Saved by Grace Through Faith, Not by Works

[FreeGrace]

Well, let's just lay it out. The "gift" is the Spirit in us. That's the only eternal life in us.

Well, let's just lay it out. This gift is irrevocable. That's what Paul said.

The word you keep using means "not repented of; unregretted". It's used in 2 Corinthians 7:10.

If there is some information that all the Greek scholars didn't have that you're aware of about this word, then please share. My lexicons include "irrevocable" in the meaning.

Besides, what does "unregretted" or "not repented of" mean anyway, but to be irrevocable?

What that means is God does not regret giving them. The meaning has zero to do with not rejecting them.

It has EVERYTHING to do with NOT REVOKING His gifts. Or else the lexicons and Greek scholars were wrong. Which they aren't.

[QUOTE\] You keep using it out of its context(which means you keep using the verse without understand how it was meant with the other ones around it).[/QUOTE]
Nope. Paul is the only one who gets to define what he meant by "gifts" in Romans, and he actually did that clearly 3 times. They cannot be excluded from 11:29. So don't lecture me about "context".

There is NOTHING in the immediate context to suggest that there are gifts only to Israel, or that there are even any gifts noted.

Romans 11
25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience,
31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy.
32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

See? No mentions of "gifts" anywhere in these verses. Nor in any verses in ch 9 or 10 either.

If you look at the sentence right before it, you see that they(Israel) are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.

This is NEVER described as a gift from God. So let's not make stuff up.

When you then read the next sentence, you see that Paul was saying that God does not regret what He is doing with the work in bringing mercy. Because, He is doing for the sake of their forefathers - therefore He does not regret what He gives and calls even when Israel rejects it.

There is nothing about "gifts" there. There is no "there" there.

This has zero to do with not being able to be rejected.

It has EVERYTHING to do with God's gifts, which Paul had already described, as being IRREVOCABLE.

We know that many people reject Gods gifts. What it does mean is God does not regret giving them - even when they are rejected. That is the correct meaning of the word "irrevocable".

Go ahead and "elevate" yourself above ALL the Greek scholars who seem not to know what you claim about that word.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"God's gifts are NOT "being able to believe and be saved". Paul NEVER described that as a gift of God."

So now salvation/ eternal life is NOT a gift?

I was clearly and plainly speaking of the action of believing, which was the subject to which I responded.

You're going to have to be more consistent in your argument.

No. Instead, you're going to have to read more carefully what I post.

Of course eternal life is a gift of God and was being referred to in 11:29.

I will show you plainly that Romans 11:29 does not mean once a person believes they can turn back to unbelief and they still get to keep their eternal life.

So this is just a claim that Paul was contradicting himself then. Which would be quite silly.

Beginning at verse 1 in the chapter...

Paul explains that God has not rejected his people who have rejected the Messiah:
"God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be!" (Romans 11:1 NASB)

He uses himself, a born again Israelite possessing the gifts and calling of God, to prove his point that God has not revoked His gifts and calling to Israel:
"For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew." (Romans 11:1-2 NASB)

Paul explains this is so because God maintains a remnant of Jews by his gift of grace, again showing how, despite the Israelites rejection of Messiah, God has not revoked His gifts and calling to Israel:
"5 ...there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice." (Romans 11:5 NASB)

Paul uses the analogy of the Olive tree to describe the Israelites rejection of Messiah:
"...they were broken off for their unbelief..." (Romans 11:20 NASB)

The he explains how, despite them having been broken off because of rejecting Messiah, they can be grafted in again if they have faith, once again showing how God has not revoked His gifts and calling to them:
23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." (Romans 11:23 NASB)

Paul explains that in regard to the gospel, and their rejection of it, they are enemies, but, God still loves them because of his promise to their Fathers and so has not revoked His gifts and calling to them.
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 11:28-29 NASB)
The gifts and calling of God for Israel are irrevocable because God still loves them because of his relationship with their Fathers. As we can see this has NOTHING to do whatsoever with a person getting saved, then falling away into unbelief, but still getting to keep his eternal life. Nothing whatsoever.

Paul explains that just as the gentiles have received God's mercy in salvation because of disobedience, so the Jews will receive God's mercy in salvation because of their disobedience, again showing us that God has not revoked his gifts and calling from them.
"30For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. 32For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all." (Romans 11:30-32 NASB)


So we can easily see that the context of Romans 11 itself tells us what "the gifts and the calling of God is irrevocable" means.

Actually, nothing of your explanation even comes close to separating Rom 6:23 from 11:29.

The plain fact is that eternal life, one of God's gifts, is irrevocable. Period. it means just what it says.

It means God has not abandoned the Israelites and a remnant does have his gifts and calling, even though the nation itself has rejected the Messiah.

No argument. But NONE of this is about God's gifts. No one has shown that.

But OSAS un-rightly divides vs. 29 out from the context of the chapter and assigns it's own meaning to it which the chapter says nothing about.

The context for "the gifts of God" includes EVERYTHING that Paul noted about gifts that are from God, anywhere in Romans before 11:29.

So please stop "lecturing" me about what context means. It obviously includes EVERYTHING Paul noted about "the gifts of God".

What OSNAS fails to understand is that Paul NEVER mentioned anything about 'the gifts of God" anywhere in ch 9-11.

It is OSNAS that is in dire need of being lectured on what 'context' means and includes.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The context for "the gifts of God" includes EVERYTHING that Paul noted about gifts that are from God, anywhere in Romans before 11:29.

Paul has the gift of eternal life. That demonstrates that the gifts and the calling are irrevocable from Israel. So stop arguing about what is not even in contention here. Of course salvation is included in God's gifts and calling to Israel. Sheesh!

So please stop "lecturing" me about what context means. It obviously includes EVERYTHING Paul noted about "the gifts of God".

It's amazing that you are incapable of seeing I'm not arguing what constitutes the gifts and calling of God. Simply amazing. I think it's because the Hyper-grace argument is completely and utterly defenseless without it. Are you going to keep the debate focused on what is not even in contention between me and you in order to evade the point from the passage that I am making?

It is OSNAS that is in dire need of being lectured on what 'context' means and includes.

Then start lecturing.
Show us using the context of Romans 11 in which vs. 29 appears that Paul is saying once a person believes they can stop believing and they still have eternal life. Show us how and why it is that we are to ignore the context that is actually there and substitute in the Hyper-grace argument in place of what the passage actually says vs. 29 means.

If you bring up the distraction that eternal life is included in the gifts and calling of God, of which I am not even leveling an argument against, then I will have no choice but to conclude that Hyper-grace can not prove from the context that Paul means a person can believe, then stop believing, and still have the gift of eternal life.

 

[Nathan]

Well, let's just lay it out. This gift is irrevocable. That's what Paul said.


If there is some information that all the Greek scholars didn't have that you're aware of about this word, then please share. My lexicons include "irrevocable" in the meaning.

Besides, what does "unregretted" or "not repented of" mean anyway, but to be irrevocable?


It has EVERYTHING to do with NOT REVOKING His gifts. Or else the lexicons and Greek scholars were wrong. Which they aren't.

There is NOTHING in the immediate context to suggest that there are gifts only to Israel, or that there are even any gifts noted.

Romans 11
25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience,
31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy.
32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

See? No mentions of "gifts" anywhere in these verses. Nor in any verses in ch 9 or 10 either.


This is NEVER described as a gift from God. So let's not make stuff up.


There is nothing about "gifts" there. There is no "there" there.


It has EVERYTHING to do with God's gifts, which Paul had already described, as being IRREVOCABLE.


Go ahead and "elevate" yourself above ALL the Greek scholars who seem not to know what you claim about that word.

The word means exactly what it means. I am not stating it any other way. You seem to be elevating it to mean something it does not.

God simply is not going to take back the gifts or calling. That's it. He decided to give them not based on mans work but because He made a promise.

That has nothing to do with Israel(or us) rejecting them. If they(we) reject them, that does not mean that God took them from us.

If I handed to a $100 bill and told you this is irrevocable, that means I am not going to change my mind. It's yours. If you decided to not take it, or to leave it somewhere, and disregard it - that does not mean I regret giving it to you. It's your choice.

 

[MarkT]

I said this:
"I said this:
"I don't think you're getting the concept. The gift itself is irrevocable. Meaning, those who have been given that gift, which is eternal life (Rom 6:23), cannot lose it. The Bible doesn't have to state it the way you seem to want it. 11:29 says that God's gifts are irrevocable. And etrenal life is one of those gifts."

Is this a suggestion that Rom 6:23 and 11:29 are saying something DIFFERENT than what I have said? Please clarify."

There is no promise found in Rom 11:29. There is a statement about God's gifts. That they are irrevocable.

Do you understand there is a difference between a promise and a gift?


Meaning, God's gifts and call were revoked on the basis of unbelief. Seriously? You've just turned Rom 11:29 on its head.

Further, Paul described 3 specific gifts that are from God and they are given to Gentiles as well. Regarding God's call, Paul even noted that God has called Gentiles.

So, there is nothing in Rom 11:29 about being only for Israel.

Jesus said the prophets and the law were until John. Mt. 11:13 Luke 16:16 The prophets were called from Israel. Prophecy is a gift.

In Rom. 11 Paul speaks of gifts; nothing specific so it doesn't lend itself to a narrow interpretation. I see it as a general reference to the prophets and the law. There's no reason to think he is specifically talking about eternal life or losing salvation. You have to take it as he intends it. God's covenant with Israel can not be revoked. Jesus said, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Mt.5:17-18

You can say the same thing about those who are called from the Gentiles and Paul does speak about gifts.
Romans 12:5-7Revised Standard Version (RSV)
5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; he who teaches, in his teaching;

 

[FreeGrace]

Paul has the gift of eternal life. That demonstrates that the gifts and the calling are irrevocable from Israel.

So do ALL Gentiles who believe in Jesus Christ as Savior. And whoever is given the gift of eternal life WILL NEVER PERISH, as Jesus promised in John 10:28.

So stop arguing about what is not even in contention here. Of course salvation is included in God's gifts and calling to Israel. Sheesh!

God's gifts are for Gentiles just as much as for Israel.

It's amazing that you are incapable of seeing I'm not arguing what constitutes the gifts and calling of God. Simply amazing.

Paul described 3 of God's gifts, which are just as much for Gentiles as for Israel.

I think it's because the Hyper-grace argument is completely and utterly defenseless without it.

The obvious point is that eternal life is irrevocable.

Then start lecturing.
Show us using the context of Romans 11 in which vs. 29 appears that Paul is saying once a person believes they can stop believing and they still have eternal life.

That's what irrevocable means. It will not be taken away.

Show us how and why it is that we are to ignore the context that is actually there and substitute in the Hyper-grace argument in place of what the passage actually says vs. 29 means.

The real context is WHERE EVER in Romans Paul described what God's gifts are. And he described 3 of them.

If you bring up the distraction that eternal life is included in the gifts and calling of God, of which I am not even leveling an argument against, then I will have no choice but to conclude that Hyper-grace can not prove from the context that Paul means a person can believe, then stop believing, and still have the gift of eternal life.

This is simply ridiculous. Since you're agreeing that eternal life is a gift of God, it is incomprehensible to conclude that one can lose eternal life. Which is the point of OSNAS.

 

[jaybird]

how many times did Jesus teach against works? the answer would be no. so why do people teach so hard against it today?

 

[FreeGrace]

The word means exactly what it means. I am not stating it any other way. You seem to be elevating it to mean something it does not.

Nonsense. I'm using it how all the Greek scholars used it. Nothing different.

God simply is not going to take back the gifts or calling. That's it.

Which is why Jesus said that those He gives eternal life WILL NEVER PERISH in John 10:28.

That what is meant by the gift of eternal life being irrevocable. One who has been given that gift WILL NEVER PERISH.

That refutes OSNAS. Totally.

 

[FreeGrace]

Jesus said the prophets and the law were until John. Mt. 11:13 Luke 16:16 The prophets were called from Israel. Prophecy is a gift.

There are a lot of gifts that Paul did not mention. So what? We have to acknowledge those gifts that Paul DID describe in order to understand what he AT LEAST was referring to.

In Rom. 11 Paul speaks of gifts; nothing specific so it doesn't lend itself to a narrow interpretation.

Yes, that's the problem for OSNAS. Having a "narrow interpretation", because it refutes the foundation of their doctrine.

But, fact is, Paul described 3 of God's gifts. And it is simply incomprehensible to exclude any of those 3 gifts from Rom 11:29.

And Paul did NOT speak of any gifts of God in ch 11 apart from v.29. So your claim is false.

I see it as a general reference to the prophets and the law.

It doesn't matter how you or anyone else sees it. It is plain as day. Pau described 3 of God's gifts before he explained that God's gifts are irrevocable.

But for obvious reasons, OSNAS simply won't admit that the irrevocable gift of eternal life means eternal security, which agrees completely with what Jesus promised in John 10:28.

There's no reason to think he is specifically talking about eternal life or losing salvation.

Good heavens!! There's EVERY REASON to understand that he was. His plain words are that reason.

You have to take it as he intends it.

Oh, no!! You're not going to get away with that notion. No one has any right to make any claims about what Paul "intended". That is just nonsense. We KNOW what he intended by what all he said. And he said in plain language that eternal life is a gift of God, and that the gifts of God are irrevocable.

God's covenant with Israel can not be revoked.

That was NOT Paul's intent because that is NOT what Paul wrote.

 

[Nathan]

Here is an example of the opposite of irrevocable.

Genesis 6
5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."

Here we see that God "revoked" mans existence on the earth. Other translations say God 'repented'.

On the other hand, because of the promises God made to Abraham, the gifts and calling of Israel were not going to be taken back or destroyed.

1 Samuel 12
19 And all the people said to Samuel, "Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, that we may not die, for we have added to all our sins this evil, to ask for ourselves a king."
20 And Samuel said to the people, "Do not be afraid; you have done all this evil. Yet do not turn aside from following the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart.
21 And do not turn aside after empty things that cannot profit or deliver, for they are empty.
22 For the LORD will not forsake his people, for his great name's sake, because it has pleased the LORD to make you a people for himself.
23 Moreover, as for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD by ceasing to pray for you, and I will instruct you in the good and the right way.
24 Only fear the LORD and serve him faithfully with all your heart. For consider what great things he has done for you.
25 But if you still do wickedly, you shall be swept away, both you and your king."

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So do ALL Gentiles who believe in Jesus Christ as Savior. And whoever is given the gift of eternal life WILL NEVER PERISH, as Jesus promised in John 10:28.


God's gifts are for Gentiles just as much as for Israel.


Paul described 3 of God's gifts, which are just as much for Gentiles as for Israel.


The obvious point is that eternal life is irrevocable.


That's what irrevocable means. It will not be taken away.


The real context is WHERE EVER in Romans Paul described what God's gifts are. And he described 3 of them.


This is simply ridiculous. Since you're agreeing that eternal life is a gift of God, it is incomprehensible to conclude that one can lose eternal life. Which is the point of OSNAS.

The definition of the gifts does not determine the meaning of "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable". Paul tells us what it is that is irrevocable about the gifts and the calling of God. And it is not what OSAS says it is. He plainly says they are irrevocable in regard to the remnant of Israel having the gifts and calling of God despite the fact that the nation of Israel has been cut out of the olive tree. OSAS has not been able to prove that reading of the passage to be false. It can't because it is so clear in the passage. All it can do is rant and rave about what constitutes the gifts of God as if that somehow makes what they say true, and as if that is where the point of the contention lies, which it is not.

It unreasonable, even dishonest to insist that the passage says the gifts and calling of God being irrevocable means a believer can stop believing and they still have eternal life. Besides that being an absurdity to the umpteenth degree all by itself, there is nothing in the passage to show that's what Paul means (especially since Paul does plainly tell us what it means). That's why OSAS has not produced so much as a shred of evidence to support their claim, it's not there. Simply showing what some of the gifts are does not prove it because that has no bearing on what it is that is irrevocable about them.

OSAS has to prove that what I said is in the passage is false, AND it has to show in the passage that what it says is what Paul means by "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable". OSAS has done neither. It can't. All it has done is rant and rave about what some of the gifts are which isn't even in contention, lol. And which does not change what Paul means anyway.

 

[Nathan]

Nonsense. I'm using it how all the Greek scholars used it. Nothing different.


Which is why Jesus said that those He gives eternal life WILL NEVER PERISH in John 10:28.

That what is meant by the gift of eternal life being irrevocable. One who has been given that gift WILL NEVER PERISH.

That refutes OSNAS. Totally.

All your doing is repeating the spelling of the word. What your not doing is inturpreting it the way they meant it.

ametamélētos, am-et-am-el'-ay-tos; from G1(as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative of G3338; irrevocable:—without repentance, not to be repented of.

Your correct. One who has eternal life in them will not perish. If one does not have eternal life then they are not Gods.

Romans 8:9 (ESV)
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.

Actually the word irrevocable means God will not change His mind about giving us the gifts and His calling of us - even those who are turning away from Him can know if they turn back He will not cast them out.

I'm not sure what does and does not refute these letters you keep posting. I'm just going off what the Bible says. I've never seen OSAS or OSNAS in the Bible.

 

[MarkT]

There are a lot of gifts that Paul did not mention. So what? We have to acknowledge those gifts that Paul DID describe in order to understand what he AT LEAST was referring to.

Yes, that's the problem for OSNAS. Having a "narrow interpretation", because it refutes the foundation of their doctrine.

But, fact is, Paul described 3 of God's gifts. And it is simply incomprehensible to exclude any of those 3 gifts from Rom 11:29.

And Paul did NOT speak of any gifts of God in ch 11 apart from v.29. So your claim is false.


It doesn't matter how you or anyone else sees it. It is plain as day. Pau described 3 of God's gifts before he explained that God's gifts are irrevocable.

But for obvious reasons, OSNAS simply won't admit that the irrevocable gift of eternal life means eternal security, which agrees completely with what Jesus promised in John 10:28.


Good heavens!! There's EVERY REASON to understand that he was. His plain words are that reason.


Oh, no!! You're not going to get away with that notion. No one has any right to make any claims about what Paul "intended". That is just nonsense. We KNOW what he intended by what all he said. And he said in plain language that eternal life is a gift of God, and that the gifts of God are irrevocable.


That was NOT Paul's intent because that is NOT what Paul wrote.

First you say no one has any right to make any claims about what Paul intended and then you say you know what he intended.

First of all 'irrevocable' doesn't mean 'can not be lost'. It means 'can not be changed or altered in any way'. By 'irrevocable' we know Paul is talking about God's promise to Israel. We know God is unchangeable Job 23:13 and he keeps promise. Duet. 7:9 We also know Paul was talking about his kinsmen from Rom. 11:1-33. and further on Paul speaks of gifts and having been given gifts - gifts of prophecy, service, teaching, etc.

 

[FreeGrace]

Here is an example of the opposite of irrevocable.

How is this related to Rom 11:29. It isn't about what is revocable. It's about what is irrevocable, which are the gifts of God and His call.

Genesis 6
5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."

Here we see that God "revoked" mans existence on the earth. Other translations say God 'repented'.

On the other hand, because of the promises God made to Abraham, the gifts and calling of Israel were not going to be taken back or destroyed.

1 Samuel 12
19 And all the people said to Samuel, "Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, that we may not die, for we have added to all our sins this evil, to ask for ourselves a king."
20 And Samuel said to the people, "Do not be afraid; you have done all this evil. Yet do not turn aside from following the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart.
21 And do not turn aside after empty things that cannot profit or deliver, for they are empty.
22 For the LORD will not forsake his people, for his great name's sake, because it has pleased the LORD to make you a people for himself.
23 Moreover, as for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD by ceasing to pray for you, and I will instruct you in the good and the right way.
24 Only fear the LORD and serve him faithfully with all your heart. For consider what great things he has done for you.
25 But if you still do wickedly, you shall be swept away, both you and your king."

The point remains that the gifts of God are irrevocable.

 

[FreeGrace]

The definition of the gifts does not determine the meaning of "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable".

I haven't been speaking of the "definition" of gifts. I have been speaking of Paul's DESCRIPTION of some of God's gifts.

Paul tells us what it is that is irrevocable about the gifts and the calling of God.

True. He specifically described 3 of God's gifts in the same letter where he wrote that the gifts of God are irrevocable.

And it is not what OSAS says it is.

It is exactly what Paul described as the gifts of God.

He plainly says they are irrevocable in regard to the remnant of Israel having the gifts and calling of God despite the fact that the nation of Israel has been cut out of the olive tree.

'in regard'??? Where is that so plainly said??

OSAS has not been able to prove that reading of the passage to be false.

The exact opposite is true. OSNAS cannot prove their own claims. They remain mere opinions.

It can't because it is so clear in the passage. All it can do is rant and rave about what constitutes the gifts of God as if that somehow makes what they say true, and as if that is where the point of the contention lies, which it is not.

There is no ranting or raving about what Paul specifically described as the gifts of God.

It unreasonable, even dishonest to insist that the passage says the gifts and calling of God being irrevocable means a believer can stop believing and they still have eternal life.

What does the irrevocable gift of eternal life mean to you personally?

Besides that being an absurdity to the umpteenth degree all by itself, there is nothing in the passage to show that's what Paul means (especially since Paul does plainly tell us what it means).

I know he plainly told us what are the irrevocable gifts of God: spiritual gifts in 1:11, justification in 3:24 and 5:15,16,17 and eternal life in 6:23.

That's why OSAS has not produced so much as a shred of evidence to support their claim, it's not there. Simply showing what some of the gifts are does not prove it because that has no bearing on what it is that is irrevocable about them.

I'll be clear about what it means to be an irrevocable gift of God. It means that God WON'T revoke the gift, or take it away from the recipient.

If anyone can prove the opposite, then be my guest.

OSAS has to prove that what I said is in the passage is false

Already been done. By showing the specific gifts of God that Paul described in Romans.

 

[FreeGrace]

All your doing is repeating the spelling of the word. What your not doing is inturpreting it the way they meant it.

ametamélētos, am-et-am-el'-ay-tos; from G1(as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative of G3338; irrevocable:—without repentance, not to be repented of.

Why was the word "irrevocable" ignored. It exists in all my lexicons.

Your correct. One who has eternal life in them will not perish. If one does not have eternal life then they are not Gods.

So far, so good. Now, where is the plain language of Scripture that teaches that one who has eternal life can end up without it?

If one does have that, they gots nothing but false doctrine.

Romans 8:9 (ESV)
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.

Paul is obviously describing one who never believed. Because all "having believed" (aorist tense) ARE sealed IN HIM with the Spirit. A guarantee for the day of redemption. Eph 1:13,14

What does "guarantee" mean?

Actually the word irrevocable means God will not change His mind about giving us the gifts and His calling of us - even those who are turning away from Him can know if they turn back He will not cast them out.

That, my friend, is eternal security.

I'm not sure what does and does not refute these letters you keep posting. I'm just going off what the Bible says. I've never seen OSAS or OSNAS in the Bible.

Well, only one can be true. Certainly not both, since they are direct opposites.

Is this an admission of being confused about what God's Word says?

 

[FreeGrace]

First you say no one has any right to make any claims about what Paul intended and then you say you know what he intended.

Let me be clear. We know what he "intended" in Rom 11:29 by what he specifically described as the gifts of God before 11:29.

How can those 3 things NOT be what he had in mind when he wrote 11:29? That verse is about the "gifts of God" being irrevocable. And Paul noted 3 of the gifts of God before writing 11:29. So they are obviously what he had in mind, or intended.

If he did NOT intend to include any of those 3 specifically described gifts in 11:29, he would HAVE HAD TO say so plainly. But he did no such thing.

First of all 'irrevocable' doesn't mean 'can not be lost'.

It DOES mean that God won't revoke His gifts. So, who's left to take away one's eternal life? And please cite Scripture.

It means 'can not be changed or altered in any way'.

If any recipient of eternal life ends up without it, means he has been changed. From the state of eternal life to the state of spiritual death.

By 'irrevocable' we know Paul is talking about God's promise to Israel.

How do we know this? Where did Paul EVER describe "God's promise to Israel" as a gift? Nowhere is where. We do know what Paul considered some of the gifts of God because he specifically described 3 of them.

A "promise to Israel" isn't a gift by any stretch of the imagination. A gift is an actual thing. Not a promise.

We know God is unchangeable Job 23:13 and he keeps promise. Duet. 7:9 We also know Paul was talking about his kinsmen from Rom. 11:1-33. and further on Paul speaks of gifts and having been given gifts - gifts of prophecy, service, teaching, etc.

While Paul did speak of spiritual gifts "further on", as noted, we don't have to look "further on" because Paul noted spiritual gifts in the FIRST chapter of Romans. And then 2 other gifts of God specifically; justification and eternal life.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What does the irrevocable gift of eternal life mean to you personally?

It's interesting how what one insists is true blocks out even the ability to hear their opponents argument, let alone agree with it. But I know that's how indoctrinations work.

Just read the emboldened parts. Those summarize the passage. Then if you want to argue context, that is there, too, for you to refer to for clarity and support.

1I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3“Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE.” 4But what is the divine response to him? “I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL.” 5In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. 6But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

7What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

8just as it is written,
“GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR,
EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT,
DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY.”

9And David says,
“LET THEIR TABLE BECOME A SNARE AND A TRAP,
AND A STUMBLING BLOCK AND A RETRIBUTION TO THEM.

10“LET THEIR EYES BE DARKENED TO SEE NOT,
AND BEND THEIR BACKS FOREVER.”

11I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. 12Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! 13But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.

17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, 18do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

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. 30For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. 32For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

Romans 11:1-32 NASB


Even at this present time there is a believing remnant in Israel that has the gifts and calling of God which demonstrates that God still loves Israel and that those gifts and calling are irrevocable. And they are irrevocable because of the promise God made to their Fathers, the Patriarchs.

THAT is the meaning of "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable". It comes right out of the passage itself. But there is absolutely NOTHING there to even remotely suggest that it means a person can believe, then stop believing, and they still have eternal life. OSAS un-rightly divided vs. 29 out from the context and decided that's what it means.

 

[Nathan]

The point remains that the gifts of God are irrevocable.

I agree. . God does not have any regrets in His purpose of giving and calling.

 

[Nathan]

So far, so good. Now, where is the plain language of Scripture that teaches that one who has eternal life can end up without it?

Is this an admission of being confused about what God's Word says?

Confused? Well, I may be able to help you out on that.

That's a good question. Hope you will actually take the time to read these plain words of Scripture.

Ezekiel 18
25 "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?
26 When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it; for the injustice that he has done he shall die.
27 Again, when a wicked person turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he shall save his life.
28 Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions that he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
29 Yet the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?
30 "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin.
31 Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel?
32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live."