The Five Points of Calvinism

[JLB]

I never said "gift" ONLY referred to eternal life. I did say (repeatedly) that eternal life is AMONG the gifts of God that are irrevocable. I've asked for any evidence that Paul didn't include eternal life as any gift that was not revocable. And guess what…there isn't any. So, even eternal life is irrevocable.

29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Eternal life is not mentioned in this scripture and therefore has to be presumed.

JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Eternal life is not mentioned in this scripture and therefore has to be presumed.
JLB

This is merely disingenuous. Paul very plainly describes eternal life as "a gift of God" in Rom 6:23. And the VERY NEXT time he mentions "charisma"(gift) is in 11:29, where he says that the gifts of God are irrevocable.

It is simply incomprehensible for someone to NOT SEE the direct connection between Rom 6:23 and Rom 11:29. No one can force anyone to see the connection. One simply has to have an open mind, and willing to accept what the Bible so clearly says.

None of the verses provided in your posts can refer to loss of salvation, simply because of the connection between Rom 6:23 and Rom 11:29.

But, to your point about eternal life "not mentioned" in Rom 11:29; that is immaterial. What is absolutely material to the debate is WHERE, in the context, did Paul exclude eternal life from gifts that are irrevocable.

So far, no one from your camp has shown that he ecluded eternal life from Rom 11:29. BECAUSE Paul describes eternal life as a gift of God in Rom 6:23, and the NEXT TIME he mentions "gifts of God" is Rom 11:29, the obvious conclusion is that Paul was telling us that eternal life, which is one of God's gifts, is irrevocable.

So, none of the verses you've provided prove that eternal life is revocable. I understand that is how they are being taken and understood, but there is no basis for such an understanding.

The strength of Rom 6:23 with Rom 11:29 is MUCH STRONGER than any verse or passage that you've presented so far.

So, please show me where Paul clearly was excluding eternal life from the gifts that are irrevocable within the context of Romans.

Here's why that MUST be done to support your view:
Paul himself defined the gifts of God in Romans - 1:11 spiritual gifts, 5:15,16,17 justification (salvation), 6:23 eternal life (salvation).
The next mention of "gifts" is 11:29, where Paul says that God's gifts are irrevocable.

IF…Paul believed that eternal life could be revoked, lost, etc, he would have inserted an exclusion clause within Rom 11:29. No doubt about it.

But he didn't do that. Your point is not taken. Your view is not supported by Scripture. In fact, Scripture refutes your view totally.

Until someone can show from Romans that Paul never intended 11:29 to refer to eternal life, there is no reason to assume that it is. Or show where Paul specifically excluded eternal life from irrevocable gifts.

I'll save y'all some time. There isn't any evidence for any of that. Paul WAS including eternal life as an irrevocable gift from God.

 

[JLB]

This is merely disingenuous. Paul very plainly describes eternal life as "a gift of God" in Rom 6:23. And the VERY NEXT time he mentions "charisma"(gift) is in 11:29, where he says that the gifts of God are irrevocable.

It is simply incomprehensible for someone to NOT SEE the direct connection between Rom 6:23 and Rom 11:29. No one can force anyone to see the connection. One simply has to have an open mind, and willing to accept what the Bible so clearly says.

None of the verses provided in your posts can refer to loss of salvation, simply because of the connection between Rom 6:23 and Rom 11:29.

But, to your point about eternal life "not mentioned" in Rom 11:29; that is immaterial. What is absolutely material to the debate is WHERE, in the context, did Paul exclude eternal life from gifts that are irrevocable.

So far, no one from your camp has shown that he ecluded eternal life from Rom 11:29. BECAUSE Paul describes eternal life as a gift of God in Rom 6:23, and the NEXT TIME he mentions "gifts of God" is Rom 11:29, the obvious conclusion is that Paul was telling us that eternal life, which is one of God's gifts, is irrevocable.

So, none of the verses you've provided prove that eternal life is revocable. I understand that is how they are being taken and understood, but there is no basis for such an understanding.

The strength of Rom 6:23 with Rom 11:29 is MUCH STRONGER than any verse or passage that you've presented so far.

So, please show me where Paul clearly was excluding eternal life from the gifts that are irrevocable within the context of Romans.

Here's why that MUST be done to support your view:
Paul himself defined the gifts of God in Romans - 1:11 spiritual gifts, 5:15,16,17 justification (salvation), 6:23 eternal life (salvation).
The next mention of "gifts" is 11:29, where Paul says that God's gifts are irrevocable.

IF…Paul believed that eternal life could be revoked, lost, etc, he would have inserted an exclusion clause within Rom 11:29. No doubt about it.

But he didn't do that. Your point is not taken. Your view is not supported by Scripture. In fact, Scripture refutes your view totally.

Until someone can show from Romans that Paul never intended 11:29 to refer to eternal life, there is no reason to assume that it is. Or show where Paul specifically excluded eternal life from irrevocable gifts.

I'll save y'all some time. There isn't any evidence for any of that. Paul WAS including eternal life as an irrevocable gift from God.

You decided to include eternal life in Romans 11:29.

You have assumed "gifts" means eternal life while disregarding the context and the clear language otherwise.

I will not address any more post's of yours in this thread, concerning Romans 11:29, since your assumed view has been clearly refuted.


JLB

 

[JLB]

11For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,
What is the reason He sends the delusion?

I can only state what the scripture says... And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,

The reason God will send them a strong delusion is: He wants them to believe the lie.


He wants them to be condemned, who did not believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness...

that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2:12


For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [possess] the truth in unrighteousness; Romans 1:18 KJV

There are many today, who Pastor Churches and Teach God's people, yet they live a greedy and ungodly lifestyle of fornication and adultery, even as homosexuals, while getting rich on tithes and offerings of the people who trust them.

They possess the truth of God's word, and even have tasted the power of the Holy Spirit, yet, they posses the truth in unrighteousness.

That is one example.

Another, is the Jews who have the truth of the scriptures, to whom belong the oracles of God, and the covenants, yet they continue to reject the Messiah, while making plans to build another Temple for the "messiah" they think will come.


JLB

 

[Brother Mike]

11For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,
What is the reason He sends the delusion?
What does the delusion cause to happen?

I am not going to take JLBs route on this.

God wishes for all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(2Th 2:10-12)

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
(Mat 24:14)

Twice Paul mentioned they would not receive the truth, to be saved. Clear they where never saved, and pretty clear the knowledge of the truth is no longer being preached.

In a pre-trib case, we are taken, the AC revealed and The rest left are in trouble.

It would not make sense, for God to not want them to see the truth, unless every last one heard several times and refused to respond.

 

[JLB]

I am not going to take JLBs route on this.

God wishes for all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(2Th 2:10-12)

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
(Mat 24:14)

Twice Paul mentioned they would not receive the truth, to be saved. Clear they where never saved, and pretty clear the knowledge of the truth is no longer being preached.

In a pre-trib case, we are taken, the AC revealed and The rest left are in trouble.

It would not make sense, for God to not want them to see the truth, unless every last one heard several times and refused to respond.

And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,

The reason God will send them a strong delusion is: He wants them to believe the lie.

The sentence says the reason God sends them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie.

That's is the reason, God sends them strong delusion.

Agree or disagree?


JLB

 

[Malachi]

This thread has really gone off-topic. Not to worry. Someone will come along and put it back on track.

 

[Deborah13]

He wants them to be condemned, who did not believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness...

Agreed. It's a judgement against them.

There are many today, who Pastor Churches and Teach God's people, yet they live a greedy and ungodly lifestyle of fornication and adultery, even as homosexuals, while getting rich on tithes and offerings of the people who trust them.

True.

Twice Paul mentioned they would not receive the truth, to be saved. Clear they where never saved,

Agreed. Including those who had rejected it after being saved?

It would not make sense, for God to not want them to see the truth, unless every last one heard several times and refused to respond.

I don't know how often but surely more than once I would think. He is long-suffering.

 

[Brother Mike]

And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,

The reason God will send them a strong delusion is: He wants them to believe the lie.

The sentence says the reason God sends them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie.

That's is the reason, God sends them strong delusion.

Agree or disagree?


JLB

I agree with that, I just most likely won't agree in the timeline or context. But it sort of says God is electing some to be destroyed.

 

[Brother Mike]

Agreed. Including those who had rejected it after being saved?

Paul said those that rejected the truth so THEY CAN BE SAVED. Seems to me, none of em got saved.

 

[Deborah13]

This thread has really gone off-topic. Not to worry. Someone will come along and put it back on track.

Yes, it seems that anytime TULIP is brought up the whole conversation turns to OSAS only.

 

[JLB]

Yes, it seems that anytime TULIP is brought up the whole conversation turns to OSAS only.

Ok. Gimme a T.

What does it stand for?

And can we discuss it?


JLB

 

[Deborah13]

 

[JLB]

Very nice.

Now what does the T in TULIP stand for, and can we discuss it.

I would like to hear your thoughts on it.

I have never studied Calvinism, so you take the lead.

Thanks Ed

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This thread has really gone off-topic. Not to worry. Someone will come along and put it back on track.

Agreed. It's a judgement against them.

 

[Deborah13]

 

[JLB]

 

[JLB]

 

[FreeGrace]

You decided to include eternal life in Romans 11:29.

Oh, let's be quite clear about this silly charge. Where did Paul exclude the gift of eternal life from 11:29? That has yet to be addressed. Since Paul defined what he meant by "gift" in his epistle to the Romans, the burden of proof for your claims is yours. I've shown WHERE Paul defined what he meant by 'gift'; 1:11 for spiritual gifts. Are they revocable? What verse would say or indicate that? No. In 5:15,16,17 for justification. Is justification revocable? What verse would say or indicate that? No. And 6:23 for eternal life. And there are NO verses within Romans that tells us that eternal life is excluded from the irrevocable gifts of 11:29.

You have assumed "gifts" means eternal life while disregarding the context and the clear language otherwise.

Well, Paul himself defined what he meant by 'gift' in 1:11, 5:15,16,17 and 6:23. So that PROVES that there is absolutely NO ASSUMPTION about what Paul meant in 11:29 by 'gifts'.

In fact, the assumption that Paul didn't have eternal life in mind for 11:29 is in your view. No one has proven that he didn't have eternal life in mind. The argument about "context and clear language" is superfluous. What "clear language" tells us that eternal life isn't irrevocable?

I will not address any more post's of yours in this thread, concerning Romans 11:29, since your assumed view has been clearly refuted.JLB

I suggest consulting a dictionary regarding 'refuted'. Nothing close to that has been offered. The only thing that has been offered is disagreement, which is a far cry from a refutation. Empty claims does not equal a refutation.

I've shown every verse where Paul describes what he means by "gift" before he wrote Rom 11:29. No one from your view has provided any evidence that Paul was not including eternal life in 11:29.

It is Paul who defined "gift" in Romans. I've just pointed all of them out. There has been zero evidence provided that Paul wasn't including or was excluding eternal life from the gifts in 11:29.

The view of loss of salvation IS refuted by Romans. No one has shown otherwise.

If there was a verse in Romans where Paul specifically (clear language-your term) indicated that eternal life was revocable, I'd believe it. But none has been provided.

The passage in ch 11 about branches broken off has NOTHING to do with loss of salvation, but is an agricultural metaphor dealing with usefulness to God. There is nothing useful to God about our salvation. What is useful to God is His children producing fruit for Him.

Saving us isn't "useful" to God. It's certainly useful to us.

 

[Deborah13]

Very nice.

Now what does the T in TULIP stand for, and can we discuss it.

I would like to hear your thoughts on it.

I have never studied Calvinism, so you take the lead.

Thanks Ed

Malachi started the thread. So I'll wait for him to take it the way he chooses.