Falling away from grace

ldonjohn

Active Member
Sep 20, 2013
348
178
✟81,177.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Johns 1:12, "But, as many as received Him, to them gave He the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name."

John 3:3, "Jesus answered and said unto him, verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Hebrews 12:6, "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth."

When a lost person is "saved" he/she is "born again" into the family of God, and therefore is a child of God.

I have 2 grown children. When they were young children, living in my home, I would discipline them whenever they were disobedient or did something wrong, and they were still my child. If one or both of them decide to denounce me as his or her parent, he or she would still be my child. Neither one could ever become unborn as my child.

God is greater then we are.

Think about it.

Regards,

John
 
  • Winner
Reactions: aiki
Upvote 0

Dorothy Mae

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2018
5,657
1,017
Canton south of Germany
✟75,214.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Johns 1:12, "But, as many as received Him, to them gave He the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name."

John 3:3, "Jesus answered and said unto him, verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Hebrews 12:6, "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth."

When a lost person is "saved" he/she is "born again" into the family of God, and therefore is a child of God.

I have 2 grown children. When they were young children, living in my home, I would discipline them whenever they were disobedient or did something wrong, and they were still my child. If one or both of them decide to denounce me as his or her parent, he or she would still be my child. Neither one could ever become unborn as my child.

God is greater then we are.

Think about it.

Regards,

John
It is a really silly argument to use a word that does not exist and because the word does not exist in the English language, the term used to signify no longer alive does not exist. The term is "die." The born can die. That which is born can die. This what happens to the faith of a child of God who walks away, shipwreaks his faith, falls away, any number of Biblical terms for the man who is no longer a child of God.

What is more, Jesus used the term "sons of the Devil." Since these ones are children of the Devil, I guess they can never be anything but children of the Devil, right? If the word "son of God" means you can never be not a son of God, then "son of the Devil" means you can never not be a son of the Devil. Bummer!!
 
Upvote 0

ldonjohn

Active Member
Sep 20, 2013
348
178
✟81,177.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
It is a really silly argument to use a word that does not exist and because the word does not exist in the English language, the term used to signify no longer alive does not exist. The term is "die." The born can die. That which is born can die. This what happens to the faith of a child of God who walks away, shipwreaks his faith, falls away, any number of Biblical terms for the man who is no longer a child of God.

What is more, Jesus used the term "sons of the Devil." Since these ones are children of the Devil, I guess they can never be anything but children of the Devil, right? If the word "son of God" means you can never be not a son of God, then "son of the Devil" means you can never not be a son of the Devil. Bummer!!

Yes, the bible is clear, that which is born can & will, die. But, the bible is also clear that everyone who is born again will never die.
If you had a child who died, then is that child unborn, and therefore not your child? Of course not. If your child walks away from you and declares that he/she no longer is your child does that mean that you child is unborn to you, therefore no longer your child? Of course not. Your child will always be your child regardless of his/her decisions to the contrary.

A true child of God will always be a child of God. If a child of God shipwrecks their faith, they do not lose their position as a child of God. 1Corinthians 5:5 refers to a professing Christian who was living an immoral life, and Paul says "you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." Sounds like the man's faith was shipwrecked, consequently he suffered for his sins, but he did not lose his salvation. The bible says that anyone who believes in Jesus, believes the Gospel message, has everlasting life. What IS everlasting life? Well it sounds like it is everlasting, and if someone could walk away from everlasting life then he never had it.

I must disagree with the assumption that a son of the devil can never not be a son of the devil.

John 8:12-47, Jesus is talking to the scribes & Pharisees, and they are saying that Jesus is not from above; not from God as He claims to be. Jesus tells them that if they do not believe He is from above, from the Father, that they will die in their sins. As He is talking to them some believed in Him.
Down in verse 44 Jesus calls them sons of their father the devil, so here we have some, who Jesus has called sons of the devil, who believed in Him. Those who believe in Jesus are born again, so these sons of the devil become a child of God.

Regards,

John
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
It is a really silly argument to use a word that does not exist and because the word does not exist in the English language, the term used to signify no longer alive does not exist.

The idea of being un-born is intended to convey an impossibility. Once one is born, one cannot be unborn. Yes, one can die but one cannot return to the state prior to one's birth. In the same way, once born spiritually, it is impossible to return to the state one was in prior to one's spiritual birth.

This what happens to the faith of a child of God who walks away, shipwreaks his faith, falls away, any number of Biblical terms for the man who is no longer a child of God.

The man who walks away from the faith demonstrates in doing so, not that he had been saved and lost his salvation, but that he had never been saved. The apostle John made this point in his first letter. (1 John 2:19)

When a genuinely born-again man "falls away," it is from fellowship with God, not from his relationship to God as God's child. See the story of the Prodigal Son.

What is more, Jesus used the term "sons of the Devil." Since these ones are children of the Devil, I guess they can never be anything but children of the Devil, right? If the word "son of God" means you can never be not a son of God, then "son of the Devil" means you can never not be a son of the Devil. Bummer!!

This is what is known as a non sequitur. The conclusion you've arrived at doesn't follow from the premises you've offered. Are "sons of the devil" sons of his in the way "sons of God" are God's sons? No. The devil does not redeem and adopt those under his power. They are in no way "children" to him in the sense in which Christians are children of God. The devil makes none of the promises to his "children" that God does to His own - promises to never leave them nor forsake them (Hebrews 13:5); promises to allow no man to pluck His children from His hand (John 10:28-29); promises to love them faithfully for Christ's sake. (1 Corinthians 1:9; Ephesians 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:30) The devil seeks only the destruction of his "children." Clearly, then, the devil does not establish a relationship with those under his power that is anything like the relationship God forms with those who place their trust in Christ. And so, it is entirely false to draw the parallel you have above.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ldonjohn
Upvote 0

Dorothy Mae

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2018
5,657
1,017
Canton south of Germany
✟75,214.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes, the bible is clear, that which is born can & will, die. But, the bible is also clear that everyone who is born again will never die.
If you had a child who died, then is that child unborn, and therefore not your child? Of course not. If your child walks away from you and declares that he/she no longer is your child does that mean that you child is unborn to you, therefore no longer your child? Of course not. Your child will always be your child regardless of his/her decisions to the contrary.

A true child of God will always be a child of God. If a child of God shipwrecks their faith, they do not lose their position as a child of God. 1Corinthians 5:5 refers to a professing Christian who was living an immoral life, and Paul says "you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." Sounds like the man's faith was shipwrecked, consequently he suffered for his sins, but he did not lose his salvation. The bible says that anyone who believes in Jesus, believes the Gospel message, has everlasting life. What IS everlasting life? Well it sounds like it is everlasting, and if someone could walk away from everlasting life then he never had it.

I must disagree with the assumption that a son of the devil can never not be a son of the devil.

John 8:12-47, Jesus is talking to the scribes & Pharisees, and they are saying that Jesus is not from above; not from God as He claims to be. Jesus tells them that if they do not believe He is from above, from the Father, that they will die in their sins. As He is talking to them some believed in Him.
Down in verse 44 Jesus calls them sons of their father the devil, so here we have some, who Jesus has called sons of the devil, who believed in Him. Those who believe in Jesus are born again, so these sons of the devil become a child of God.

Regards,

John
I have discussed this theology at length with those who believe it and the answers are all the same so I will not discuss it with you. But I have given those who do not stand under that umbrella of theology an answer to the use of the term "unborn" which is defending the position with semantics using a word that does not exist to prove that a state of being does not exist. It shows that the position is very weak and one has to make up a word to demonstrate the theology. I hope you never use the argument that since no one can be "unborn" therefore those born again cannot be unborn. THe term is "die." Those born can die.

Jesus, by the way, used the term "born again" to exactly one man in his entire ministry. To the majority he said "follow me." One can stop following but it is true that once following, one cannot "unfollow" but do not try to use that made up word either.
 
Upvote 0

Dorothy Mae

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2018
5,657
1,017
Canton south of Germany
✟75,214.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The idea of being un-born is intended to convey an impossibility. Once one is born, one cannot be unborn. Yes, one can die but one cannot return to the state prior to one's birth. In the same way, once born spiritually, it is impossible to return to the state one was in prior to one's spiritual birth.
The word does not exist and so the state does not exist. The word to describe the state of "unborn" is died or die. A man can die. A faith can die. This playing with making up words that do not exist and say therefore the faith cannot undergo that word that does not exsit in the language is really a very weak argument and mere semantics. SHows me that the position is theologically weak if one has to resort to making up non-existance words.
The man who walks away from the faith demonstrates in doing so, not that he had been saved and lost his salvation, but that he had never been saved. The apostle John made this point in his first letter. (1 John 2:19)

When a genuinely born-again man "falls away," it is from fellowship with God, not from his relationship to God as God's child. See the story of the Prodigal Son.

This is what is known as a non sequitur. The conclusion you've arrived at doesn't follow from the premises you've offered. Are "sons of the devil" sons of his in the way "sons of God" are God's sons? No. The devil does not redeem and adopt those under his power. They are in no way "children" to him in the sense in which Christians are children of God. The devil makes none of the promises to his "children" that God does to His own - promises to never leave them nor forsake them (Hebrews 13:5); promises to allow no man to pluck His children from His hand (John 10:28-29); promises to love them faithfully for Christ's sake. (1 Corinthians 1:9; Ephesians 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:30) The devil seeks only the destruction of his "children." Clearly, then, the devil does not establish a relationship with those under his power that is anything like the relationship God forms with those who place their trust in Christ. And so, it is entirely false to draw the parallel you have above.
Again, I know all the arguments from the OSAS crowd. They are all cookie-cutter the same so I know none of those who hold this position ever thought about it but simply learned the arguments from men and swallowed them hook, line and sinker. There is no point in discussing this because it has a deeply emotional hold on those who believe it. I can see why. They think their whole eternity in Heaven stands on that theology being true so they defend it to the teeth and they line out every verse that challenges that emotionally held theology. So I leave you to your position as I know nothing could convince you otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The word does not exist and so the state does not exist.

The word does exist. If it didn't, we wouldn't be talking about it. And every child still in the womb is an unborn child. So, the unborn state exists, too. What doesn't exist, what isn't possible, is a return to an unborn state.

The word to describe the state of "unborn" is died or die.

Why? Says who? Before a baby is conceived, is it dead? Before a child in the womb is born is it dead? No. Dying is actually a natural and unavoidable part of life.

A man can die. A faith can die

Every man WILL die. Does every faith die, too, then? Your parallel has some serious flaws...

This playing with making up words that do not exist and say therefore the faith cannot undergo that word that does not exsit in the language is really a very weak argument and mere semantics. SHows me that the position is theologically weak if one has to resort to making up non-existance words.

So far, semantical tactics and weak arguments appear to exist only on your end.

Again, I know all the arguments from the OSAS crowd.

So? Do you understand them? Doesn't seem like it.

They are all cookie-cutter the same so I know none of those who hold this position ever thought about it but simply learned the arguments from men and swallowed them hook, line and sinker.

Wow. Here's another giant non sequitur. And also an ad hominem argument.

There is no point in discussing this because it has a deeply emotional hold on those who believe it. I can see why. They think their whole eternity in Heaven stands on that theology being true so they defend it to the teeth

I didn't think you understood the OSAS view and this proves it.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: ldonjohn
Upvote 0

ldonjohn

Active Member
Sep 20, 2013
348
178
✟81,177.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The word does not exist and so the state does not exist. The word to describe the state of "unborn" is died or die. A man can die. A faith can die. This playing with making up words that do not exist and say therefore the faith cannot undergo that word that does not exsit in the language is really a very weak argument and mere semantics. SHows me that the position is theologically weak if one has to resort to making up non-existance words.

Again, I know all the arguments from the OSAS crowd. They are all cookie-cutter the same so I know none of those who hold this position ever thought about it but simply learned the arguments from men and swallowed them hook, line and sinker. There is no point in discussing this because it has a deeply emotional hold on those who believe it. I can see why. They think their whole eternity in Heaven stands on that theology being true so they defend it to the teeth and they line out every verse that challenges that emotionally held theology. So I leave you to your position as I know nothing could convince you otherwise.


From Merriam-Webster Dictionary- Definition of unborn:
1 :not born
2 :still to appear
3 :existing without birth

Doesn't look like a non-existent word does it?

Regards,

John
 
Upvote 0

Dorothy Mae

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2018
5,657
1,017
Canton south of Germany
✟75,214.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The word does exist. If it didn't, we wouldn't be talking about it. And every child still in the womb is an unborn child. So, the unborn state exists, too. What doesn't exist, what isn't possible, is a return to an unborn state.
No atheist can be unborn. You take a term that means BEFORE birth and use it to mean something totally different. “Born again” is a metaphor. You cannot honestly apply all the facts of the birthing of humans to a metaphor. The word as you use it doesn’t exist.
Why? Says who? Before a baby is conceived, is it dead? Before a child in the womb is born is it dead? No. Dying is actually a natural and unavoidable part of life.
The state of being that is irreversible cannot be applied to human choice.
Every man WILL die. Does every faith die, too, then? Your parallel has some serious flaws...
The body dies. The man inside doesn’t. The man inside can change his mind....about being married, being a christian, being honest, a great many matters. You should realize that the limits applied to a physical body are not applied to choice. If you want the terms Jesus used it’s falling away from the faith. He said it happens so take care.
So far, semantical tactics and weak arguments appear to exist only on your end.
Not at all. Your position has made you blind to the progress of physical life from which there no return (unborn-born-baby-child-youth-adult-older adult-death.) You have to think that because there’s no going back in this, there’s no going back on a CHOICE.
So? Do you understand them? Doesn't seem like it.



Wow. Here's another giant non sequitur. And also an ad hominem argument.

I didn't think you understood the OSAS view and this proves it.
I understand it better than you. You can only repeat the same arguments ts you learned. Nothing original.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dorothy Mae

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2018
5,657
1,017
Canton south of Germany
✟75,214.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary- Definition of unborn:
1 :not born
2 :still to appear
3 :existing without birth

Doesn't look like a non-existent word does it?

Regards,

John
Where is 4) the state no believer in Christ can ever enter again?

None of the definitions you site fit how you use the word. You think it means inability to decide to abandon the Christian faith. That state doesn’t exist.
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No atheist can be unborn. You take a term that means BEFORE birth and use it to mean something totally different. “Born again” is a metaphor. You cannot honestly apply all the facts of the birthing of humans to a metaphor. The word as you use it doesn’t exist.

I agree with you: No atheist can be unborn - physically or spiritually.

No, I don't use a term meaning "not yet born" to mean something "totally different"; I simply apply it to spiritual birth and life, as Christ did when he spoke to Nicodemus of the "second birth." (John 3:3-6) When I do, it is as ridiculous a notion as to believe one can revert to a state prior to one's physical birth. Both becoming unborn physically and spiritually are impossibilities, which is the point of using "unborn" to describe the idea of a person losing their second (spiritual) birth, as you assert they can. And you're quite right: the word "unborn" applied this way does refer to a non-existent and, as I said, impossible, state of affairs. One cannot be born a second time into spiritual life and then reverse what has happened and be unborn spiritually.

The state of being that is irreversible cannot be applied to human choice.

But this assumes that a person's salvation was entirely their doing, that their choice was the crucial and sustaining power of their saved state, which it isn't. God had to draw every person who has been saved to Christ (John 6:44); God had to convict every lost person of their sin (John 16:8); God had to impart repentance to the unconverted in order for them to understand and accept the Gospel (2 Timothy 2:25); God had to cleanse and forgive the sin of the lost person through Christ at Calvary (John 3:16; Colossians 1:13; Colossians 1:19-20). All the born-again person does is receive by faith what God has done. Who, then, has brought to new spiritual life the lost person? God. But for God's work bringing the lost person to the place where they are able to receive Christ, they would never have been saved. And what God has done in this regard, no man, I believe, can undo. (John 10:26-29)

The body dies. The man inside doesn’t. The man inside can change his mind....about being married, being a christian, being honest, a great many matters.

But you were the one making a direct parallel between a man dying and his spiritual life dying, indicating that if the former was true, the latter must be also.

I agree with you: the soul/spirit of a man does not expire when his physical body does. Is he able to change his mind about this? Has God given the man the freedom to choose to be an eternal soul/spirit? No. Nor does God give us the freedom to choose to undo His work of salvation.

If you want the terms Jesus used it’s falling away from the faith. He said it happens so take care.

A truly born-again person only "falls away" from fellowship with God and all the good things that come with that fellowship (peace, grace, joy, holiness, etc.), not their relationship to Him as their child. The falsely saved, "tares" (Matthew 13:24-43) or "false brethren" (2 Corinthians 11:26), are the ones at risk of "falling away" from their false "conversion," becoming hardened to the Gospel and things of God so that it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance (and true salvation).

Fear of lost salvation has no place in my walk with God:

1 John 4:16-19 (NASB)
16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
17 By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.
19 We love, because He first loved us.


What a sad thing it is to think you're always "taking care" as a child of God, fearful you'll do something to unadopt yourself, to reverse your spiritual birth, and end up in hell. God's First and Great Commandment is to love Him with all you are (Matthew 22:36-38) which, as the apostle John points out above, necessarily casts out fear. How, exactly, do you "take care" and obey the First and Great Commandment? The apostle Paul wrote that no matter what we say, or know, or do, if love for God (and others) isn't the motivation, it is all useless spiritually.

1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (NASB)
1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.


So, no, I don't "take care," fearing for my salvation. I obey God's First and Great Commandment instead.

I understand it better than you. You can only repeat the same arguments ts you learned. Nothing original.

??? 2+2=4. Nothing original in this mathematical statement (equation). I guess I don't understand it, then. Can you explain to me where I've misunderstood the equation?

Anyway, so far, you haven't given any indication that you understand OSAS, whatever you assert about your knowledge of the perspective. Instead, you've just offered prejudicial mischaracterizations of those who hold an OSAS view, which is called a "To the Man" argument, or Ad Hominem argument, generally considered a fallacious form of reasoning.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: ldonjohn
Upvote 0

ldonjohn

Active Member
Sep 20, 2013
348
178
✟81,177.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
There is no #4 other than that which you added for the sake of your argument.

Now you think you can read my mind. Wrong again. You twisted my words to fit your argument. In post #21 I stated the following

"I have 2 grown children. When they were young children, living in my home, I would discipline them whenever they were disobedient or did something wrong, and they were still my child. If one or both of them decide to denounce me as his or her parent, he or she would still be my child. Neither one could ever become unborn as my child."

The last sentence is saying that if my child makes the choice to denounce me as his/her parent that decision does NOT change the position in the life of my child as forever being my child. In the same way, your inability to understand that reasoning does NOT change the validity of the argument.

Then in your post #31, You said this about what I think: "None of the definitions you site fit how you use the word. You think it means inability to decide to abandon the Christian faith. That state doesn’t exist."

Again you are twisting the truth of my words to fit your argument. Please re-read the related quotes above.

Regards,

John
 
Upvote 0