d taylor
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2018
- 13,754
- 5,818
- 60
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
I have no problem with any of this, and will only point out that the present tense "not condemned" is irretrievably tied to the present tense reality of belief! Wherever one reality exists, the other reality exists as well. The absence of one is an indicator of the absence of the other! Thus, the concept of both the present tense reality of belief and no condemnation, and a potential "future" present tense reality of belief and no condemnation are equally valid. In other words, since present tense "no condemnation" is dependent on present tense "believing", there is the necessity for the same realities at any future point of time for it to be equally true at that future point in time. You cannot separate the the two realities and say that " no condemnation " is permanent, but the believing may not be!
Doug
You would have to show (in the Bible) where once becoming a child of God that a person can undo/cease being a child of God. That, that is an action that can have a reality and that would have to have a reality on Gods part, God would have to declare a believer as no longer His child, and that is not what, not receiving and inheritance is about.
Just because a person on their behave may cease believing does not indicated that on God and His part, He stops calling that person his child.
Once understood correctly (how to receive eternal life) and a person places their faith in the correct object (The promised Messiah) they become a permanent child of God.
Upvote
0