—catch, lay hold (up-)on, take (by, hold of, on)

If we base our thoughts off the words given to us, then things might not be so confusing. Its clear that Paul was telling Timothy to seize and hold on to the eternal life. It plainly is saying that Timothy should not do the opposite, which would be to let go of - not something about a future thing - its a very present tense thing.

If I said, "freegrace, take hold of that fishing rod I gave you and about which you thanked me for."; would you think that I meant for you to do it in the future? Would you think that I meant you would have a 'more abundant experience' in the future? Or, would you think reasonably, from simple thoughts, that I just wanted you to grab a hold of that fishing pole? Why make more out of something than there is?

 

[Nathan]

The error is to assume that one who has been placed "in Christ" can be removed from Him. That is not possible. No how, no way, no sir.

We know this from Eph 1:13,14. All "having believed" (aorist - simple occurrence) are sealed IN HIM with the Holy Spirit. Then Paul continues that the Holy Spirit is a deposit guaranteeing God's possession for the day of redemption.

OSAS means once saved always saved. It also means once sealed, always sealed.

Further, there are no verses that speak of believers losing the Holy Spirit. So we can't assume that we can. and we shouldn't.

Impossible completely? Like, would you say its as impossible as it is for God to lie?

Gal 5:4
You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

You reckon Paul knew it was impossible(as you say) to be severed from Christ? Personally, I would reckon Paul knew a bit more about Christ, and life in Him, than we do.

severed - katargéō, kat-arg-eh'-o; from G2596 and G691; to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively:—abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

You reckon that being made "void" of Christ is simple enough to understand He is not in us anymore?

If I gave you a check for $100, and then wrote "void" across it, do you reckon you could cash that in for the money still?

 

[Gregg T]

Did you examine this subject from the viewpoint of non-OSAS and not just from the OSAS viewpoint?
If you did, I'd be curious how you came to the conclusion that a believer can not fall away into unbelief and be lost despite all the warnings to not do that and the consequences for doing that. You could start with this one:

"6but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
7“Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
8“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. 9“If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell." (Matthew 18:6-9 NASB)

Since you are new to the forum I will point out that Christ is talking about people who believe in Him, not fake believers, and the hell that the stumbled little one who believes in Christ will go to if not delivered from the stumbling block is the actual eternal hell, not temporal suffering. And, Jesus himself interprets the metaphor of the hand, foot, and eye, so the passage can't be dismissed on the basis of him speaking in an unknown and undefined metaphor.

I bring this all up because these are the areas that have been assailed by others to make the passage 'not really' mean what it says. I put the 'not really' in quotes because it occurred to me in my own examination of OSAS vs. non-OSAS that the OSAS doctrine was based on so many passages of the Bible 'not really' meaning what they so plainly say. There are so many that I call them the 'not really' arguments of the OSAS doctrine. It seems OSAS always has an answer as to why a passage of scripture 'doesn't really' mean what it is so plainly states. Meanwhile, non-OSAS does not have to do that to defend itself with the Bible. In non-OSAS a person is secure in eternal life as long as he is continuing to believe in Christ. The scriptures easily and plainly bear this truth out and does not require the use of 'not really' arguments to prove it's point. In non-OSAS you simply have to know what the Bible says about this subject. In OSAS you have to be taught the ways that make plain passages of the Bible 'not really' mean what they are so plainly saying.

Your dichotomy between non-OSAS and OSAS is not jointly exhaustive as there are other alternatives. When I examine the Scriptures, the OSAS viewpoint lines up very well with the Scriptures.

How can I conclude a believer can not be lost? When studying the Scriptures I look for the simplest and most concise truths; such as Jn 3:16 - "whosoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life." I study the Greek text to the best of my ability to make sure of what I am reading; examing verb tense, voice, and mood, examing the forms of nouns and adjectives and prepositions, sentence structure and word placement. Then I look at the immediate context, here Jn 3:14-15, 17-18, to see if there is anything relative to the verse I am reading; then to the entire chapter to understand the broader flow of thought. If there is a reference to an OT passage then I will read it to understand why it was called upon; such as Jn 3;14-15 which refers to Num 21:5-9. In the course of studying I will see if there are other Scripures which may support (Jn 10:27-29, Jn 1:12, 3:36, 5:24, 6:47, . . . ) or contradict (nothing yet) the immediate verse. I am convinced in the simple veracity of Jn 3:16; and so to me it is a standard that is unmovable and unshakable. Should anything contradict it, then I reject it because two truths can not contradict one another.

Believe into Christ - never perish, have eternal life. So when someone attempts to tell me that is not true, and trys to reason away a simple, clear, and concise truth, begins to redefine words, employs double-speak, attempts to shake the foundation underneath me, well, I just stand there upon a firm foundation, unmoved, unshaken, and still know that life in Christ is eternal life.

-----

About Mat 18:6-9. Consider this, that Christ deposed (cut off from the nation of Israel) the rulers, priests, and teachers of Isreal. They were leading His betrothed and His children astray.

These are the hands, feet, mouth and eyes of Israel that Jesus was about to cut off:
Zep 3:3-4 Her princes within her are roaring lions, Her judges are wolves at evening; They leave nothing for the morning. Her prophets are reckless, treacherous men; Her priests have profaned the sanctuary. They have done violence to the law.

And this is what Christ did about it:
Zec 6:12-13 "Then say to him, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD. Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices."'

 

[FreeGrace]

I asked this:
"So, what do you think Paul was referring to? That Tim didn't have it? Or could lose it? Was Paul speaking literally?
"

So do we have it now, or do we have it later?

How is a question an answer to a question? Are you not able to answer my question?

How can you gain more eternal life, a fuller experience, if you already have it?

That comes by rewards in eternity. That's how.

You say that eternal life is something we got(past tense) and currently have(present tense) correct? Yet you say that we have it and it cannot go away because its eternal, yet you say that there is still more to come? Seems very contradictory to me - quite confusing.

What is "more to come" is eternity itself. And rewards for those who have earned them.

If I said, "freegrace, take hold of that fishing rod I gave you and about which you thanked me for."; would you think that I meant for you to do it in the future?

I've already given an explanation of what Paul meant. If there is disagreement, then please dissect it point by point to show me how and why I'm incorrect. I don't need unbiblical parables.

 

[Nathan]

I asked this:
"So, what do you think Paul was referring to? That Tim didn't have it? Or could lose it? Was Paul speaking literally?
"

How is a question an answer to a question? Are you not able to answer my question?

Sometimes an question is a good way to answer another question.

Paul was stating that Tim had it, and he should not foresake it - that is what the word (*edit)"take hold" refers to.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"The error is to assume that one who has been placed "in Christ" can be removed from Him. That is not possible. No how, no way, no sir.

We know this from Eph 1:13,14. All "having believed" (aorist - simple occurrence) are sealed IN HIM with the Holy Spirit. Then Paul continues that the Holy Spirit is a deposit guaranteeing God's possession for the day of redemption.

OSAS means once saved always saved. It also means once sealed, always sealed.

Further, there are no verses that speak of believers losing the Holy Spirit. So we can't assume that we can. and we shouldn't."

Impossible completely?

This doesn't make any sense. How can something that is "impossible" be "incompletely impossible"?

Like, would you say its as impossible as it is for God to lie?

What other kind of "impossible" is there?

Gal 5:4
You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

You reckon Paul knew it was impossible(as you say) to be severed from Christ? Personally, I would reckon Paul knew a bit more about Christ, and life in Him, than we do.

Was he speaking of the sealing ministry of the Holy Spirit to be undone? If so, then he has contradicted himself.

severed - katargéō, kat-arg-eh'-o; from G2596 and G691; to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively:—abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

I see nothing here about losing salvation, unsealing the Holy Spirit, or revoking eternal life.

Any believer who turns back to the Law has in effect, turned away from Christ. But there are NO VERSES that say that results in loss of salvation, unsealing of the Holy Spirit, or revoking eternal life.

You reckon that being made "void" of Christ is simple enough to understand He is not in us anymore?

Nope. Not even close. The verse doesn't say "make Christ void", if that's what you think. But again, turning back to the Law does result in loss of God's blessings. His blessings will have been made void in our lives.

If I gave you a check for $100, and then wrote "void" across it, do you reckon you could cash that in for the money still?

There is no relevance between this parable and Scripture.

btw, your "parable" focused on the LAST usage of the word for "sever". Why not look at the FIRST usage? When lists of meanings are given, the MOST COMMON usages are listed first. By returning to the Law, one renders His fellowship with Christ "entirely idle", or it "ceases", or has been "done away", and is "without effect".

That's what Paul was referring to.

To turn back to the Law indicates failing to believe in Christ's work on the cross, which fulfilled the Law. How can fellowship with the Lord continue when one does that?

The problem, as I see it, is that OSNAS has no concept of fellowship with the Lord, even though the word occurs throughout the NT.

 

[FreeGrace]

Sometimes an question is a good way to answer another question.

Not really. A question does not answer the question.

Paul was stating that Tim had it, and he should not foresake it - that is what the word "hold fast" refers to.

No believer has any power to get rid of the gift of eternal life. It isn't some object that can be lost through a hole in one's pocket, or by misplacing it by some absent minded believer. That's the problem with OSNAS. The gift is treated as an object. Which is silly. It is God's life itself, given to the one who has believed.

Jesus was clear about WHY people WILL NOT PERISH in John 10:28. He gives them eternal life. That's the criteria for never perishing. Being given eternal life.

So, those who have been given this gift WILL NEVER PERISH. That's what Jesus said.

A gift cannot be continuously given, because once received, the recipient HAS it.

So, from a single act of receiving what Jesus gives, on the basis of faith, is eternal life, which is a gift of God (Rom 6:23) and is irrevocable, since God's gifts are irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

If salvation can be lost, then either eternal life isn't a gift of God, rendering Rom 6:23 a lie, or God's gifts are not irrevocable, rendering Rom 11:29 a lie.

So, which verse is lying to us? Rom 6:23 or 11:29?

 

[Nathan]

I asked this:
"So, what do you think Paul was referring to? That Tim didn't have it? Or could lose it? Was Paul speaking literally?
"

How is a question an answer to a question? Are you not able to answer my question?


That comes by rewards in eternity. That's how.


What is "more to come" is eternity itself. And rewards for those who have earned them.


I've already given an explanation of what Paul meant. If there is disagreement, then please dissect it point by point to show me how and why I'm incorrect. I don't need unbiblical parables.

We cannot redefine eternal life to suit ourselves. Eternal life is not referring to rewards. Eternal life is either something we have, or something we do not have. We cannot redefine it to mean something we have, yet something more that we don't have yet. Either we have Him or we do not.

I gave you the example to help you see how to "take hold" of something is not referring to holding onto something in a future tense, but it is a present tense of holding onto. You seemed to have a problem seeing this, so I thought I would help by giving an example. If you want a Biblical example, I'll give you one of them.

Gen 25:29-34
Once when Jacob was cooking stew, Esau came in from the field, and he was exhausted. And Esau said to Jacob, “Let me eat some of that red stew, for I am exhausted!” (Therefore his name was called Edom). Jacob said, “Sell me your birthright now.” Esau said, “I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?” Jacob said, “Swear to me now.” So he swore to him and sold his birthright to Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.

Esau did not "take hold" of his birth right. He had it, it was his. He could not sell something that was not his.

Paul is telling Tim to hold onto his birthright, which is eternal life, not to despise it, or think less of it than it really is. "Take hold" is literally to not let go of something. Paul would not tell Tim this if it were "impossible"(as you say) to let go of it.

Heb 12:15-17
See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

 

[Nathan]

I said this:
"The error is to assume that one who has been placed "in Christ" can be removed from Him. That is not possible. No how, no way, no sir.

We know this from Eph 1:13,14. All "having believed" (aorist - simple occurrence) are sealed IN HIM with the Holy Spirit. Then Paul continues that the Holy Spirit is a deposit guaranteeing God's possession for the day of redemption.

OSAS means once saved always saved. It also means once sealed, always sealed.

Further, there are no verses that speak of believers losing the Holy Spirit. So we can't assume that we can. and we shouldn't."

This doesn't make any sense. How can something that is "impossible" be "incompletely impossible"?


What other kind of "impossible" is there?


Was he speaking of the sealing ministry of the Holy Spirit to be undone? If so, then he has contradicted himself.


I see nothing here about losing salvation, unsealing the Holy Spirit, or revoking eternal life.

Any believer who turns back to the Law has in effect, turned away from Christ. But there are NO VERSES that say that results in loss of salvation, unsealing of the Holy Spirit, or revoking eternal life.


Nope. Not even close. The verse doesn't say "make Christ void", if that's what you think. But again, turning back to the Law does result in loss of God's blessings. His blessings will have been made void in our lives.


There is no relevance between this parable and Scripture.

btw, your "parable" focused on the LAST usage of the word for "sever". Why not look at the FIRST usage? When lists of meanings are given, the MOST COMMON usages are listed first. By returning to the Law, one renders His fellowship with Christ "entirely idle", or it "ceases", or has been "done away", and is "without effect".

That's what Paul was referring to.

To turn back to the Law indicates failing to believe in Christ's work on the cross, which fulfilled the Law. How can fellowship with the Lord continue when one does that?

The problem, as I see it, is that OSNAS has no concept of fellowship with the Lord, even though the word occurs throughout the NT.

lol Paul is not contradicting himself, you are trying to contradict what Paul says.

You said it was impossible to be removed from Christ. Paul is telling those who desire to go back to living under the law that they are removing themselves from Christ. Are we supposed to believe you or Paul?

I do not think what Paul says is "make Christ void". What Paul says is that when those who desire to live under the law have made themselves void of Christ - separated - removed. Here it is again, plain words for you to see.

Gal 5:4
You are severed(removed, made void) from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

You are inserting words that are not there. Paul does not say fellowship anywhere in this verse. If you want to use the word "entirely idle" or "ceases", or "done away", that's fine. We can use those words. Paul says they are "entirely idle" from Christ. Paul says they are "ceased" from Christ. Paul says they "done away" from Christ. Why would you insert the words fellowship?

When you turn back to the law, away from Christ, you are denying the work of Christ - you are denying Christ. You are not just forsaking fellowship, you are forsaking Christ.

Do you know what fellowship is?

koinōnía, koy-nohn-ee'-ah; from G2844; partnership, i.e. (literally) participation, or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction:—(to) communicate(-ation), communion, (contri-)distribution, fellowship.

If I 'sever' myself from my wife, am I just not in partnership with her anymore - or have I completely cut off the relationship and all that it entails? Can I be severed from my wife and still be united with her? If we divorced, would we still be married?

It makes absolute no logical sense to say that being severed from something only means a loss of fellowship. It means a loss of everything. If you sever your finger from your hand does it still have life in it, or did you just lose the ability to feel it? I dare say that the finger you cut off would be useless - void of life - ceasing to work.

 

[Nathan]

No believer has any power to get rid of the gift of eternal life. It isn't some object that can be lost through a hole in one's pocket, or by misplacing it by some absent minded believer. That's the problem with OSNAS. The gift is treated as an object. Which is silly. It is God's life itself, given to the one who has believed.

Jesus was clear about WHY people WILL NOT PERISH in John 10:28. He gives them eternal life. That's the criteria for never perishing. Being given eternal life.

So, those who have been given this gift WILL NEVER PERISH. That's what Jesus said.

A gift cannot be continuously given, because once received, the recipient HAS it.

So, from a single act of receiving what Jesus gives, on the basis of faith, is eternal life, which is a gift of God (Rom 6:23) and is irrevocable, since God's gifts are irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

If salvation can be lost, then either eternal life isn't a gift of God, rendering Rom 6:23 a lie, or God's gifts are not irrevocable, rendering Rom 11:29 a lie.

So, which verse is lying to us? Rom 6:23 or 11:29?

I think you are so opposed to the idea, of trying to see what others have to say about the topic, that you impose a thought process that I personally do not hold to.

I never said a believer could "get rid of" eternal life. That's kind of illogical if you think about it. I am not eternal, so how could I get rid of something that is. I never said someone could lose it like you would something from your pocket either. Again, an illogical line of reasoning.

Eternal life is Christ. He is Eternal life. That is why if you are separated from Him, then you do not have Eternal life. You are treating it as something that can be had apart from Him.

1Jo 5:20
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

In John 10:28 Christ is speaking about the Holy Spirit. That is the same as Christ in us. That is what Eternal life is.

In Romans 6:23 Paul is speaking about the Holy Spirit. That is the Eternal life in us.

In Romans 11:29, you are taking a single verse out of its context - it says nothing about Eternal life.

Rom 8:9
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

It is the Spirit of God that is the Eternal life that is given to us, that lives in us, and that gives life to us. Separate yourself from Him(the Spirit) and you separate yourself from Eternal life.

Our new born birthright is the Spirit of God. If we despise the Spirit, separate ourselves from Him through desire for sin, then we sell off our birthright - we have no right to Eternal life at that time. No one takes Him from us. He does not take Himself from us. We leave Him.

1Jo 2:24
Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father.

2Jo 1:9
Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

Listen to what John says. Everyone, not just some people, who goes on ahead(leaving behind) the teaching of Christ(which dwells in us through His Spirit) - does not have God. Plain and simple words. However, if we abide(stay) in the teaching(in the Spirit) we do have the Father and the Son(through the Spirit).

 

[FreeGrace]

I asked this:
"So, what do you think Paul was referring to? That Tim didn't have it? Or could lose it? Was Paul speaking literally?"

We cannot redefine eternal life to suit ourselves.

This doesn't even address my question. Why are my questions being dodged?

Eternal life is not referring to rewards.

I didn't say it was. But Jesus noted a difference between "having life" and "having it MORE ABUNDANTLY. JOHN 10:10

I gave you the example to help you see how to "take hold" of something is not referring to holding onto something in a future tense, but it is a present tense of holding onto. You seemed to have a problem seeing this, so I thought I would help by giving an example. If you want a Biblical example, I'll give you one of them.

Gen 25:29-34
Once when Jacob was cooking stew, Esau came in from the field, and he was exhausted. And Esau said to Jacob, “Let me eat some of that red stew, for I am exhausted!” (Therefore his name was called Edom). Jacob said, “Sell me your birthright now.” Esau said, “I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?” Jacob said, “Swear to me now.” So he swore to him and sold his birthright to Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.

Esau did not "take hold" of his birth right. He had it, it was his. He could not sell something that was not his.

What does this have to do with the gift of eternal life? Nothing. His birthright isn't being equated with the gift of eternal life. He had the birthright by reason of his birth. You could say he was born with it. No one is born with eternal life.

Paul is telling Tim to hold onto his birthright, which is eternal life, not to despise it, or think less of it than it really is. "Take hold" is literally to not let go of something. Paul would not tell Tim this if it were "impossible"(as you say) to let go of it.

Nope.

 

[Nathan]

I asked this:
"So, what do you think Paul was referring to? That Tim didn't have it? Or could lose it? Was Paul speaking literally?"

This doesn't even address my question. Why are my questions being dodged?

I was not meaning to dodge your questions. I was answering them, but I suppose the answer did not come through clearly.

Paul is referring to Eternal Life. He was stating that Tim had it. He was telling Tim not to let go of it. Paul was speaking literally, as in "take hold" - "do not let go of" - Eternal Life.

 

[FreeGrace]

lol Paul is not contradicting himself, you are trying to contradict what Paul says.

Then just explain what Eph 1:13 and 14 mean.

You said it was impossible to be removed from Christ.

No, Paul said so. In Eph 1:13,14.

Paul is telling those who desire to go back to living under the law that they are removing themselves from Christ.

If that were so, then Paul WOULD HAVE contradicted himself because of Eph 1:13,14.

Are we supposed to believe you or Paul?

We are in agreement. It's your view that is not in sync with Paul.

You are inserting words that are not there.

I used the very words supplied by your definition of "sever", just as you did.

Paul does not say fellowship anywhere in this verse.

Nor did Paul ever use the word Trinity, but he sure believes in the Trinity.

If you want to use the word "entirely idle" or "ceases", or "done away", that's fine. We can use those words.

They're your words.

Paul says they are "entirely idle" from Christ. Paul says they are "ceased" from Christ. Paul says they "done away" from Christ. Why would you insert the words fellowship?

I didn't insert anything. I just explained what it means to be "idle" from Christ.

When you turn back to the law, away from Christ, you are denying the work of Christ - you are denying Christ. You are not just forsaking fellowship, you are forsaking Christ.

Any time a believer sins, they HAVE forsaken their Savior, who died for their sins.

However, please provide any verse that says in plain language that one can lose salvation for any reason.

Do you know what fellowship is?

I sure do. The question is: do you?

koinōnía, koy-nohn-ee'-ah; from G2844; partnership, i.e. (literally) participation, or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction:—(to) communicate(-ation), communion, (contri-)distribution, fellowship.

If I 'sever' myself from my wife, am I just not in partnership with her anymore - or have I completely cut off the relationship and all that it entails?

OK, it's obvious you don't know the difference between fellowship and relationship. And marriage is a good example of what each means.

A married couple is in a RELATIONSHIP, and in God's economy, is NOT to be broken. But, even though the RELATIONSHIP is intact, there MAY or MAYBE not be fellowship. Does this make sense to you?

An even better analogy is parent and child. That is a PERMANENT relationship. It cannot be broken. The parents who birthed you cannot be undone or changed. Period. However, there may be or may not be fellowship between parent and child.

Can I be severed from my wife and still be united with her? If we divorced, would we still be married?

That's the problem with using marriage as an example. In God's economy, there is no room for divorce. Marriage was designed for life.

So let's just focus on the parent-child relationship. It's much better because that relationship cannot be broken. And the Bible uses that kind of language in describing the relationship between believer and God the Father.

It makes absolute no logical sense to say that being severed from something only means a loss of fellowship.

It HAS to mean that, or the Bible is contradicted, which I totally reject. The gift of eternal life is irrevocable, from the plain language of Rom 6:23 and 11:29.

It means a loss of everything.

That would be an opinion.

If you sever your finger from your hand does it still have life in it, or did you just lose the ability to feel it? I dare say that the finger you cut off would be useless - void of life - ceasing to work.

Irrelevant analogy. You're taking a Bible word and trying to make it literal.

A believer cannot be taken out of union with Christ because of Eph 1:13,14.

I really need to see your explanation of what those 2 verses teach, since it seems we differ greatly about what they teach. I see eternal security all over it. If you don't, then please explain what it is teaching, so I can understand where you're coming from.

 

[Nathan]

I asked this:
"So, what do you think Paul was referring to? That Tim didn't have it? Or could lose it? Was Paul speaking literally?"

This doesn't even address my question. Why are my questions being dodged?


I didn't say it was. But Jesus noted a difference between "having life" and "having it MORE ABUNDANTLY. JOHN 10:10


What does this have to do with the gift of eternal life? Nothing. His birthright isn't being equated with the gift of eternal life. He had the birthright by reason of his birth. You could say he was born with it. No one is born with eternal life.


Nope.

Abundant life is not for our benefit, it is a benefit to those around us. Jesus was talking about giving us life, and that life being "abundant" which is the same thing as saying more than we need or could use. It is the same thing as he told the woman at the well, and what He cried when He said;

Jhn 7:38-39
Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

We are most certainly born with Eternal life. It is called the new birth, being born from above, being "born again". This happens when the Spirit gives us life - Eternal Life - by coming to live in us. That is our new birth "right".

That is the analogy that is used with Esau. A birthright is not something you earn, and it is given at birth. When we are born into God's kingdom, through grace, and our 'birthright' is eternal life.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"No believer has any power to get rid of the gift of eternal life. It isn't some object that can be lost through a hole in one's pocket, or by misplacing it by some absent minded believer. That's the problem with OSNAS. The gift is treated as an object. Which is silly. It is God's life itself, given to the one who has believed."

I think you are so opposed to the idea, of trying to see what others have to say about the topic, that you impose a thought process that I personally do not hold to.

The way those of OSNAS explain things, it sure seems they think of eternal life as something we can "get rid of", or lose.

I never said a believer could "get rid of" eternal life. That's kind of illogical if you think about it. I am not eternal, so how could I get rid of something that is.

The gift of eternal life is GIVEN when one believes, according to Jesus in John 5:24. So, one either HAS it or doesn't HAVE it. So how can one who HAS eternal life end up in the lake of fire?

I never said someone could lose it like you would something from your pocket either. Again, an illogical line of reasoning.

Yet, your position IS loss of salvation. So your comments are in conflict with each other.

Eternal life is Christ. He is Eternal life. That is why if you are separated from Him, then you do not have Eternal life. [/QUOT]
One who has believed has been sealed IN HIM with the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13,14). That is plain language. There are not verses about this sealing being undone for any reason.

You are treating it as something that can be had apart from Him.

No, you're thinking that one who has been sealed IN HIM with the Holy Spirit can be unsealed, which is impossible.

In John 10:28 Christ is speaking about the Holy Spirit. That is the same as Christ in us. That is what Eternal life is.

The point is HOW one WILL NEVER PERISH. It is based on RECEIVING the gift of eternal life. Period.

In Romans 6:23 Paul is speaking about the Holy Spirit. That is the Eternal life in us.

Sure. And it's a gift of God.

In Romans 11:29, you are taking a single verse out of its context - it says nothing about Eternal life.

Excuse me, but that verse speaks of "the gifts of God". Paul had already described 3 of God's gifts in that letter to the Romans:
1. spiritual gifts 9n 1:11
2. justification in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17
3. eternal life in 6:23

So, Paul had in mind AT LEAST 3 of God's gifts when he penned 11:29. And please don't tell me about this being "out of context". Someone will have to show me anywhere in ch 9-11 where Paul spoke of ANY gift of God for Jews only.

Or, what exactly did Paul have in mind about God's gifts when he wrote 11:29? No one has been able to explain that to me.

It is the Spirit of God that is the Eternal life that is given to us, that lives in us, and that gives life to us. Separate yourself from Him(the Spirit) and you separate yourself from Eternal life.

Can't be done, because of Eph 1:13,14.

 

[FreeGrace]

I was not meaning to dodge your questions. I was answering them, but I suppose the answer did not come through clearly.

As I noted, a question does not answer a question. You've not done that yet.

Paul is referring to Eternal Life. He was stating that Tim had it. He was telling Tim not to let go of it.

No, he wasn't saying that at all, or he'd be contradicting himself. Because Paul described eternal life as a gift of God in Rom 6:23 and then wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable in 11:29. So he couldn't have meant what you're claiming.

Paul was speaking literally, as in "take hold" - "do not let go of" - Eternal Life.

Impossible. Or Paul totally contradicted himself, and all that Jesus said about eternal life.