The lie of eternal security refuted once and for all.

[EmSw]

I've already answered your silly question. Jesus didn't specify the reward.

The problem is you say the Bible doesn't speak of ONE reward, and I showed you it did. Jesus is bringing that REWARD with Him.

Revelation 11:18
And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give REWARD unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Revelation 22:12
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

So FG2, we have two passages which say Jesus will render A REWARD when He comes back. What we do know is the REWARD is given to prophets, saints, those who fear His name, and given to every man according to his works.

Since you are so enthused and dependent upon rewards, why do you not know what this REWARD is? Perhaps you should read every passage on the Lord's return and see what that REWARD might be. You can start with Matthew 25:31-46 for starters. We know some were rewarded eternal life, while others were rewarded everlasting punishment.

This corresponds perfectly with Romans 2.

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Man is given eternal life or indignation and wrath according to his deeds. If you say you can't do good, then there is only one other option for you. If you continue in your evil, you will be given everlasting punishment, indignation, and wrath. Why would a man not take this seriously? Why do you not take this seriously? Maybe you can tell us why one would want to neglect these words and convince yourself this is not the truth.

How come you ignored my question to you? Please answer before I answer any of your questions:

Do you believe that a believer can achieve sinless perfection during their life on earth?

I don't remember you asking me this, but a believer will not achieve sinless perfection during this lifetime. If you are trying to trap me, it won't work. Your snare will fail on the righteous (those who do good from the Lord), and will eventually ensare you.

The Bible never mentions sinless perfection as a requirement for one to receive eternal life.

Actually, his point was that one MUST continually DO GOOD in order to receive eternal life. And then he proved that no one can do that. As I already pointed out.

Why is it difficult to do good, if you have a new nature? Why is it difficult to do good if Christ gives you the strength to do all things? Is Jesus failing at His end? Is the new nature flawed? Why can't you continually do good? Could it be you have no desire to do good? Could it be you haven't removed iniquity in your heart to make yourself a new heart?

Could it be you have relied upon and believed the doctrine of other men, namely, Free Grace. Have other men told you that you can't do good? Have you not read what happens to men who continue to do evil? If you can't do good, then the only other alternative is doing evil.

If you can't do good, how do I know if aren't lying to me? Why should I believe anything you say if you continue in evil? If you continue in evil and not good, how do I know you believe in Jesus as you say? If you do believe Him, why are you not listening to Him and obeying His word?[/QUOTE]

 

[FreeGrace2]

The problem is you say the Bible doesn't speak of ONE reward, and I showed you it did. Jesus is bringing that REWARD with Him.

Where would one get the notion that He only brings ONE with Him? That's just kinda a huge assumption.

Revelation 11:18
And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give REWARD unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Revelation 22:12
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

So FG2, we have two passages which say Jesus will render A REWARD when He comes back.

Actually, it seems you've been reading the Bible rather carelessly. In 11:18 the verse says "give reward", and 22:12 says "My reward". So, NEITHER verse says what you erroneously claim.

What we do know is the REWARD is given to prophets, saints, those who fear His name, and given to every man according to his works.

Since you are so enthused and dependent upon rewards, why do you not know what this REWARD is?

There are many kinds of REWARD, but one would be familiar with those parables that Jesus taught that were about REWARD. Ruling cities, etc.

Perhaps you should read every passage on the Lord's return and see what that REWARD might be. You can start with Matthew 25:31-46 for starters. We know some were rewarded eternal life, while others were rewarded everlasting punishment.

Nobody will be rewarded with eternal life. I've proven that from at least 10 verses. But you are free to form your own opinions. But I will stick with what the Bible teaches about reward.

This corresponds perfectly with Romans 2.

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

How many times would you like me to explain this passage to you? But really, would it do any good? I think not. Paul completely refuted any idea that anyone will EVER receive eternal life through "continuiance in doing good". But you weren't paying attention to the verses from Romans where I proved that.

Man is given eternal life or indignation and wrath according to his deeds.

Salvation is by grace, NOT by works. Your views are in serious error.

You're going to be much like the crowd in Matt 7:21-23 who thought they were getting into the kingdom based on their works. Nope. Doesn't work that way.

If you say you can't do good, then there is only one other option for you. If you continue in your evil, you will be given everlasting punishment, indignation, and wrath.

Here is the Bible's teaching. No one is good. Period. Rom 3:9 and 3:23 SAYS that. We are all sinners. And the silly notion of sinless perfection (which, btw, you've still not answered my question to you about that) is refuted clearly in 1 John 1:8.

I don't remember you asking me this, but a believer will not achieve sinless perfection during this lifetime.

Thank you. That much is correct in your otherwise nonbiblical views.

The Bible never mentions sinless perfection as a requirement for one to receive eternal life.

Not exactly. Rom 2:6,7 is Paul's point about receiving eternal life based on works. One would have to "continue in doing good", which he then goes on to prove is impossible.

In fact, it seems you do not really believe Eph 2:8,9.
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Your view excludes grace completely. We don't earn God's grace, nor do we deserve it.

Why is it difficult to do good, if you have a new nature?

Just read Romans 6 and 7 and Gal 5 and you'd not have to ask such a question. We STILL have our sin natures, and they struggle against each other. I've NEVER said that believers are not capable of doing good. Such a view, very similar to Jason's, is simply taking another's view to the absurd extreme.

The point is clear: no one will earn or deserve eternal life. That's what grace is all about. Which, it seems, you don't understand.

All of the rest of your questions were irrelevant, since I've NEVER said that believers cannot "do good". The issue isn't "doing good", but in continuance of doing good.

And Paul wrote that all men are under sin. And that all men HAVE SINNED and fall short of God's glory.

And we are saved by grace through faith, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

So, go ahead and think you are earning eternal life by whatever you do. That is blasphemy against Christ if you claim to be a Christian.

No different, really, than the Jewish believers who were returning to animal sacrifice after accepting Christ's perfect and permanent sacrifice on their behalf. That's why the writer wrote this: "since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame."

I think you have an awlful lot to repent of.

There is no time like the present.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jason, this guy was not a child of God, he was a slave, as we all are before we are born again. The Bible says that God gives the Holy Spirit to those that obey him (Acts 5:32). And we must obey from the heart, Read Romans 6:17-18.

First, we are called to be slaves of righteousness and or slaves to Christ (God).

"You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." (Romans 6:18 NIV).

"But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life" (Romans 6:22 NIV).

"For you are free, yet you are God's slaves, so don't use your freedom as an excuse to do evil." (1 Peter 2:16 NLT).

"For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord's freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ's slave" (1 Corinthians 7:22 NIV).​

Second, the Parable of the Talents is talking to believers and how their faithfulness is directly equated with whether or not they enter into the joy of the Lord (Matthew 25:21) or if their unfaithfulness (i.e. the unprofitable servant) leads them to be cast into our darkness (Which is not of the Kingdom of God) whereby their will be weeping and gnashing of teeth on their part (Matthew 25:30).


....

 

[Jack Terrence]

Not exactly. Rom 2:6,7 is Paul's point about receiving eternal life based on works. One would have to "continue in doing good", which he then goes on to prove is impossible.

Paul no where shows that continuing to do good is impossible. Those who continue would be regenerated.

In fact, it seems you do not really believe Eph 2:8,9.
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

It is saying that faith is not of yourselves.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this [faith] not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

The noun "faith" is the nearest antecedent to the pronoun "this." Don't embarrass yourself by saying that the feminine noun "faith" cannot be the antecedent of the neuter pronoun "this." The feminine noun is abstract. The neuter pronoun often takes an abstract feminine noun as its antecedent.

Example: This (neuter) grace (feminine) before God.... 1 Peter 2:19

The "nearest antecedent" rule stands unless you have compelling grammatical evidence to the contrary.

Btw, the I Peter verse defines "grace" in terms of perseverance totally destroying the "unmerited favor" definition given us by the FGT crowd.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Paul no where shows that continuing to do good is impossible. Those who continue would be regenerated.

So, as a Calvinist, you actually believe that one is regenerated on the basis of what they DO? Really?

It is saying that faith is not of yourselves.

Let's get this straight for once. "Faith" is what we believe. The believing is an action that is from ourselves, as Rom 10:10 clearly states:
"for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

Where do you get the notion that one is regenerated by "continuing to do good"?

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this [faith] not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

The grammar actually shows that it is our salvation that is not of ourselves, as all Calvinists know and claim. Unless you've jumped ship and now claim that we participate with God in getting saved. Is that correct?

The noun "faith" is the nearest antecedent to the pronoun "this."

The last phrase "it is the gift of God" refers to salvation, which aligns with Rom 6:23 which says that eternal life (salvation) is a gift of God.

Don't embarrass yourself by saying that the feminine noun "faith" cannot be the antecedent of the neuter pronoun "this."

Why would I embarrass myself when Greek scholars are in general agreement with that. They didn't embarrass themselves. Even some Calvinist Greek scholars have agreed.

The feminine noun is abstract. The neuter pronoun often takes an abstract feminine noun as its antecedent.

So "often" absolutely fits here, huh?

The "nearest antecedent" rule stands unless you have compelling grammatical evidence to the contrary.

Do you have a scholarly source for that claim?

I defer to the Greek scholars on the subject.

Btw, the I Peter verse defines "grace" in terms of perseverance totally destroying the "unmerited favor" definition given us by the FGT crowd.

Please cite specific verses because I don't believe you. Grace cannot be in terms of perseverance, because perseverance depends on YOU, not on God. Grace is about God and is undeserved and unearned.

 

[Jack Terrence]

So, as a Calvinist, you actually believe that one is regenerated on the basis of what they DO? Really?

Where did I imply that? Paul was speaking to judaizing Christians Jews. They were regenerated.

Let's get this straight for once.

Don't tell me sonny. I was studying the scripture while you were feeding on your mommy's bosoms.

Where do you get the notion that one is regenerated by "continuing to do good"?

You are putting words into my mouth. Paul was speaking to Jewish Christians who were already regenerated. He was admonishing them to continue in doing good with the reward being immortality and eternal life.

The grammar actually shows that it is our salvation that is not of ourselves, as all Calvinists know and claim. Unless you've jumped ship and now claim that we participate with God in getting saved. Is that correct?

I demanded compelling grammatical evidence. Bare assertion is not compelling grammatical evidence. The "nearest antecedent" rule stands until you produce compelling grammatical evidence to the contrary. Please see the link below on feminine nouns as antecedents of neuter pronouns.

http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Ephesians2.html

[The last phrase "it is the gift of God" refers to salvation, which aligns with Rom 6:23 which says that eternal life (salvation) is a gift of God.

If salvation is the gift of God, then faith is also the gift of God. If faith is a "condition" for salvation as you have said to me in the past, then salvation is the REWARD of faith. Yet you deny that salvation is a reward. You cannot even maintain a reasonable amount of consistency in your posts.

Why would I embarrass myself when Greek scholars are in general agreement with that. They didn't embarrass themselves. Even some Calvinist Greek scholars have agreed.

Actually, Calvinist Greek scholars agree that your grammar is only a possibility. Let's not engage in misrepresentation. The link I provided above contains a list of Calvinist scholars who say that faith must be the antecedent though they admit that your interpretation is a possibility.



Btw, I have been meaning to say more on 1 Corinthians 3. I am even more convinced now that the gold, silver and precious stones Paul talked about refers to true believers. I say this because Paul was NOT referring to bare silver and gold. He was referring a building made of gem stones like those that consituted the Herodian temple. The Herodian temple was built with precious stones embedded with silver and gold. It as built with gem stones. It goes without saying that true believers are the stones that make up the spiritual temple. The Bride of Christ is depicted as a city/temple built with gem stones of all kinds. There is no doubt whatsoever that the gem stones in the Bride represent true believers.

Therefore, Paul was saying that if he and Apollos built the upon the foundation with gem stones (true believers) that the "reward" would be that the building would remain. But if they built upon it with wood, hay and stubble (false believers), he and Apollos would "suffer loss" by the building coming to nothing.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Where did I imply that?

Oh, just this phrase of yours: "Those who continue would be regenerated." Maybe it could have been phrased better.

Don't tell me sonny. I was studying the scripture while you were feeding on your mommy's bosoms.

Whare are you, about 130 years old, or something?

You are putting words into my mouth. Paul was speaking to Jewish Christians who were already regenerated. He was admonishing them to continue in doing good with the reward being immortality and eternal life.

Then if one is rewarded with eternal life, it is NOT a gift. And salvation (eternal life) is earned. So much for being saved by grace.

I demanded compelling grammatical evidence. Bare assertion is not compelling grammatical evidence. The "nearest antecedent" rule stands until you produce compelling grammatical evidence to the contrary. Please see the link below on feminine nouns as antecedents of neuter pronouns.

http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Ephesians2.html

I didn't see anything in that article that indicated that he was anything more than an entrepreneur. Interesting that he quoted only Calvinists.

If salvation is the gift of God, then faith is also the gift of God. If faith is a "condition" for salvation as you have said to me in the past, then salvation is the REWARD of faith. Yet you deny that salvation is a reward. You cannot even maintain a reasonable amount of consistency in your posts.

Salvation CANNOT be a reward. Paul slammed that bit of error in Rom 4:4,5 and Eph 2;8,9. We are save by grace, not of works. We cannot earn, nor do we deserve salvation. If salvation were a reward, by its very definition, we have earned it.

I suggest investing in a dictionary. Learn what a reward is.

Actually, Calvinist Greek scholars agree that your grammar is only a possibility. Let's not engage in misrepresentation. The link I provided above contains a list of Calvinist scholars who say that faith must be the antecedent though they admit that your interpretation is a possibility.

Well, there you go. And there are some Calvinists who agree that the gift is salvation.

Btw, I have been meaning to say more on 1 Corinthians 3. I am even more convinced now that the gold, silver and precious stones Paul talked about refers to true believers. I say this because Paul was NOT referring to bare silver and gold. He was referring a building made of gem stones like those that consituted the Herodian temple. The Herodian temple was built with precious stones embedded with silver and gold. It as built with gem stones. It goes without saying that true believers are the stones that make up the spiritual temple. The Bride of Christ is depicted as a city/temple built with gem stones of all kinds. There is no doubt whatsoever that the gem stones in the Bride represent true believers.

Therefore, Paul was saying that if he and Apollos built the upon the foundation with gem stones (true believers) that the "reward" would be that the building would remain. But if they built upon it with wood, hay and stubble (false believers), he and Apollos would "suffer loss" by the building coming to nothing.

But Paul was very clear that the building is the church. So your entire opinion falls down.

The issue in v.15 is salvation. Even though one's works of wood, hay and straw will burn up, they will still be saved. The works of gold, silver and gems will be rewarded.

I'll let Paul say it again:
14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains,he will receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

How does it make sense for "work burned up" leads to suffering loss? Loss of what, exactly? Only if Paul was referring to rewards (v.14) does v.15 make sense. Loss of rewards is the point.

Therefore, the works are contrasted: divine good produced by the power of the Holy Spirit, vs human effort produced by the sin nature, which will be burned up and the believer will suffer loss of reward.

Since Paul mentioned reward in v.14, he was still referring to reward in v.15.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Oh, just this phrase of yours: "Those who continue would be regenerated." Maybe it could have been phrased better.

Ok, it was poor syntax on my part.

Whare are you, about 130 years old, or something?

I was just giving it back to you. I don't like you saying to me, "Let's get something straight."

Then if one is rewarded with eternal life, it is NOT a gift. And salvation (eternal life) is earned. So much for being saved by grace.

No, because faith is a gift. Why is it that you prefer Romans 3:21 over Romans 2:8-11? You seem to love the "gift" sections but despise the "reward" portions of scripture.

I didn't see anything in that article that indicated that he was anything more than an entrepreneur. Interesting that he quoted only Calvinists.

Ad hominen and evasive. Do neuter pronouns sometimes take feminine nouns as their antecedents? Yes, or no?

Salvation CANNOT be a reward. Paul slammed that bit of error in Rom 4:4,5 and Eph 2;8,9. We are save by grace, not of works. We cannot earn, nor do we deserve salvation. If salvation were a reward, by its very definition, we have earned it.

Now that's funny. Paul's very first mention of eternal life in the book of Romans suggests that it is a reward.

And in Galatians he tells Christians that if they SOW to the Spirit they shall REAP eternal life. Invest in a dictionary. That which is REAPED is the REWARD. Online Dictionary: reap: receive the benefit of reward.

FGT is selective in its use of the scriptures. This is a mark of a cult. Get my drift?

But Paul was very clear that the building is the church.

Exactly! The building is true believers CORPORATELY, and the gem stones are true believers INDIVIDUALLY. True believers are the gem stones. Do you deny that the stones of the temple are INDIVIDUAL believers?

The issue in v.15 is salvation. Even though one's works of wood, hay and straw will burn up, they will still be saved. The works of gold, silver and gems will be rewarded.

I'll let Paul say it again:
14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains,he will receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

You are making Paul to contradict himself. Verse 17 CLEARLY says that the man (Paul or Apollos) who defiles the temple of God will be "DESTROYED."

17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will DESTROY him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

Jumping to 4:6 we CLEARLY see that Paul was speaking FIGURATIVELY of Apollos and himself. [Note: I do not take the word "destroy" to mean annihilation or anything like that, but rather the loss of a good reputation and ministry.]

If Paul or Apollos would have defiled the temple of God by incorporating false believers into it they would have been DESTROYED, that is, their reputations and their ministries would have come to nothing. When a man loses his reputation and his ministry he says, "I have been destroyed."

How does it make sense for "work burned up" leads to suffering loss? Loss of what, exactly? Only if Paul was referring to rewards (v.14) does v.15 make sense. Loss of rewards is the point.

Nothing is mentioned about rewards in the sense you speak about rewards. And even if that were so, it would have had reference only to Paul and Apollos in their earthly lives and not in heaven. The same is true of the loss. It had reference to Paul and Apollos and probably by extension the whole Apostolic company. And it had reference to loss in their earthly existence.

Therefore, the expression "he himself will be saved" is NOT a reference to salvation in the sense you mean. It means only that Paul and Apollos would not have been inflicted with suffering or death because of it. They would have been spared, but their lives would have been "destroyed" in the sense a man's life and reputation is "destroyed" when he commits sin.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

1 Corinthians 3 is addressed to the Corinthians who had the carnal thinking that they were special because they followed a certain somebody in Christ. They took pride in the people they were following and thought their leader made them to be the "hot stuff." This is not a cause of concern for them to lose their salvation per say, but if one opens the flood gate to carnal thinking, it can let loose the flood to engulf you (into worse carnal ways). Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5, that they are not to keep company with fornicators and they were to kick out a certain fornicator in their church. If for some reason these Corinthians were not saved, then Paul would also have to say to them that they would need to get their hearts right with God, as well (And be kicked out of the ministry altogether - until they repent).

Anyways, here is the meaning in 1 Corinthians 3.

(a) The foundation of the building is Jesus (1 Corinthians 3:11 NLT).

(b) God's building or temple is the believer (1 Corinthians 3:9 NLT)..
(Whereby the building grows in construction by bringing more believers into the fold by preaching Jesus Christ to others).

(c) The fire is God's Judgment (1 Corinthians 3:13 NLT).

(c) The elements (Gold, silver, jewels, wood, hay, etc.) are the materials of the building;
These materials are representative of the righteous works of the believer (1 Corinthians 3:12-13 NLT).

And the point about one's works being burned up is directed to the Corinthians.
For Paul is essentially saying their good deeds for Christ are not completely pure and without selfish motives (Because they are wrongfully taking pride in others to give themselves worth). This means that their works (Which did not have a completely pure motive) will be burned up but they themselves will be saved because they are still building upon the foundation of Jesus Christ.

In addition, the materials of the building is not one's bad works (really horrible sins) versus good works here. There is no mention of horrible sins like murder, hate, adultery, theft, idolatry, etc. For there are sins that lead unto death and sins that do not lead unto death (1 John 5:16-18). Sins that lead unto death are called "death" because they lead unto the "Second Death" (i.e. the Lake of Fire) (Revelation 21:8). Furthermore, sin can only be cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ. Again, God's Wrath or Judgment is the picture of the fire here. Fire does not burn away sin. That would be the Catholic's version of purgatory (Which is not Biblical). Works here in 1 Corinthians 3 is only speaking of the righteous works of God that can stand on the foundation of Jesus Christ. Also, the Corinthians here whose work would be burned by their carnal way of thinking they are "hot stuff" by saying they follow a particular person they admire is barely escaping the fire, too. This is why Paul then warns them that they can destroy their temple if they defile it. For there are serious sins that can cause one to forfeit their salvation. For Paul says, elsewhere that murder, hate, fornication, etc. can cause one not to inherit the Kingdom of God (See Galatians 5). Paul also says that those who do such sins are abiding under the Wrath of God, too (Colossians 3).

​

So 1 Corinthians 3 is talking about salvation.

Side Note:

Also, please take note that those believers who do not have any kind of good works whatsoever that is based upon the foundation of Jesus Christ will not be at the Bema Seat Judgment whereby their works will be tested by fire (or by God's Judgment). For the Scriptures say,

"They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."
(Titus 1:16).

Also, it is not enough to bring forth fruitful works for the Lord in this life, too. One has to also live holy and righteous, too. For one, without holiness no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). Two, only those who do the will of the Father will enter Heaven - Matthew 7:21, And the will of the Father or God is our Sanctification (i.e. holiness) - 1 Thessalonians 4:3. Three, the person who does not do what Jesus says is likened to a fool who built his house upon the sand and it was destroyed greatly by a storm - Matthew 7:26-27.

Did you catch that?

The one who does not do what Jesus says is like a house (building, temple) upon the sand that falls greatly from a storm. It is destroyed. This is the believer being destroyed. For Jesus says, fear not the one who can destroy the body, but fear the one who can destroy both body and SOUL in Gehenna (i.e. the Lake of Fire) (Matthew 10:28 BLB). This is one of the points Paul brought up in 1 Corinthians 3.

"God will destroy anyone who destroys this temple. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple." (1 Corinthians 3:17).

In fact, if the church of Ephesus does not repent and do the "first works", then the Lord will come and remove their candlestick out of it's place (i.e. they will no longer be saved).

"Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent" (Revelation 2:5).

For the light that we shine is not our own light, but it is the light of Christ (John 8:12; cf. John 12:35).


....

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"Then if one is rewarded with eternal life, it is NOT a gift. And salvation (eternal life) is earned. So much for being saved by grace."

No, because faith is a gift.

A gift is a noun. Faith is the body of knowledge that we believe. OK, faith is a gift. That's just like saying that God's Word (the body of knowledge that needs to be believed) is a gift.

But there is no Scripture that says that one's action of believing is a gift.

Why is it that you prefer Romans 3:21 over Romans 2:8-11? You seem to love the "gift" sections but despise the "reward" portions of scripture.

Well, it's clear you haven't read very much of my posts. Gifts and rewards are different issues. A gift is not deserved or earned, unlike a reward.

Now that's funny. Paul's very first mention of eternal life in the book of Romans suggests that it is a reward.

It would be a reward IF one could actually "continue in doing good". That's the key to understanding what Paul wrote. Does the Bible give us any examples of anyone who has actually continued in doing good and received eternal life as a result? NO.

Jesus is the ONLY human being who continued in doing good. And He didn't need a Savior. He IS the Savior. We humans, who are all under sin (Rom 3:9) need the Savior because we cannot earn eternal life.

And in Galatians he tells Christians that if they SOW to the Spirit they shall REAP eternal life. Invest in a dictionary. That which is REAPED is the REWARD. Online Dictionary: reap: receive the benefit of reward.

In that verse, to "reap eternal life" means receiving rewards in eternity. Not just getting into heaven.

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

Jesus made 2 points:
1. having life, and
2. having it (life) abundantly.

He was speaking of having eternal life and having rewards beyond eternal life.

FGT is selective in its use of the scriptures. This is a mark of a cult. Get my drift?

Your drift is full of nonsense. I use Scripture that shows my views, or refutes your views. And verses are selective regarding various subjects.

Exactly! The building is true believers CORPORATELY, and the gem stones are true believers INDIVIDUALLY. True believers are the gem stones. Do you deny that the stones of the temple are INDIVIDUAL believers?

I've already explained how your view of people just doesn't work in v.14 and 15. Those verses are about having our own works burned up and we will suffer loss, or our works will be rewarded.

So, if our works are individual people, God will reward THEM?? That doesn't fit or make any sense.

I said this:
"I'll let Paul say it again:
14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains,he will receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire."

You are making Paul to contradict himself.

How so? Please provide some explanation for your broad strokes. Throwing out just an opinion isn't at all helpful. So, HOW SO?

Verse 17 CLEARLY says that the man (Paul or Apollos) who defiles the temple of God will be "DESTROYED."

So, what does this have to do with v.14 and 15 regarding this so-called contradiction you accuse me of forcing on Paul?

What do yo think "destroy" refers to?

Jumping to 4:6 we CLEARLY see that Paul was speaking FIGURATIVELY of Apollos and himself. [Note: I do not take the word "destroy" to mean annihilation or anything like that, but rather the loss of a good reputation and ministry.

OK, so, I still don't know HOW I'm trying to make Paul contradict himself.

If Paul or Apollos would have defiled the temple of God by incorporating false believers into it they would have been DESTROYED, that is, their reputations and their ministries would have come to nothing. When a man loses his reputation and his ministry he says, "I have been destroyed."

How does one "incorporate false believers" or more accurately wrongly taught unbelievers, into the temple of God?

Nothing is mentioned about rewards in the sense you speak about rewards.

v.14 sure does. Clearly so.

And even if that were so, it would have had reference only to Paul and Apollos in their earthly lives and not in heaven.

More opinion. No supporting evidence.

The same is true of the loss. It had reference to Paul and Apollos and probably by extension the whole Apostolic company. And it had reference to loss in their earthly existence.

So, what, specifically, would they lose in their earthly experience?

Therefore, the expression "he himself will be saved" is NOT a reference to salvation in the sense you mean. It means only that Paul and Apollos would not have been inflicted with suffering or death because of it.

Yet, Paul WAS "inflicted with both suffering and death".

I believe your interpretation is far from what Paul meant.

They would have been spared, but their lives would have been "destroyed" in the sense a man's life and reputation is "destroyed" when he commits sin.

The only interpretation that makes logical sense is that Paul was speaking of 2 types of construction on the foundation of the local church: permanent vs impermanent works. Or works of eternal value vs works without eternal value.

Paul was encouraging the Corinthians to do what has eternal value.

Please explain how my view doesn't fit and isn't in view.

Do you disagree with the issue of works of eternal value vs works that have no eternal value?

 

[EmSw]

I said this:
"Then if one is rewarded with eternal life, it is NOT a gift. And salvation (eternal life) is earned. So much for being saved by grace."

A gift is a noun. Faith is the body of knowledge that we believe. OK, faith is a gift. That's just like saying that God's Word (the body of knowledge that needs to be believed) is a gift.

But there is no Scripture that says that one's action of believing is a gift.


Well, it's clear you haven't read very much of my posts. Gifts and rewards are different issues. A gift is not deserved or earned, unlike a reward.

Consider this example -

A man desired for his grandson to go to college. He told his grandson that we would give him a new car if he went to college. The grandfather told his grandson he must make passing grades in order to receive the car.

The grandson currently had D's and F's in high school and knew he wouldn't qualify for college with these grades on his own. When he told his grandfather of his plight, the grandfather graciously sent a master teacher free of charge to help his grandson to overcome this deficit and help him receive higher grades.

The grandson had to change his ways; he now had to do something to remedy his failure in making good grades. So, during his high school year, the grandson worked hard, along with the master teacher, to meet the conditions his grandfather set. The grandson had faith in the master teacher that he would help him and did what the master teacher said.

I now ask, because the son had to listen to and obey what the master teacher said, did that make the gift from his grandfather null and void? Did it cease to become a gift because the grandson had to do something (make passing grades)? Would you consider this a reward also?

Also, what if the grandson only believed in the master teacher, but did not do what the master teacher said? Will the grandson receive the gift?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Consider this example -

A man desired for his grandson to go to college. He told his grandson that we would give him a new car if he went to college. The grandfather told his grandson he must make passing grades in order to receive the car.

The grandson currently had D's and F's in high school and knew he wouldn't qualify for college with these grades on his own. When he told his grandfather of his plight, the grandfather graciously sent a master teacher free of charge to help his grandson to overcome this deficit and help him receive higher grades.

During the high school year, the grandson worked hard, along with the master teacher, to meet the conditions his grandfather set. The grandson had faith in the master teacher that he would help him and did what the master teacher said.

I now ask, because the son had to listen to and obey what the master teacher said, did that make the gift from his grandfather null and void? Did it cease to become a gift because the grandson had to do something (make passing grades)? Would you consider this a reward also?

No, I wouldn't. It was a "gift" with strings attached. If it really would be a gift, then the grandfather would have just given the new car without any strings attached. That's EXACTLY like the gift of eternal life: NO STRINGS ATTACHED.

The conditions for the new car included WORKING FOR IT. He HAD to get certain grades. That is WORK. PERIOD. No grace.

Also, what if the grandson only believed in the master teacher, but did not do what the master teacher said? Will the grandson receive the gift?

It wasn't a gift, as I have explained. When strings are attached that involves effort or work, the notion of it being a "gift" are thrown out the window.

To be a gift, it must have NO STRINGS ATTACHED.

That's the whole problem with the conditional security ilk. They ALWAYS have strings attached to salvation, but they just don't or won't admit it.

Your newest example is clear proof of that.

Grace means NO STRINGS ATTACHED. A grace gift has NO STRINGS ATTACHED.

To believe in Christ is NOT effort nor works. Everything that the conditional security ilk claims must occur to obtain salvation involves effort or works.

 

[EmSw]

No, I wouldn't. It was a "gift" with strings attached. If it really would be a gift, then the grandfather would have just given the new car without any strings attached. That's EXACTLY like the gift of eternal life: NO STRINGS ATTACHED.

The conditions for the new car included WORKING FOR IT. He HAD to get certain grades. That is WORK. PERIOD. No grace.

Why don't we look at the definition of gift? This is taken from the Free Dictionary -

something given voluntarily without payment in return, as to show favor toward someone, honor an occasion, or make a gesture of assistance; present.

Did the grandfather give the car voluntarily? Please answer.
Did the grandson have to repay his grandfather for the car? Please answer.
Did the car honor an occasion? Please answer.
Did the car make a gesture of assistance? Please answer.
Did the car show favor toward someone? Please answer.
Did the grandfather show favor towards the grandson? Please answer.

The grandson did not work for the car; he worked to make good grades.
The grandfather bestowed grace upon his grandson by freely providing a master teacher.

It wasn't a gift, as I have explained. When strings are attached that involves effort or work, the notion of it being a "gift" are thrown out the window.

To be a gift, it must have NO STRINGS ATTACHED.

I have shown above what a gift is. There were no strings attached; all the grandson had to do to receive the gift was go to college. However, he needed help, as he could not get to college on his own. His grandfather, not only promised a gift, but provided the means to receive the gift.

That's the whole problem with the conditional security ilk. They ALWAYS have strings attached to salvation, but they just don't or won't admit it.

Your newest example is clear proof of that.

Your view reeks of universalism. Do you believe everyone will be saved? What would stop salvation for everyone if no strings are attached? However, even you have strings attached to your view of salvation. And as we all will see, you will attach that string with your answer.

Grace means NO STRINGS ATTACHED. A grace gift has NO STRINGS ATTACHED.

To believe in Christ is NOT effort nor works. Everything that the conditional security ilk claims must occur to obtain salvation involves effort or works.

To believe in Christ is 'strings attached' to your view of salvation. Of course, since this would irritate your theology, you have to soothe this irritation, by applying the lotion of illogical thinking.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Why don't we look at the definition of gift? This is taken from the Free Dictionary -

something given voluntarily without payment in return, as to show favor toward someone, honor an occasion, or make a gesture of assistance; present.

Did the grandfather give the car voluntarily? Please answer.

Yes.

Did the grandson have to repay his grandfather for the car? Please answer.

Yes, by improving his grades. He had to WORK FOR THE CAR. THERE WERE STRINGS ATTACHED.

Did the car honor an occasion? Please answer.

Yes, and irrelevant.

Did the car make a gesture of assistance? Please answer.

Uh, the car isn't the issue. When does salvation "make a gesture of assistance"? Remember, we're talking about salvation as God's gift.

Did the car show favor toward someone? Please answer.

Anothger irrelevant question. The car isn't the issue. The issue is HOW the kid got the car.

Did the grandfather show favor towards the grandson? Please answer.

In one sense. But NOT in another sense. He wanted the kid to WORK HARDER BEFORE HE GOT THE CAR. WORKS SALVATION IS NOT BIBLICAL.

The grandson did not work for the car; he worked to make good grades.

Uh, so he would GET THE CAR!! Yes, he had to WORK FOR IT.

The grandfather bestowed grace upon his grandson by freely providing a master teacher.

This has no relevance to the issue of being saved by grace. If you are thinking that this "master teacher" is the Holy Spirit, he is given at the moment of faith in Christ and salvation.

I have shown above what a gift is.

Your explanation failed to adequately define what a gift is. In fact, your very definition included the phrase "without payment in return". Yet, the kid HAD TO WORK HARDER AND IMPROVE HIS GRADE BEFORE HE GOT THE CAR.

There were no strings attached; all the grandson had to do to receive the gift was go to college.

Apparently you've forgotten your own example. He HAD TO IMPROVE HIS GRADE BEFORE HE GOT THE CAR.

However, he needed help, as he could not get to college on his own. His grandfather, not only promised a gift, but provided the means to receive the gift.

Whoop-de-do. All the help we need to be saved has been provided by Christ, in GRACE. He died for our sins, which not only removed the sin barrier between us and God, but provides the free (NO STRINGS ATTACHED) gift of eternal life that is given on the basis of non-meritorious faith in Christ. Your example fails to parallel God's plan for salvation.

Your view reeks of universalism.

Not even close. Most of the human race will end up in the lake of fire. Why? They never received the free (NO STRINGS ATTACHED) gift of eternal life. Rev 20:15.

Do you believe everyone will be saved?

See above for very clear statement that refutes any notion that I am a universalist.

What would stop salvation for everyone if no strings are attached?

Faith in Christ. Which is non-meritorious, as Paul explained in Rom 4:4,5 where he contrasted working for pay with faith. He made the same point in Eph 2:8,9.

However, even you have strings attached to your view of salvation. And as we all will see, you will attach that string with your answer.

Since faith in Christ is NO string at all, your claim is bogus.

By STRINGS ATTACHED, I'm speaking of earning something. Believing in Christ is non-meritorious. It earns nothing. It deserves nothing.

To simply believe what God promises doesn't earn salvation in any sense. Both Rom 4:4,5 and Eph 2:8,9 prove that.

To believe in Christ is 'strings attached' to your view of salvation. Of course, since this would irritate your theology, you have to soothe this irritation, by applying the lotion of illogical thinking.

Refuted, soundly.

I guess you think Paul's writings are an example of illogical thinking, huh.

I reject your illogical thinking totally.

 

[EmSw]

Yes.


Yes, by improving his grades. He had to WORK FOR THE CAR. THERE WERE STRINGS ATTACHED.

So, you are saying the grandson had to work for the gift. Amazing what some will admit when it gets right down to it. Or perhaps, you will now come up with some oddball explanation how the car wasn't a gift.

Yes, and irrelevant.


Uh, the car isn't the issue. When does salvation "make a gesture of assistance"? Remember, we're talking about salvation as God's gift.


Anothger irrelevant question. The car isn't the issue. The issue is HOW the kid got the car.


In one sense. But NOT in another sense. He wanted the kid to WORK HARDER BEFORE HE GOT THE CAR. WORKS SALVATION IS NOT BIBLICAL.


Uh, so he would GET THE CAR!! Yes, he had to WORK FOR IT.


This has no relevance to the issue of being saved by grace. If you are thinking that this "master teacher" is the Holy Spirit, he is given at the moment of faith in Christ and salvation.

By all your answers, you say the car was a gift.

Your explanation failed to adequately define what a gift is. In fact, your very definition included the phrase "without payment in return". Yet, the kid HAD TO WORK HARDER AND IMPROVE HIS GRADE BEFORE HE GOT THE CAR.

Apparently you've forgotten your own example. He HAD TO IMPROVE HIS GRADE BEFORE HE GOT THE CAR.

I gave you the definition of gift. What did you miss?

Payment in return does not come before the gift. You are saying improving his grades is payment in return, when he hadn't received the gift yet. Payment in return comes after receiving the gift. What was the grandson's payment in return after receiving the car?

Whoop-de-do. All the help we need to be saved has been provided by Christ, in GRACE. He died for our sins, which not only removed the sin barrier between us and God, but provides the free (NO STRINGS ATTACHED) gift of eternal life that is given on the basis of non-meritorious faith in Christ. Your example fails to parallel God's plan for salvation.

All the help the grandson needed was provided by the master teacher. He gave instruction, which removed the barrier between bad grades and good grades. This provided the free (no strings attached) gift of the car. The grandfather no intention of having strings attached in providing the master teacher. The grandson was given the gift on the basis of non-meritorious faith in the master teacher. The grandson did not work to earn anything from the master teacher. He listened, believed, and did what the master teacher taught.

Not even close. Most of the human race will end up in the lake of fire. Why? They never received the free (NO STRINGS ATTACHED) gift of eternal life. Rev 20:15.

Maybe it's because they never listened and did what the master teacher has taught.

See above for very clear statement that refutes any notion that I am a universalist.

With no strings attached is exactly universalism. You want to say no strings attached, but yet you attach strings to those ending up in the lake of fire.

Why would a person not receive a free gift? Please explain without attaching any strings.

Faith in Christ. Which is non-meritorious, as Paul explained in Rom 4:4,5 where he contrasted working for pay with faith. He made the same point in Eph 2:8,9.

Since faith in Christ is NO string at all, your claim is bogus.

By STRINGS ATTACHED, I'm speaking of earning something. Believing in Christ is non-meritorious. It earns nothing. It deserves nothing.

To simply believe what God promises doesn't earn salvation in any sense. Both Rom 4:4,5 and Eph 2:8,9 prove that.

I agree, faith is non-meritorious. No one can earn faith. No one can work to receive faith.

I am sure the grandson had all the faith in the world in the master teacher. But where would that faith get him without listening to and doing what the master teacher taught? He would be in the same boat of failing grades just having faith. He had to listen and do what the master teacher taught. Do you agree?

You are in the same boat if you just believe in Jesus. You have to listen and do what He says, or else, belief profits nothing; it is dead.

Refuted, soundly.

I guess you think Paul's writings are an example of illogical thinking, huh.

I reject your illogical thinking totally.

Is the car a gift from the grandfather? Could the grandson just believe the master teacher and receive the car?

If you think you can obtain 'passing grades' on your own, then you don't need the master teacher. You can do it on your own. If you do need the master teacher, then you must do what he says, or else, do it on your own.

So I ask, do you need the Master Teacher in helping you make 'passing grades'? Will you make 'passing grades' if you don't apply what the Master Teacher instructs you to do?

You either do it on your own (in which you will fail miserably), or you have faith in the Master Teacher, and do it according to His truthful ways.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The car analogy is a great one. A person can receive a car as a gift 100% for free. No taxes, no strings attached in order to receive this gift. For example: Paying for a 3 day night in a nice resort somewhere on the hope they will get a free car is not a free gift. The condition is for you to do something major in order to receive that gift. But that is not a gift, though. A gift is a gift. Meaning, they did not have to do anything to receive this gift. But once a person receives a gift, they have to take care of that gift if they want to keep it. Life teaches us that all gifts that have any value or worth need to be properly maintained. For you obviously cannot run red lights, drive drunk, and or ignore general maintenaince on your car (that was a free gift) if you expect to keep such a gift.

Why use a real world example like this?
Because Jesus illustrated spiritual truth all the time with parables.
His parables were based on real world things that could physically happen (and by statistically probability did most likely happen at some point in the past). For even a Canaanite woman had expounded upon Jesus' parable with a parable (or real world example) of her own.

In other words, Jesus and another believer illustrated spiritual truth by using real world examples. This means that if what you believe cannot be made into a real world example in any way, then chances are your belief is false and you need to re-adust your faith to fit the Word of God.


...

 

[FreeGrace2]

So, you are saying the grandson had to work for the gift. Amazing what some will admit when it gets right down to it. Or perhaps, you will now come up with some oddball explanation how the car wasn't a gift.

Let's just look AGAIN at your own words:
"Consider this example -

A man desired for his grandson to go to college. He told his grandson that we would give him a new car if he went to college. The grandfather told his grandson he must make passing grades in order to receive the car.[/QUOTE]
So, right here we see HOW the kid had to earn the car. He had to go to college. You never explained whether the kid even wanted to go to college. With all D's and F's, it wouldn't appear so. Just like any unbeliever steeped in immorality isn't generally thinking about heaven or how to get there.

The grandson currently had D's and F's in high school and knew he wouldn't qualify for college with these grades on his own. When he told his grandfather of his plight, the grandfather graciously sent a master teacher free of charge to help his grandson to overcome this deficit and help him receive higher grades.

See?!! He had to EARN admission into college. D's and F's in high school won't get one into college. So he had to EARN admission.

The grandson had to change his ways; he now had to do something to remedy his failure in making good grades.

Right. He had to work harder and get better grades. Human effort. And by so doing, he EARNED admission into college.

So, during his high school year, the grandson worked hard, along with the master teacher, to meet the conditions his grandfather set.

The "conditions set" were EARNING higher grades to get into college, and THEN get a new car. Work, work, work.

This is the bug difference between grace orientation and a works salvation mindset. If the grandfather was going by grace, he would have just given the kid a new car. He didn't deserve it and didn't earn it. But he got it. That's grace, and I suspect, bothers you quite a bit.

The grandson had faith in the master teacher that he would help him and did what the master teacher said."

How does this even relate to getting into heaven (college)? Having faith in the Holy Spirit?? What??

By all your answers, you say the car was a gift.

Actually, please read my answers before you continue to embarrass yourself by your totally erroneous statements.

I proved that your scenario is a works related example, one that had NO GRACE in it at all.

Eph 2:8 tells us that we are saved BY GRACE through faith. It seems you don't believe it, or understand it.

I gave you the definition of gift. What did you miss?

Well, if you had read my post, you would have seen what YOU missed, as I explained it thoroughly.

Payment in return does not come before the gift.

I explained what it meant. "payment in return" is the WORK the kid had to do to get the car. he had to EARN higher grades in order to get into college. Only then did he get the car. iow, he worked for the car.

You are saying improving his grades is payment in return, when he hadn't received the gift yet.

The "payment in return" is the WORK he had to do to get higher grades and deserve college. No college would admit a dummy with D's and F's.

Payment in return comes after receiving the gift. What was the grandson's payment in return after receiving the car?

No. The "payment in return" is the kid's WORK in return for getting the car.

The old man wanted the kid to earn his way into college by getting higher grades. So he REWARDED the kid with a new car IF he worked harder and earned better grades.

No one gets better grades based on grace. No sire! One must WORK HARD to get better grades. Esp a dummy or lazy one who gets D's and F's.

All the help the grandson needed was provided by the master teacher.

So, does this master teacher represent the Holy Spirit or Christ?

He gave instruction, which removed the barrier between bad grades and good grades.

No, it didn't. The kid STILL had to GET the GRADES all by himself. He was EARNING better grades by any account.

This provided the free (no strings attached) gift of the car.

Wowsers, do you fail to see the truth in your own example of a graceless "gift".

The grandfather no intention of having strings attached in providing the master teacher.

The goal was getting into college, which one has to assume is analogous to getting into heaven.

The grandson was given the gift on the basis of non-meritorious faith in the master teacher.

You fail to understand your own example. It wasn't faith in the teacher. It was the HARD WORK involved in LEARNING what the teacher taught, and THEN applying that in the school of hard knocks and EARNING higher grades.

The grandson did not work to earn anything from the master teacher.

Right. He EARNED higher grades in the classroom. Work, work, work.

He listened, believed, and did what the master teacher taught.

He EARNED higher grades by applying the HARD WORK of studying to his lessons in school to GET higher grades.

He WORKED HARD to get higher grades.

Maybe it's because they never listened and did what the master teacher has taught.

Salvation is about believing what Christ did on the cross and trusting Him for salvation. That is grace. Your example leaves grace out completely.

With no strings attached is exactly universalism.

I've explained exactly why I'm absolutely anti-universalism. Please read my posts before more embarrassment on your part for not undertanding my position.

You want to say no strings attached, but yet you attach strings to those ending up in the lake of fire.

So, where did I do that? There are NO STRINGS ATTACHED to going to heaven. Faith in Christ is non-meritorious. Do you understand what that means?

Why would a person not receive a free gift? Please explain without attaching any strings.

People don't receive free gifts if they aren't interested in the gift. If they don't believe that the gift exists. For a whole number of reasons.

I agree, faith is non-meritorious. No one can earn faith. No one can work to receive faith.

Again, you've missed the whole point. Faith is non-meritorious in the reception of salvation which requires faith.

But, to your point, salvation is non-meritorious. No one can earn salvation. No one can work to receive salvation.

is that more clear to you?

I am sure the grandson had all the faith in the world in the master teacher. But where would that faith get him without listening to and doing what the master teacher taught?

Your questions seem rather irrelevant to your example. The kid HAD to first LEARN from the teacher (work hard). Then he had to apply that in the classroom, WHERE the higher grades had to be EARNED. BEFORE he could be accepted into college, and THEN get the car.

He would be in the same boat of failing grades just having faith. He had to listen and do what the master teacher taught. Do you agree?

No. Your response to my thorough explanation of your example demonstrates to me that we are just talking over each other's heads. You're not close to understanding my points at all.

You are in the same boat if you just believe in Jesus. You have to listen and do what He says, or else, belief profits nothing; it is dead.

If that were true of how one is saved, then there is NO GRACE in salvation. Yet, Paul said we are saved by grace. So your views are in direct contrast to Scripture.

Is the car a gift from the grandfather?

No, the car wasn't a gift at all. Had too many strings attached. That he had to WORK for.
He had to listen and learn from the teacher. Hard work.
He had to apply what he learned from the teacher to his school work to EARN higher grades. Hard work again.
He had to be accepted into college. iow, he had to EARN that acceptance.
Only then, after all that hard work, would he receive the car.

If this example were true, just ask the kid if the car came without any strings attached. What do you think he would say?

Could the grandson just believe the master teacher and receive the car?

No, and irrelevant. As I have pointed out, he had a lot of hard work to do to get the car.

In grace, one gets a real gift apart from earning or deserving it. But I suspect you don't understand or believe that.

If you think you can obtain 'passing grades' on your own, then you don't need the master teacher. You can do it on your own. If you do need the master teacher, then you must do what he says, or else, do it on your own.

This doesn't even come close to paralleling salvation by grace through faith in the Bible.

So I ask, do you need the Master Teacher in helping you make 'passing grades'? Will you make 'passing grades' if you don't apply what the Master Teacher instructs you to do?

Your questions are totally irrelevant to being saved by grace through faith.

Your example is a works based salvation.

You either do it on your own (in which you will fail miserably), or you have faith in the Master Teacher, and do it according to His truthful ways.

Again, what you keep missing is that the kid HAD to work hard to learn, then work hard to earn higher grades.

I do not undestand how one would not see that clearly.[/QUOTE]

 

[FreeGrace2]

The car analogy is a great one.

This would be said from one who either doesn't understand the meaning of grace or simply rejects grace.

A person can receive a car as a gift 100% for free. No taxes, no strings attached in order to receive this gift.

I have explained thoroughly WHY the example wasn't a gift in any sense. The dummy kid had to EARN better grades and actually be accepted into college BEFORE he got the car. That isn't "100% free". Taxes or not is totally irrelevant.

For example: Paying for a 3 day night in a nice resort somewhere on the hope they will get a free car is not a free gift.

Correct. And neither is having to EARN better grades to get into college BEFORE one gets a car a free gift.

The condition is for you to do something major in order to receive that gift.

True for EmSw's example. But not for eternal life.

But that is not a gift, though. A gift is a gift. Meaning, they did not have to do anything to receive this gift.

Which is why EmSw's example wasn't a "great one".

But once a person receives a gift, they have to take care of that gift if they want to keep it.

This isn't biblical. Please focus on what the Bible says.

Life teaches us that all gifts that have any value or worth need to be properly maintained.

Please cite Scripture that teaches that one must "properly maintain" their gift of eternal life.

In FACT, the Bible says just the opposite; God maintains our salvation by grace. He seals the believer with the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption. There is NOTHING for the believer to maintain.

While you will disagree here, your view is no different than EmSw's view, except that he had one EARNING by working hard before the gift, and you have to EARN by working hard AFTER getting the gift. Neither view is biblical, and neither of you have provided any verse to support your claims.

Here is what Paul taught about the sealing with the Holy Spirit:
13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. Eph 1

Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Eph 4:30

who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge. 2 Cor 1:22

Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge. 2 Cor 5:5

These verses refute the notion of loss of salvation.

 

[EmSw]

Let's just look AGAIN at your own words:
"Consider this example -

A man desired for his grandson to go to college. He told his grandson that we would give him a new car if he went to college. The grandfather told his grandson he must make passing grades in order to receive the car.
So, right here we see HOW the kid had to earn the car. He had to go to college. You never explained whether the kid even wanted to go to college. With all D's and F's, it wouldn't appear so. Just like any unbeliever steeped in immorality isn't generally thinking about heaven or how to get there.

FG2, it's a GIFT! It's a GIFT! It's a GIFT! The grandson paid ZERO dollars - NONE!

The grandson did want to go to college by cooperating and listening to the master teacher. If he didn't want to go to college, he would have rejected the master teacher.

See?!! He had to EARN admission into college. D's and F's in high school won't get one into college. So he had to EARN admission.

He had to work harder and get better grades. Human effort. And by so doing, he EARNED admission into college.

The "conditions set" were EARNING higher grades to get into college, and THEN get a new car. Work, work, work.

The grandson still did not pay for the gift. What he did in school, according to his deeds, determined if the grandfather would render to him the free gift.

This is the bug difference between grace orientation and a works salvation mindset. If the grandfather was going by grace, he would have just given the kid a new car. He didn't deserve it and didn't earn it. But he got it. That's grace, and I suspect, bothers you quite a bit.

Yes, universalism does bother me. Universalism requires no set conditions to be met; all will receive the free gift.

How does this even relate to getting into heaven (college)? Having faith in the Holy Spirit?? What??

Actually, please read my answers before you continue to embarrass yourself by your totally erroneous statements.

I proved that your scenario is a works related example, one that had NO GRACE in it at all.

Eph 2:8 tells us that we are saved BY GRACE through faith. It seems you don't believe it, or understand it.

You make a wonderful spokesman for Universalism. And no, I do not understand Universalism, but you do a great job explaining it.

Well, if you had read my post, you would have seen what YOU missed, as I explained it thoroughly.

I explained what it meant. "payment in return" is the WORK the kid had to do to get the car. he had to EARN higher grades in order to get into college. Only then did he get the car. iow, he worked for the car.

Payment in return is accomplished AFTER getting something. I hope you didn't have to pay on your home loan before you received it. The grandson made no such payments after receiving the car. No one pays in return to get a loan.

The "payment in return" is the WORK he had to do to get higher grades and deserve college. No college would admit a dummy with D's and F's.

No. The "payment in return" is the kid's WORK in return for getting the car.

Here you go again, there was no payment in return for the grandson. What you are speaking of is down payment before he received the gift.

The old man wanted the kid to earn his way into college by getting higher grades. So he REWARDED the kid with a new car IF he worked harder and earned better grades.

No one gets better grades based on grace. No sire! One must WORK HARD to get better grades. Esp a dummy or lazy one who gets D's and F's.

So now you are equating salvation with a reward. That's okay, as salvation and eternal life are synonymous; you can't have one without the other.

You are correct, a lazy person will not get better grades. If he can't do it on his own, he needs help. Guess where one can get help?

So, does this master teacher represent the Holy Spirit or Christ?

No, it didn't. The kid STILL had to GET the GRADES all by himself. He was EARNING better grades by any account.

John 3:2
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God:

And get this -

John 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Grace comes by the Master Teacher Himself.

Btw, how does one inherit the kingdom of God (Heaven)?

Galatians 5:21
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Please tell me how anyone inherits the kingdom of God? Can one do things his old way (lazy and getting D's and F's)? Or does one have to make better grades, with the help of the Master Teacher? Of course, with your 'new' Universalism' thought, man can keep sinning like he did in his old life and still be saved. Remember, you say man has to do nothing to be saved.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FG2, it's a GIFT! It's a GIFT! It's a GIFT! The grandson paid ZERO dollars - NONE!

Some gift. The strings that were attached REQUIRED HARD WORK on his part in order to get the car. Duh!

The grandson did want to go to college by cooperating and listening to the master teacher.

I don't care.

If he didn't want to go to college, he would have rejected the master teacher.

In your example, he HAD TO WORK HARD AND RAISE HIS GRADES. No grace at all. All work and NO GRACE.

The grandson still did not pay for the gift.

Oh, he paid all right. He paid in long hours of studying, working hard to raise his grades. Don't kid yourself.

What he did in school, according to his deeds, determined if the grandfather would render to him the free gift.

Because of your statement, "according to his deeds" he absolutely WORKED for getting the car. Don't kid yourself.

Yes, universalism does bother me. Universalism requires no set conditions to be met; all will receive the free gift.

That's NOT my position, which I've made clear. Are you not paying any attention?

You make a wonderful spokesman for Universalism.

After having thoroughly rejected it, your statement is just absurd.

And no, I do not understand Universalism, but you do a great job explaining it.

Actually, absurd is too mild, given this additional nonsense.

Payment in return is accomplished AFTER getting something. I hope you didn't have to pay on your home loan before you received it. The grandson made no such payments after receiving the car. No one pays in return to get a loan.

The whole point is that he HAD TO WORK HARD to raise his grades to get into college and get the car. He paid in "sweat equity". Ever hear of that?

Here you go again, there was no payment in return for the grandson. What you are speaking of is down payment before he received the gift.

Please quit kidding yourself.

So now you are equating salvation with a reward.

Uh, no. That's your view.

That's okay, as salvation and eternal life are synonymous; you can't have one without the other.

And NEITHER are a reward.

You are correct, a lazy person will not get better grades. If he can't do it on his own, he needs help. Guess where one can get help?

Jesus did it all on the cross. That's grace, a principle that you clearly do not understand. Why are you so comfortable with that?

John 3:2
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God:

And get this -

John 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Grace comes by the Master Teacher Himself.

Yes, grace does come by Jesus Christ. But how does this fit into your works salvation example? I see no connection or relevance.

Btw, how does one inherit the kingdom of God (Heaven)?

Galatians 5:21
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Please tell me how anyone inherits the kingdom of God?

That passage, along with the other 2 parallel passages found in 1 Cor 6 and Eph 5:5, are about inheriting IN the kingdom by avoidance of bad lifestyles. These are NOT about getting into heaven, but getting an inheritance (reward) IN heaven.

Remember, you say man has to do nothing to be saved.

In order to show yourself NOT a deceitful and dishonest person, you need to actually describe my correct view.

I said that man cannot EARN or DESERVE salvation. I NEVER said "do nothing". In fact, what did the jailer ask Paul and company?

"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" What do you think Paul's answer was? Get a tutor, study real hard, get your grades up so you qualify to get into heaven? Really?

No, he said this: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved."

Totally different than your scenario.

But, as I already noted, we're just talking over each other's heads. Nothing of what I've said has soaked in.