What you did is cite the verses, not exactly what Paul SAID, which is the problem. You asserted your doctrine into the verses without showing what the verses actually said.
Rom 1:1
I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong.
What gift is this actually depicting and how is this relevant?
It's relevant because the Bible teaches that spiritual gifts come from God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, spiritual gifts are irrevocable.
Rom 3:24
and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
What gift exactly is Paul describing here?
The gift of redemption.
Rom 15:15-17
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
Now here it is obvious that the gift being referred to is the death and resurrection of Jesus but you don't indicate how you reply this or how it applies to your point of view on OSAS?
How about the words "the gift brought justification"? And "of the gift of righteousness"?
do these not count? The words justification and righteousness are closely related in the Greek.
"justification" =dikaiōma
1) that which has been deemed right so as to have force of law
1a) what has been established, and ordained by law, an ordinance
1b) a judicial decision, sentence
1b1) of God
1b1a) either the favourable judgment by which he acquits man and declares them acceptable to Him
1b1b) unfavourable: sentence of condemnation
2) a righteous act or deed
"righteousness" = dikaiosunē
1) in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God
1a) the doctrine concerning the way in which man may attain a state approved of God
1b) integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking feeling, and acting
2) in a narrower sense, justice or the virtue which gives each his due
In reference to my comments about John 5:24:
The tenses here are irrelevant but what would Jesus conveyed is very relevant and just as he conveyed the same message in John 11, obviously Lazarus was dead and then Jesus raised him and then he died again, so how exactly did he have eternal life if he died twice?
What does John 11 have to do with John 5:24? Jesus was clear; those who believe HAVE eternal life. So the tense here IS absolutely relevant, but just not to those for whom it is rather inconvenient.
Denying this truth doesn't make it go away.
This is the difference between effectually and effectively. Paul qualifies as by telling us that he doesn't want us to be ignorant about the Lord's return and that when he does in the twinkling of an eye we will all be made imperishable and it is at that point that we receive eternal life.
Impossible for Paul to have contradicted Jesus. Jesus SAID believers HAVE eternal life. Not "will have" it.
I said this:
"That isn't the point or issue. The issue is ONCE GIVEN, the gifts of God cannot be thrown away, lost, revoked, forfeited, sold, or otherwise disposed of."
And yet you fail to show one verse that says any of that, so you're basically reading your perspective into the scripture and making it say something it doesn't?
Let's examine the facts of the matter. Where are any verses that DO teach that any of God's gifts, once received, CAN BE lost, revoked, forfeited, sold, or otherwise disposed of?
So, the evidence from Scripture is that none of that is true. Hence, God's gifts are irrevocable. Which the Scriptures most directly DO say.
This verse itself teaches that but apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word irrevocable?
What do you think it means?
But then this seems to be the genesis of your problem. The irrevocability is on the part of God, and does not supersede the Free Will of man.
So, still thinking that man is able to somehow free himself of the gift of eternal life, huh? So where is that taught? And I mean UN-ambiguously taught.
In fact, that idea is completely refuted, once again, by Jesus Himself in John 10:28.
"and
I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
Your views are in direct contrast to Jesus' teaching. Those He gives eternal life to WILL NEVER PERISH. That's a direct promise. How can anyone argue against His words?
Furthermore, the words "no one" means "no person". Those who consider themselves "persons", or humans are included in that phrase. So, no human is capable of removing any believer from the hand of Jesus, or His Father (v.29).
Are you greater than either of them? That's basically what Jesus is implying. It would take someone greater than them to remove any believer (saved, justified, forgiven, adopted as son) from their hand.
And, no human is greater than them. Therefore, not even the believer himself can do ANYTHING to be removed from their hand.
In other words God has decided that this cannot be recalled or undone based on his work but it doesn't mean that others can't reject it or deny it at some future time. It's all about the attributes of God not about the attributes of man.
Correct. There are no verses that teach that one can lose either salvation or eternal life. Just a lot of assumption about what the warnings are about.
I said this:
"Regarding your post, maybe not. But regarding Paul's writing, I absolutely do understand what he wrote."
Then please do exegete it and tell us what Paul is conveying.
Sorry that I didn't include the exact context for my comments, but if you would cite what is meant by "Paul's writing", I will be happy to exegete.
I said this:
"Let's examine exactly what it says:
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up."
What does "harvest" suggest or mean? It means bearing fruit. Is your view that this verse teaches that salvation is based on bearing fruit? I know some who claim so.
The verse teaches that we are not to give up (become weary) in going good. Those who don't give up will reap a harvest.
There is nothing here about either gaining or maintaining salvation. In fact, it isn't even about salvation. So why cite the verse?"
And this is another problem in that you pull this verse out of its context, which is given in the first 5 verses of this chapter. The context is whether we go to the spirit or so to the flesh and in so doing we reap spiritual things or we reap destruction as verse 7 clearly tells us.
My comments are directly IN context with this. There is nothing in v.1-5 that speak of loss of salvation. Instead, Paul is contrasting our lives either "in the Spirit", meaning being filled with the Holy Spirit, or living by the flesh, which Paul himself elaborated on at length in Romans 6 and 7.
So what Paul is telling us and verse 9 is that if we DO give up, we WILL reap destruction.
Why assume this means eternal death? Why can't it be divine discipline including physical death? The soul cannot be destroyed, and will exist forever, either with God, or apart from Him in the lake of fire, called the second death.
There are many verses that teach that God's divine discipline can and does include physical death.
So how exactly is it that somebody can have eternal life if they can give up and reap destruction?
Divine discipline and destruction of their physical body (death).
The answer is they can't.
I've just given a biblically based answer that is YES they can.
There is this thing called 'hermeneutical exegesis' and it's something that I suggest you learn all about because obviously you are reading the Bible in an eisegetical manner, and insinuating your personal point of view in to the scripture rather than exegeting what the scripture says to inform yourself but the truth of it.
Please point out why "destruction" cannot refer to destruction of one's physical body as God's discipline for giving up.
