I said this:
"As I just pointed out in another post, if the sealing in Him with the Holy Spirit could be unsealed,
Eph 4:30 would have been the perfect place to make that point, where he mentions grieving the Holy Spirit. Yet, instead of that, Paul emphasizes eternal security by saying we were sealed for the day of redemption.
Grieving the Holy Spirit sure sounds grievous to me. So if salvation could be lost, or the seal unsealed, it would seem that grieving the Spirit would result in that. But Paul never even hints at that. In fact, he "seals" the deal in 4:30 by referencing our sealing with eternal security, which is the same point he makes in
Eph 1:14.
If
Eph 1:14 and
4:30 do not teach eternal security, I cannot imagine what they are teaching. And no one has offered any idea of what they are teaching, if other than eternal security."
The real question is why you've deflected to Paul rather than answering my question. Which was what Eph 1:14 and 4:30 teach, if not eternal security.
But apparently you've no answer either.
And Paul wouldn't need to expect my question. Nor would he expect anyone else's question. He was quite clear enough about eternal security.
But since there are those who reject eternal security, why haven't any of them stepped forward to explain what Paul was teaching in Eph 1:14 and 4:30?
It is obvious they have no answers to what Paul was teaching.