Circular Arguing
then they never left the faith or fell from Grace nor were they severed from Christ - because they had never entered faith, never were under Grace, never were joined to Christ in the first place.
That is the problem with using circular reasoning to solve the problem in Gal 5:4.
They do not "Fail to persevere" because in fact they DO Persevere in maintaining their lost state. Therefore not only are the "Fallen from Grace" and "Severed From Christ" statements in Gal 5:4 not addressing the "never joined to Christ" so also the statements in the Bible about those who "fail to keep persevering" not about the never-saved because in fact the never-saved DO Persevere in remaining in their not-saved stated.
So also statements about those joined to Christ in John 15 - who then are cut off - are not about the "never saved".
And the Matt 18 regarding those who were fully "forgiven ALL that debt" who are then subject to "Forgiveness revoked" - not an example of the never-forgiven-to-start-with person simply remaining in an unforgiven state and acting consistently towards others in that he is not forgiving others just as he also has never experienced full and complete forgiveness.
This is why circular reasoning cannot be used in those cases to rescue OSAS.
in Christ,
Bob
The problem with defining "left the faith" as "becoming un-born again" is it is not necessary so. A person building on the foundation of Christ with worthless stuff has "left the faith" but not lost his or her salvation. So if you start out defining terms to win the debate, that is circular, sir.
Galatians 5:4 (NASB)
You have been "severed from Christ" you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace.
We are saved by grace through faith, which is to say we are saved when God sets us apart spiritually in Christ if He credits our faith as righteousness. Thus it is God's action, and not our beliefs, which results in being put spiritually in Christ.
Severed from Christ refers to trusting in the Law (with its requirement for circumcision) rather than having faith in Christ alone as accomplishing all that is necessary for initial salvation and to sustain that salvation. So again, these people put Christ in their hearts, but kept their faith in justification through obedience to the Law. They went out from us because they were not of us.
God knows who are the believers (wholehearted and not half hearted - sharing trust in Christ with trust in the Law), and He does not credit that "faith" as righteousness (Matthew 13).
Next we have John 15, where the Old Covenant is compared with the New. Under the Old Covenant, no one was regenerated, placed in Christ, born anew, because Christ had not died on the cross to provide the new covenant.
So what is John telling us in John 15: You can be "in Me" but not "abide in Me." Compare verse 2 with verse 5. You claim those of verse 2 were born anew, but I say no way, Christ had not died yet nor sent the Holy Spirit. Verse 5 refers to the faithful under the Old Covenant.
Now verse 10, if you keep My commandments you will abide in My love. The only way to be happy in Jesus is to trust and obey. Thus when we sin (do not keep His commands) we feel regret and sorrow and are not filled with joy. So here Jesus is talking about the future "born anew life indwelt with the Holy Spirit."
So one of the fallacies (or what I think is a fallacy) is to use verses that apply to loss of salvation under the Old Covenant and claim they apply to the New Covenant.
The "cut off" phrase I think is found only in Romans.
But this post is long enough. To repeat my question, if a person is born anew, i.e. they arise in Christ a new creation, how does the individual undo that sovereign act of God?
