Eph 1:4 exegeted

[nobdysfool]

Maybe he meant 'food'. For that is what it is.

Somehow, I don't think that's what he was saying...

 

[Marvin Knox]

Perhaps the simple thread I just started on, “…the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” ,

will help someone who is being troubled by the false gospel being here preached.

 

[EmSw]

I also see that your view is completely unbiblical.

FG2, do you desire to enter life? Then keep my commandments. How is it you believe in Me, when you do not obey my Words? If you don't obey Me, you will not see life.

I love you dearly FG2. Do you love Me? Then keep my commandments. Why ignore My Words when they are the Words of eternal life? Does someone else promise you eternal life without having to keep My commandments? Listen to My voice and follow Me; I will give you eternal life.
- Jesus

 

[FreeGrace2]

FG2, do you desire to enter life? Then keep my commandments. How is it you believe in Me, when you do not obey my Words? If you don't obey Me, you will not see life.

I love you dearly FG2. Do you love Me? Then keep my commandments. Why ignore My Words when they are the Words of eternal life? Does someone else promise you eternal life without having to keep My commandments? Listen to My voice and follow Me; I will give you eternal life.
- Jesus

Interesting how the rest of my post was completely ignored.

I said this:
I also see that your view is completely unbiblical.

Consider this about one who places their faith in Jesus Christ for eternal life:

1. they become children of God. Jn 1:12
2. they are forgiven. Acts 10:43
3. they are justified. Rom 5:1
4. they are born again. 1 Jn 5:1
5. they are regenerated. Titus 3:5
6. they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Rom 8:11
7. they are given eternal life. Jn 3:15,16,5:24, 6:40,47, 11:25-27
8. eternal life is a free gift. Rom 6:23

And God's gifts and calling are IRREVOCABLE. Rom 11:29.

Shame on anyone who claims that eternal life can be lost, forfeited, returned.

To claim that those who have received #1-8 can end up in the lake of fire is unconscionable.

The Holy Spirit resides in every believer. And God cannot deny Himself. 2 Tim 2:13.

 

[mercy1061]

Interesting how the rest of my post was completely ignored.

I said this:
I also see that your view is completely unbiblical.

Consider this about one who places their faith in Jesus Christ for eternal life:

1. they become children of God. Jn 1:12
2. they are forgiven. Acts 10:43
3. they are justified. Rom 5:1
4. they are born again. 1 Jn 5:1
5. they are regenerated. Titus 3:5
6. they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Rom 8:11
7. they are given eternal life. Jn 3:15,16,5:24, 6:40,47, 11:25-27
8. eternal life is a free gift. Rom 6:23

And God's gifts and calling are IRREVOCABLE. Rom 11:29.

Shame on anyone who claims that eternal life can be lost, forfeited, returned.

To claim that those who have received #1-8 can end up in the lake of fire is unconscionable.

The Holy Spirit resides in every believer. And God cannot deny Himself. 2 Tim 2:13.

You know that "once saved always saved" is not written in the bible; AND "once saved NOT always saved" is not written in the bible either. So why are you promoting "once saved always saved"; should you be promoting what the bible actually says?

We used to have a saying in "biblical debate", it must be written or else it should never be stated. Let me be clear I am not promoting "once saved NOT always saved", but you should never promote "once saved always saved" either. I am saying "once circumcised on the 8th day always circumcised" that can be practiced, so practice what you preach.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You know that "once saved always saved" is not written in the bible; AND "once saved NOT always saved" is not written in the bible either. So why are you promoting "once saved always saved"; should you be promoting what the bible actually says?

How about this: please refute my 8 points and conclusion from Rom 11:29. If it can be done.

We used to have a saying in "biblical debate", it must be written or else it should never be stated. Let me be clear I am not promoting "once saved NOT always saved", but you should never promote "once saved always saved" either.

Well, it's either one or the other. Unless there is a 3rd as yet unmentioned view.

 

[EmSw]

Interesting how the rest of my post was completely ignored.

I said this:
I also see that your view is completely unbiblical.

Consider this about one who places their faith in Jesus Christ for eternal life:

1. they become children of God. Jn 1:12
2. they are forgiven. Acts 10:43
3. they are justified. Rom 5:1
4. they are born again. 1 Jn 5:1
5. they are regenerated. Titus 3:5
6. they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Rom 8:11
7. they are given eternal life. Jn 3:15,16,5:24, 6:40,47, 11:25-27
8. eternal life is a free gift. Rom 6:23

And God's gifts and calling are IRREVOCABLE. Rom 11:29.

Shame on anyone who claims that eternal life can be lost, forfeited, returned.

To claim that those who have received #1-8 can end up in the lake of fire is unconscionable.

The Holy Spirit resides in every believer. And God cannot deny Himself. 2 Tim 2:13.

You forgot to add #9 and #10.

9. if they wish to enter life, they will keep His commandments (Matthew 19:17).
10. they will come forth to a resurrection of life if they do good (John 5:29).

 

[Hammster]

You forgot to add #9 and #10.

9. if they wish to enter life, they will keep His commandments (Matthew 19:17).
10. they will come forth to a resurrection of life if they do good (John 5:29).

Just pointing out that this meets FG's criteria of proof. These are verses that actually SAY what you believe.

 

[EmSw]

Just pointing out that this meets FG's criteria of proof. These are verses that actually SAY what you believe.

Even though we have our differences, I want to thank you for your kind and encouraging words Hammster.

 

[Hammster]

Even though we have our differences, I want to thank you for your kind and encouraging words Hammster.

NP. I've always said that, although I disagree that salvation can be lost/forfeited, at least it's consistent with the Arminian/synergistic viewpoint. Non-Calvinists who hold to the view do so inconsistently within their own theology.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Just pointing out that this meets FG's criteria of proof. These are verses that actually SAY what you believe.

es believes that one is saved, or has eternal life, by a combination of faith plus works. But it's interesting to note your taking his side, though his grasp of the whole counsel of God is quite lacking.

He's done nothing to exegete the verses I've provided to refute my understanding of them. Jesus was clear about what He was providing:

John 10:10
“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

I wonder if either of you have a grasp on what it means to have life abundantly. Not only "have life", but to "have it abundantly", as Jesus noted the distinction.

 

[Hammster]

es believes that one is saved, or has eternal life, by a combination of faith plus works. But it's interesting to note your taking his side, though his grasp of the whole counsel of God is quite lacking.

He's done nothing to exegete the verses I've provided to refute my understanding of them. Jesus was clear about what He was providing:

John 10:10
“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

I wonder if either of you have a grasp on what it means to have life abundantly. Not only "have life", but to "have it abundantly", as Jesus noted the distinction.

He has verses that say what he believes. That's been your mantra for your view.

 

[FreeGrace2]

NP. I've always said that, although I disagree that salvation can be lost/forfeited, at least it's consistent with the Arminian/synergistic viewpoint. Non-Calvinists who hold to the view do so inconsistently within their own theology.

Why hasn't anyone been able to actually prove or at least show HOWW my view is inconsistent. All the Calvinists claim it is, yet none have actually backed up their claim with any evidence at all.

My entire view is fully consistent with the Bible.

btw, if I can squeeze into this little fellowship between opposing views, what is your answer to es's quotes? Or would there only be more non-answers?

 

[FreeGrace2]

He has verses that say what he believes. That's been your mantra for your view.

And I've used other verses that actually say different. So the deal is this: either the Bible is hopelessly conflicted and contractory, or one set of quotes has been grossly misunderstood. I believe es's view is the grossly misunderstood one.

How would you respond to him? Or would you be able to?

 

[Hammster]

And I've used other verses that actually say different. So the deal is this: either the Bible is hopelessly conflicted and contractory, or one set of quotes has been grossly misunderstood. I believe es's view is the grossly misunderstood one.

How would you respond to him? Or would you be able to?

So having verses that SAY what you believe isn't enough? Thanks for affirming that.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So having verses that SAY what you believe isn't enough? Thanks for affirming that.

What a laugh. Your posts affirm how much misunderstanding there is in your trying to follow other posters.

I'll boil it all down for you. RT (that's you and your fellow Calvinists) claims that Christ didn't die for everyone. Hm. There are verses that actually SAYS that He did. And RT twists to make them say basically the opposite. And there are NO verses that say that He died ONLY or JUST for some. In fact, RT can only claim that the teaching is "inferred". Yeah, sure. But no one has EVER pointed to a single passage to say "this is the passsage that infers that Christ didn't die for everyone, or that He died ONLY or JUST for some".

Otoh, es provides verses that SAY that eternal life is based on works. Not even faith plus works. I've shown verses that clearly SAY that eternal life is based on faith, with NO mention of works.

The key is that Jesus said in Jn 10:10 that He came "that they may have life, and have it abundantly". Here, Jesus distinguishes between "having life" and "having life abundantly". We read a similar parallel in Peter's 2nd letter:
"for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you." 1:10

The key is "abundant". This speaks of reward, beyond just entering the kingdom. When Jesus spoke of having eternal life based on works, He was speaking of eternal reward, not just getting saved.

When Jesus spoke of having eternal life based on faith, apart from works, He was speaking about entering the kingdom, or getting saved.

If this distinction isn't acknowledged, then the ONLY conclusion is that the Bible is hopelessly conflicted and contradictory.

How would you respond to es's claim that getting eternal life is based on works, given what his verses SAY?

Going back to the issue of who Christ died for, where are any passages that infer that He died ONLY or JUST for some? There aren't any, though RT keeps claiming that there are.

I have provided a very logical and reasonable defense of my view which refutes es's view. RT cannot do that with who Christ died for.

 

[Hammster]

What a laugh. Your posts affirm how much misunderstanding there is in your trying to follow other posters.

I'll boil it all down for you. RT (that's you and your fellow Calvinists) claims that Christ didn't die for everyone. Hm. There are verses that actually SAYS that He did. And RT twists to make them say basically the opposite. And there are NO verses that say that He died ONLY or JUST for some. In fact, RT can only claim that the teaching is "inferred". Yeah, sure. But no one has EVER pointed to a single passage to say "this is the passsage that infers that Christ didn't die for everyone, or that He died ONLY or JUST for some".

Otoh, es provides verses that SAY that eternal life is based on works. Not even faith plus works. I've shown verses that clearly SAY that eternal life is based on faith, with NO mention of works.

The key is that Jesus said in Jn 10:10 that He came "that they may have life, and have it abundantly". Here, Jesus distinguishes between "having life" and "having life abundantly". We read a similar parallel in Peter's 2nd letter:
"for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you." 1:10

The key is "abundant". This speaks of reward, beyond just entering the kingdom. When Jesus spoke of having eternal life based on works, He was speaking of eternal reward, not just getting saved.

When Jesus spoke of having eternal life based on faith, apart from works, He was speaking about entering the kingdom, or getting saved.

If this distinction isn't acknowledged, then the ONLY conclusion is that the Bible is hopelessly conflicted and contradictory.

How would you respond to es's claim that getting eternal life is based on works, given what his verses SAY?

Going back to the issue of who Christ died for, where are any passages that infer that He died ONLY or JUST for some? There aren't any, though RT keeps claiming that there are.

I have provided a very logical and reasonable defense of my view which refutes es's view. RT cannot do that with who Christ died for.

Sounds just like the argument for the Trinity vs Oneness, but in reverse. Trinitarians have no verses that actually SAY what they believe. It's all done through careful study of what scripture says about the Father, Son, and Spirit. Oneness folks have verses that SAY what they believe.

So who is right? Based on your methodology, you'd have to side with the Oneness camp. That is, if you are being consistent.

 

[Marvin Knox]

........,

A person should never take a poll to determine doctrine.

Having said that - it is wise IMO to at least look at what other theologians believe concerning possible loss of salvation. It's also wise to look at various confessions and creeds for some insight. Not dogmatic answers - but insights.

I'm not taking about the so called theologians here in the soteriology section of the forums. I'm talking about reputable and well recognized systematic theology compilers over the centuries since the reformation.

They come in all stripes. Some are RT/Calvinists and some are Arminian types. Among the Arminians in particular we find some who advocate possible loss of salvation through apostasy. Not many RT would find that position - but occasionally some variety of RT would lean that way. Usually they are looking at apostasy as showing that the person never was saved in the first place however.

But it's interesting to me that even among these theologians who often disagree almost violently concerning certain doctrines - NONE that I am aware of hold to the radical views concerning loss of salvation advocated by extaordinary and now EmSw.

Again - some would hold to a possible loss of salvation is certain extreme cases. But none would hold to the views being expressed here.

I've been combing my considerable library of systematic theology volumes and Protestant church creeds printed over the last 400 years. I can't find one reputable theologian with any legitimate credentials who would agree with you.

That proves nothing of course. But there is a certain wisdom that can come from a multitude of Godly men.

A word to the wise.

I'm just sayin!

 

[FreeGrace2]

Sounds just like the argument for the Trinity vs Oneness, but in reverse. Trinitarians have no verses that actually SAY what they believe. It's all done through careful study of what scripture says about the Father, Son, and Spirit. Oneness folks have verses that SAY what they believe.

So who is right? Based on your methodology, you'd have to side with the Oneness camp. That is, if you are being consistent.

Only those who continue to fail to grasp my view would make that wrong conclusion. I've given solid evidence for eternal reward based on works, while eternal life is based on faith. And considering Jesus' words in Jn 10:10 about coming that "they may have life, and have it abundantly", it is clear that there is eternal life, and there is something MORE, eternal rewards in eternity.

So when Jesus noted eternal life based on works, it is evidence that reward is in view, and when He noted eternal life is based on faith, He was referring to receiving salvation.

 

[Hammster]

Only those who continue to fail to grasp my view would make that wrong conclusion. I've given solid evidence for eternal reward based on works, while eternal life is based on faith. And considering Jesus' words in Jn 10:10 about coming that "they may have life, and have it abundantly", it is clear that there is eternal life, and there is something MORE, eternal rewards in eternity.

So when Jesus noted eternal life based on works, it is evidence that reward is in view, and when He noted eternal life is based on faith, He was referring to receiving salvation.

You completely missed what I said. My guess, though, was it was intentional since you didn't even try to address it, but rather just restated your view.