Not By Works
- Thread starter dcontroversal
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I poise the same question to you. Romans 11:22, how do you reconcile that verse with OSAS? I am not against eternal security or eternal assurance. There is no dichotomy between eternal salvation and the idea that a person can give it up. Notice I didn't say lose, but more so, surrender it. As silly as that sounds, you might agree that God is not a hostage taker, right? If a person desires to not partake in all that Christ offers, chooses to forsake God, denounce Christ, and live in the pleasures of their flesh (no desire to repent before their Judge, God), would not God permit them?
Then again, I know the apostle Paul let a person be handed over to satan for the destruction of the flesh and that their soul would be saved. A case for eternal security. I am basically just asking how you reconcile that verse with your belief? Is there no foundation in scripture for the free will of man to turn from God, once believing? Again, I'd like you to address Romans 11:22.
Appreciate you taking the time to discuss this.
Then again, I know the apostle Paul let a person be handed over to satan for the destruction of the flesh and that their soul would be saved. A case for eternal security. I am basically just asking how you reconcile that verse with your belief? Is there no foundation in scripture for the free will of man to turn from God, once believing? Again, I'd like you to address Romans 11:22.
Appreciate you taking the time to discuss this.
You have a myopic view of the bible and our salvation which God new from before time that He would save us from eternal doom. If this is your bible verse that say's a true born again believer can lose there eternal salvation I am truly sorry for you. The bible clearly states that we have, Good News", the Gospel. I you want to follow Phart's "keep believing" legalistic false gospel be my guest. I hope you can find a Church that will teach this legalistic nonsense, maybe JW's. will do.
J
Romans11:22(KJV)-"Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God on them which fell,severity;but toward thee,goodness,if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou also shalt be cut of."
All it's talking about is for Israel and the Gentiles to pay mind to one another so that neither are cast away from God and for the gentiles to particularly remember that if not for some of Israel being of unbelief that the Gentiles would not be included in salvation and to appreciate this lest God choose to cut them off from salvation by grafting people of Israel back into salvation in the next verse...
"And they also,if they abide not still in unbelief,shall be graffed in:for God is able to graff them in again"
neither is talking about "continueing to believe" it is talking about "knowing one's place and God's mercy,for God could have just chose to only save the people of Israel but since some of Israel didn't believe upon God,he graffed the gentiles into salvation but still it is talking about unbelief,not continueing to be believe,making things clear that if an Israelite was of unbelief then a gentile God could graff in to salvation in the person's place,lest the gentile boast and the Israelite be graffed in as in if the Israelite though unbelieving was still in unbelief after a gentile taking their place and the Gentile acting as if they were some great person then God could give the promise of salvation back to the Israelite and remove the Gentile from salvation.
All it's talking about is for Israel and the Gentiles to pay mind to one another so that neither are cast away from God and for the gentiles to particularly remember that if not for some of Israel being of unbelief that the Gentiles would not be included in salvation and to appreciate this lest God choose to cut them off from salvation by grafting people of Israel back into salvation in the next verse...
"And they also,if they abide not still in unbelief,shall be graffed in:for God is able to graff them in again"
neither is talking about "continueing to believe" it is talking about "knowing one's place and God's mercy,for God could have just chose to only save the people of Israel but since some of Israel didn't believe upon God,he graffed the gentiles into salvation but still it is talking about unbelief,not continueing to be believe,making things clear that if an Israelite was of unbelief then a gentile God could graff in to salvation in the person's place,lest the gentile boast and the Israelite be graffed in as in if the Israelite though unbelieving was still in unbelief after a gentile taking their place and the Gentile acting as if they were some great person then God could give the promise of salvation back to the Israelite and remove the Gentile from salvation.
Last edited by a moderator:
E
romans 11 is paul answering the question of is god done with Isreal.
It is not have anything to do with the indvidual salvipn of any particular soul, it is gentikles being grafted in, Isreal being cut off. Then Gentiles being cut off, and isreal being grafted back in.
Why? Because God is not done with Isreal.
It is not have anything to do with the indvidual salvipn of any particular soul, it is gentikles being grafted in, Isreal being cut off. Then Gentiles being cut off, and isreal being grafted back in.
Why? Because God is not done with Isreal.
Hi BenFTW, i hope all is well with you. I’m not answering on behalf of Joe.
Hi Joe I hope all is well with you and I hope you don’t mind me answering.
To me it is probable that the Roman Church had a majority of gentile believers than Jewish leaders.
Under the rule of Claudius the Jews and the Christian sect (as they were seen at times) were having disputes which was causing disturbances. Therefore Claudius either banished the Jews from the city or stopped them meeting together. If not banished but being stopped from meeting together then it’s probable the Jews left Rome. Scholars would date his between circa AD49.
This was actually recorded by Suetonius (a court official) who wrote history title “Life of Claudius
He writes “Because the Jewish people were continually causing disorders on account of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome”
This is confirmed in
Acts 18:1-2
Chapter 18
Ministering at Corinth
1 After these things Paul departed from Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them.
Given that Paul wrote to the Roman church circa AD 54-56 it would indicate that the Roman church was mainly Gentile.
Sorry for the history lesson but I post it because I think it is relevant.
To me this church looked down on any Jewish believers in the church, boastful and proud that God had chosen them for salvation and not the Jews. Now they were the promised people and not the Jews. Basically sectarian attitudes.
Romans 11:19-20
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
So I don’t think Paul is talking about individuals here, but the whole.
Israel as a nation was cut off as a result of unbelief in Jesus and if Israel was readily cut off then the same could happen to the Gentile branch.
To me it’s not talking about an individual but Paul is using a cultural comparison as such.
Jews felt that Gentiles were inferior and God wouldn’t save them, Israel was chosen and not the Gentiles.
Now it seems to being reversed in Romans.
Romans 11:13
13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
Paul is speaking to the Gentiles above.
So to me it’s not addressing an individual losing salvation.
To me Paul affirms affirms the eternal security of the believer.
Romans 11:28-29
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
In Galatians Paul makes it very clear that Jews and Greeks have any advantage once they are in Christ.
Galatians 3:26-29
Sons and Heirs
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I have posted the above to give my views that the passage in Romans does not refer to individuals because I don’t feel Paul is addressing this here.
But I do acknowledge that people do believe a believer can lose their salvation because they choose to.
Thats a different matter but me myself do not believe it’s being addressed in the passage above.
Just my limited thoughts.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Hi Joe I hope all is well with you and I hope you don’t mind me answering.
To me it is probable that the Roman Church had a majority of gentile believers than Jewish leaders.
Under the rule of Claudius the Jews and the Christian sect (as they were seen at times) were having disputes which was causing disturbances. Therefore Claudius either banished the Jews from the city or stopped them meeting together. If not banished but being stopped from meeting together then it’s probable the Jews left Rome. Scholars would date his between circa AD49.
This was actually recorded by Suetonius (a court official) who wrote history title “Life of Claudius
He writes “Because the Jewish people were continually causing disorders on account of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome”
This is confirmed in
Acts 18:1-2
Chapter 18
Ministering at Corinth
1 After these things Paul departed from Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them.
Given that Paul wrote to the Roman church circa AD 54-56 it would indicate that the Roman church was mainly Gentile.
Sorry for the history lesson but I post it because I think it is relevant.
To me this church looked down on any Jewish believers in the church, boastful and proud that God had chosen them for salvation and not the Jews. Now they were the promised people and not the Jews. Basically sectarian attitudes.
Romans 11:19-20
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
So I don’t think Paul is talking about individuals here, but the whole.
Israel as a nation was cut off as a result of unbelief in Jesus and if Israel was readily cut off then the same could happen to the Gentile branch.
To me it’s not talking about an individual but Paul is using a cultural comparison as such.
Jews felt that Gentiles were inferior and God wouldn’t save them, Israel was chosen and not the Gentiles.
Now it seems to being reversed in Romans.
Romans 11:13
13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
Paul is speaking to the Gentiles above.
So to me it’s not addressing an individual losing salvation.
To me Paul affirms affirms the eternal security of the believer.
Romans 11:28-29
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
In Galatians Paul makes it very clear that Jews and Greeks have any advantage once they are in Christ.
Galatians 3:26-29
Sons and Heirs
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I have posted the above to give my views that the passage in Romans does not refer to individuals because I don’t feel Paul is addressing this here.
But I do acknowledge that people do believe a believer can lose their salvation because they choose to.
Thats a different matter but me myself do not believe it’s being addressed in the passage above.
Just my limited thoughts.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Excuse me TruthTalk, but there is no need for belittling. I am not trying to give you a "I've gotcha" bible verse. I am asking you to reconcile that verse with your doctrine, so that I may learn. You don't need to feel sorry for me, you should feel encouraged that your fellow brethren are seeking out the truth of God's word. I hold to no legalistic doctrine of salvation, as you suggest. We are saved by grace through faith.
Thank you for taking the time to explain the verse. It actually makes sense, considering the comparison between the Jews and the Gentiles. It is speaking of the whole, as you said. Its an admonition to keep a proper perspective. I like that, thank you. Its not necessarily saying they will be cut off or even can, just to realize its happened to others so don't be high minded.
Thank you.
For me in a sense even if they were cut off God promises a remnant will remain.
He said that of Israel and if it happened to the Gentiles I think the same would happen.
We as individuals need to ensure that we walk in the gospel of salvation.
Consider ourselves servants of the Gosple.
Walk in love and truth and compassion. Not to look down on anyone, consider ourselves better than anyone.
Build each other up in love and kindness, with words that bring life and not death.
The tongue has the power to bring life or death.
We use the tongue to bring life.
Come alongside the broken hearted, Those considered the dregs of society, fellow believers struggling, wounded soldiers.
Just like Jesus did.
Sorry gone off on a bit of tangent but it’s dear to my heart.
For me in a sense even if they were cut off God promises a remnant will remain.
He said that of Israel and if it happened to the Gentiles I think the same would happen.
We as individuals need to ensure that we walk in the gospel of salvation.
Consider ourselves servants of the Gosple.
Walk in love and truth and compassion. Not to look down on anyone, consider ourselves better than anyone.
Build each other up in love and kindness, with words that bring life and not death.
The tongue has the power to bring life or death.
We use the tongue to bring life.
Come alongside the broken hearted, Those considered the dregs of society, fellow believers struggling, wounded soldiers.
Just like Jesus did.
Sorry gone off on a bit of tangent but it’s dear to my heart.
I've got to ask. Why is it considered a legalistic gospel to suggest one can give salvation up? Mind you, they do not lose it through some action of their own (in terms of acquisition), and falling short of God's perfect standard. They simply reject it, turn away from God. When you really think about it, this isn't legalistic and I do not see the correlation. To suggest that abandonment is legalistic as opposed to free will, is a poor argument.
No one is losing salvation on the basis of merit. If they were then it would be legalistic and salvation would be a wage due. We know this isn't the case, we are saved by grace through faith. I am just suggesting that a person parting away from salvation of their own volition is not a works-based legalistic gospel nor do I see that leap in logic as being true.
One side says that a person can reject the free gift and the other says that if a person rejects it they weren't genuine believers to begin with. Neither side is legalistic in their view of salvation. One considers free will and the others are bound by their definition of a believer ("one who believes"). So it seems to me, in some ways, both parties are on the same side that salvation is by grace through faith. Only one believes the possibility to reject the gift. This doesn't seem to me to be heresy, or merit any hostility.
No one is losing salvation on the basis of merit. If they were then it would be legalistic and salvation would be a wage due. We know this isn't the case, we are saved by grace through faith. I am just suggesting that a person parting away from salvation of their own volition is not a works-based legalistic gospel nor do I see that leap in logic as being true.
One side says that a person can reject the free gift and the other says that if a person rejects it they weren't genuine believers to begin with. Neither side is legalistic in their view of salvation. One considers free will and the others are bound by their definition of a believer ("one who believes"). So it seems to me, in some ways, both parties are on the same side that salvation is by grace through faith. Only one believes the possibility to reject the gift. This doesn't seem to me to be heresy, or merit any hostility.
Yes I agree totally with you here.
Even a genuine believer who struggles will know in their heart that there is hope in his name.
I think the crux for me with those who give mental assent is as follows.
Jesus was a real person walked the earth and was moral and died on a cross and he gave good advice.
Thats all he is and no more.
Some want to be like Jesus and follow his ways.
But in doing so they reject the claims of Jesus. Son of God who died for our sins to reconcile us back to the Father.
They don’t believe he rose from the grave.
Thats the crux. I am not a sinner, Jesus didn’t rise from the dead.
Even a genuine believer who struggles will know in their heart that there is hope in his name.
I think the crux for me with those who give mental assent is as follows.
Jesus was a real person walked the earth and was moral and died on a cross and he gave good advice.
Thats all he is and no more.
Some want to be like Jesus and follow his ways.
But in doing so they reject the claims of Jesus. Son of God who died for our sins to reconcile us back to the Father.
They don’t believe he rose from the grave.
Thats the crux. I am not a sinner, Jesus didn’t rise from the dead.
E
Because your still saying God failed. He could not keep you like he promised. And he gave you something he knew you would not keep. Or else he was fooled into thinking you actually did trust him when you did not.
You also have 1 John where John makes it clear, anyone who leaves, and now denies God have never been saved to begin with. If they were saved, they never would have left.
Am not addressing anyone's comments since I haven't been keeping up with the thread. Just want to share a bit what I'm seeing in the Hebrew by studying the words seal, sealed.
We are admonished in the book of Revelation to not lose our first love. I've said here more than a few times that to endure doesn't mean to "do something" to continue in the faith, but is to remain in love with God. I see it confirmed here in the first few instances of the Word seal in the OT.
Job 38:12 Hast thou commanded H6680 the morning H1242 since thy days; H4480 H3117 and caused the dayspring H7837 to know H3045 his place; H4725
Job 38:13 That it might take hold H270 of the ends H3671 of the earth, H776 that the wicked H7563 might be shaken H5287 out of H4480 it?
Job 38:14 It is turned H2015 as clay H2563 to the seal; H2368 and they stand H3320 as H3644 a garment. H3830
I'm not going to post all the definitions here, just what I see through a symbolic picture of them. These scriptures aren't the only place that these pictures can be seen in Hebrew, but in various scriptures previously looked at.
Theres a picture of ones "first light, understanding or revelation of truth that has a place in earth (mankind). Can be the kosmos or men in symbols. We have that initial experience of conversion that is our seal. The approval, ownership, character (Mark) and authority) of the King by His ring stamped. This is seen too in previous scriptures with the word seal. Converted is actually in the Hebrew which delighted me to see.
The first light takes hold of "to the ends of the earth" . That first burning love shakes out the wicked. Of ones self, and the witnesses to others.
The word shaken is another hebrew word that excites me when I see it. It is seen by many different English words in the OT, not just shaken. It's a picture of the Lion, resting, but is disturbed, begins to shake his mane, rustling body, thumping tail, getting ready to roar and rise up.
That burning love for Fathers Son, Yeshua, will cause the Lion of Judah to rise, defend the lover, and attack wickedness. Driving it out of the earth.
It is turned as clay to the seal. Being sealed, being owned, Sonship, but even servants for Sons to inherit, they first learn authority. To have authority, one is first under it.
And they stand as a garment. This is the picture of being clothed in Him. Putting on the Lord Jesus Christ, and making no provision for our old man. Flesh. Who feeds on flesh? The fowls of the air. Demons. That alone should cause us to run from sin.
This is also the Bride of Christ. The Hebrew word garment has Bride in its many definitions.
I dont see where one who has been converted, has been dropped anywhere along the path of salvation. It's something that is given at first light. Continues through life, chastises us for failures, and continually from His Holy Spirit to our Spirit calls to us when we wander. Where are you? Draws us back.
Anyway, I wanted to know what the Bride of Christ is...and now I know.
Its not because of what we do, but who we love.
We are admonished in the book of Revelation to not lose our first love. I've said here more than a few times that to endure doesn't mean to "do something" to continue in the faith, but is to remain in love with God. I see it confirmed here in the first few instances of the Word seal in the OT.
Job 38:12 Hast thou commanded H6680 the morning H1242 since thy days; H4480 H3117 and caused the dayspring H7837 to know H3045 his place; H4725
Job 38:13 That it might take hold H270 of the ends H3671 of the earth, H776 that the wicked H7563 might be shaken H5287 out of H4480 it?
Job 38:14 It is turned H2015 as clay H2563 to the seal; H2368 and they stand H3320 as H3644 a garment. H3830
I'm not going to post all the definitions here, just what I see through a symbolic picture of them. These scriptures aren't the only place that these pictures can be seen in Hebrew, but in various scriptures previously looked at.
Theres a picture of ones "first light, understanding or revelation of truth that has a place in earth (mankind). Can be the kosmos or men in symbols. We have that initial experience of conversion that is our seal. The approval, ownership, character (Mark) and authority) of the King by His ring stamped. This is seen too in previous scriptures with the word seal. Converted is actually in the Hebrew which delighted me to see.
The first light takes hold of "to the ends of the earth" . That first burning love shakes out the wicked. Of ones self, and the witnesses to others.
The word shaken is another hebrew word that excites me when I see it. It is seen by many different English words in the OT, not just shaken. It's a picture of the Lion, resting, but is disturbed, begins to shake his mane, rustling body, thumping tail, getting ready to roar and rise up.
That burning love for Fathers Son, Yeshua, will cause the Lion of Judah to rise, defend the lover, and attack wickedness. Driving it out of the earth.
It is turned as clay to the seal. Being sealed, being owned, Sonship, but even servants for Sons to inherit, they first learn authority. To have authority, one is first under it.
And they stand as a garment. This is the picture of being clothed in Him. Putting on the Lord Jesus Christ, and making no provision for our old man. Flesh. Who feeds on flesh? The fowls of the air. Demons. That alone should cause us to run from sin.
This is also the Bride of Christ. The Hebrew word garment has Bride in its many definitions.
I dont see where one who has been converted, has been dropped anywhere along the path of salvation. It's something that is given at first light. Continues through life, chastises us for failures, and continually from His Holy Spirit to our Spirit calls to us when we wander. Where are you? Draws us back.
Anyway, I wanted to know what the Bride of Christ is...and now I know.
Its not because of what we do, but who we love.
That doesn't make sense under the concept that God permits men to depart from the faith. Consider if a person can depart from the faith then God's power to keep is not put in question. He didn't fail anyone. He left the exit unlocked. "You don't want this? There's the door." The option is available.
Regardless of whether or not this is true (God permitting departure), there is no correlation to Legalism and departure. It isn't a works-based gospel to express that a person can reject the Lord and forfeit their salvation. Again, nothing is being earned. A person would be willingly forsaking God.
So your answer to this is to say that a true believer won't depart, nor can they (as that would make them a false believer). A convenient excuse, and in some ways, circular reasoning by definition. My issue isn't with this doctrine of eternal security, but the accusation that a person suggesting that a believer can forsake salvation has a works-based gospel and another faith. This is wrong, and cult-like. Just because someone disagrees on this matter does not mean they believe a false gospel. The foundation is Christ, on both sides of the argument. The option to reject does not merit heretical accusations from the OSAS proponents.
Regardless of whether or not this is true (God permitting departure), there is no correlation to Legalism and departure. It isn't a works-based gospel to express that a person can reject the Lord and forfeit their salvation. Again, nothing is being earned. A person would be willingly forsaking God.
So your answer to this is to say that a true believer won't depart, nor can they (as that would make them a false believer). A convenient excuse, and in some ways, circular reasoning by definition. My issue isn't with this doctrine of eternal security, but the accusation that a person suggesting that a believer can forsake salvation has a works-based gospel and another faith. This is wrong, and cult-like. Just because someone disagrees on this matter does not mean they believe a false gospel. The foundation is Christ, on both sides of the argument. The option to reject does not merit heretical accusations from the OSAS proponents.