Did their "cutting off" action result in the DNA changing and the child was no longer physically related to the parents? I do want you to answer this question. I'd give you the answer, but I want you to actually think about it and answer it yourself.
Again, in real life if a son does evil against his father like say... try to kill him or something, he could have him arrested and put in prison. If the son repeatedly tries to kill his own father, then... it makes logical sense that the father could end his life so as to protect himself and the rest of the family. A dead son cannot spend time with his father. A son who is an enemy to his father is not going to want to spend time with Him and or have any relation with him (if he is being evil towards him and his other family who are good).
FreeGrace2 said:
So what? Did the physical relationship change? NO. The parents remained the parents and the child remained the child.
Again, irrelevant. The physical relationship between birth parent and child cannot be changed. What you are describing has NO relevance to the issue of relationship.
God is not immoral; And He does care in how believers behave. Also, there are dire consequences to one's soul in the after life if one does evil (Regardless of whether one is a believer or not). Even human fathers today would not put up with horrible sins done by their own sons within their home. Sin can destroy homes and break them apart.
FreeGrace2 said:
]I guess you still do not grasp what the physical relationship between birth parent and child actually is.
And the Bible says there are children of disobedience. Also, the children of the Kingdom will be cast into outer darkness, too.
FreeGrace2 said:
Now you're describing FELLOWSHIP, which is the dynamics of RELATIONSHIP. But you're still not understanding the difference.
When I first meet a new group of believers in their home to share in the Lord's supper and to study the Scriptures and to praise God, this would be considered fellowship (even if I just met them). No prior relationship needs to be established for me to have fellowship with new believers.
For John (and his group of believers where he was at) had desired to have fellowship with another group of believers he had written his epistle to. For John says,
"That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us" (1 John 1:3).
FreeGrace2 said:
In a marriage, even if the spouses are out of fellowship, they are still married. Duh.
In a physical birth parent to child, they can be totally at odds against each other, yet the physical relationship cannot be changed.
Is one's relationship good or bad? This determines whether or not they will want to spend time with that person and have fellowship with them or not. Why would one expect to be in Heaven for bad behavior against God? Is this any different in the real world?
FreeGrace2 said:
But you still don't understand that. I don't think you will ever understand that. Because if you did, you'd HAVE TO admit that the believer's relastionship with God is PERMANENT, which is something that you just won't admit. No matter the facts.
Well, guess what? God uses such descriptive wording to explain His permanent relationship with believers so that there ABSOLUTELY IS A RELATIONSHIP with God. So to say "there doesn't need to be a relationship" is rather silly since there ALREADY IS ONE.
If one believes that a saint's holiness is not important with God in regards to one's salvation, then one has to ask themselves: - Why does Jesus say to certain believers to:
"Depart from me ye that work iniquity (i.e. lawlessness, or sin)."?
FreeGrace2 said:
Oh, stop with this nonsense. You yourself continue to sin, as you've already indicated, yet you claim you are saved. So DON'T give me that silly "sin and be saved" nonsense.
Again, the person who stumbles into sin on their road to striving to overcoming sin is like the alcoholic who stumbles on his road to becoming sober free (saved).
The Eternal Security Proponent is like the alcoholic who joins a program having no real intention of giving up their drink and yet they somehow are claiming to be sober (saved).
FreeGrace2 said:
I have no idea what you are saying here. I know of no one in the OSAS camp that would EVER claim that any sins are "exempt". That's just stupid. And anyone who claims that any kind of sin is exempt (exempt from what, exactly) is a total idiot. Is that clear?
If it's sin, it needs to be confessed, according to 1 Jn 1:9.
There are different levels of Eternal Security. Some believe that a saint must generally live a holy life, but dying in one or two horrible unrepentant sins is not going to keep them out of God's Kingdom. They teach that all future sin is forgiven them and that no sin can separate a believer from God. Others believe that a believer can live in as much sin as they want and they will still be saved. Both versions of these groups believe in this mythical "fellowship sins" theory. Granted, there are some Eternal Security Proponents who do not believe in "fellowship sins", but they believe that sin on some level cannot separate them from God (Some believe that it takes a lot of sin to show that one is not saved and others believe that a saint can get away with one or two unconfessed sins).
FreeGrace2 said:
Really? After all I've explained already? You still are stuck on that silliness. As a child of God, we can expect God's hand of discipline for our sins. Even though David confessed his sins (Psa 38 and 51), he was still disciplined. And remember that God's discipline on him was very severe. He suffered greatly because of his sin. He got away with NOTHING.
Eternal Security Proponents use the excuse of discipline as saying that they will not get away sin. But what about a person's free will? Can a believer just totally walk away from God and choose their old life of sin again having nothing more to do with the Lord? If not, then one believes in Calvinism or forced salvation.
...
