[Part 2 of 2]

>salvation

I know I’m reiterating with this, but I hope for clarity. Salvation is by grace, but the reward will be a judgement.
No one can take you from His hand—including yourself. Otherwise, He could not promise to save all of Israel.

>more about salvation
>calling back to how those of Christ’s day regarded Daniel as prophecy of the last days—and how their questions to Christ show this.

There was something to be saved from in their day: the destruction of Judah. Not only the temple but the remnant of the OT kingdom would fall (the fig tree would shrivel up), and so there was real, bodily death to be saved from. They needed to heed his warning. He specifically refers to Daniel by name when answering.

---- moving to the other points or questions in your response ---

>Accepting a gift ≠ earning, and choosing to not accept a gift is still an option if we are to assume free will.
Accepting/not accepting would be doing something on your part still—a completion of the salvation. “If you believe and/or do X [the scope of X being dependent upon denomination], then you will be saved.”
That’s not to misinterpret the scope of that claim, not twisting it into saying one is saving one’s self—that is not a *necessary* extension. The analogy would be you are drowning and Christ throws a float. You can grab it or not, but you did not get the float yourself; He tossed it. I say that to make assure that the concept is not being misrepresented.

The case is that Christ threw the float around you, whether you grab it or not, whether you’re flailing or not, and He’s dragging you to shore, saving you regardless of your acceptance.

Otherwise, if is the case that we can refuse salvation, it is a necessary extension that Christ will not have saved all of Israel if salvation (again, if it is dependent upon any belief/action on our part). That is contrary to God’s proclamation that all of Israel will be saved—a proclamation even reiterated in the NT by Paul. (That bothersome snag is why dispensationalists declare “The Church is now Israel.” The Church will all be saved (and by this they mean only the true Scotsman church, not [your denomination]), ergo all of “Israel” will be saved. God pulled a fast one, rather than it being the case that the God who gives His Spirit and His covenants to bloodlines would care about descendants / race.)
(As an aside, the same concern is why ‘generation’ is awkwardly placed in the NT wherever the Koine Greek says ‘race’ very, very clearly. As clear as the distinction between ‘generation’ and ‘race’ is in English.)

>Remember that Christ Himself dismisses that accepting Christ is the way of salvation.
>Where does this happen?
Christ is the way to salvation, and it has nothing to do with you accepting Him. It has only to do with Him accepting you. (The float analogy above.)
When He says that the only sin that will not be forgiven is blasphemy of the Spirit, He explicitly gives the example that one may even blaspheme the Son of Man (Himself).
The civic salvation response to this is usually that one could have denied Christ Himself but so long as one truly believes in Him and accept Him before death, then and only then are they saved. But that is counter to His statement, inherently. He doesn’t qualify “as long as you stop before dying” by any conceptual take of his statement.
If you tell me I can wear anything except polka dots and enter your house—even if I wear a shirt that says “I hate you”—that is not saying “as long you have taken the “I hate you” one off before it’s time to come in.” The qualifier is inherently counter to the statement.