Once a Son Always a Son?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

It has been claimed on numerous threads and in many theological circles that 'once a son always a son.' This notion is being promoted as proof of OSAS. Is it true and can such be supported by Scripture?

Just because we are sons of God does not mean that a man cannot reject his faith, sin, and fall from his first estate. The physical and or legal relationship between a father and child does not directly correlate the one between God and man. The relationship that exists between God and man in salvation is one of faith based upon certain conditions being met, which in fact allows for the possibility of deception or change. The relationship that exists between a father and a child is one of necessity apart from any conditions.

Would there be one on the list that would like to try and show us a verse that indicates this ‘once a son always a son’ notion from Scripture? Show us a verse that states that our relationship between ourselves as believers and God is one of necessity and not that of faith with conditions.

 

[BobRyan]

It has been claimed on numerous threads and in many theological circles that 'once a son always a son.' This notion is being promoted as proof of OSAS. Is it true and can such be supported by Scripture?

Adam did not cease to be the child of God ONCE he fell - AND YET he was REALLY lost and REALLY needed a Savior!

 

[Martin]

Once a son, always a son? That is a very weak basis for believing in the perseverance of the saints, or eternal security. The reasons for accepting the doctrine of perseverance are much stronger than that. The type of argument you are talking about maybe used by some popular teachers, however serious Bible students would either stay away from it or only use it once perseverance has been established.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Martin: The type of argument you are talking about maybe used by some popular teachers, however serious Bible students would either stay away from it or only use it once perseverance has been established.

HP: Would I be assuming too much to call the president of the DTS a serious Bible student? I have heard him and many others use this very argument and take it to the ultimate extremes such as we have witnessed on this list. The argument is made that no matter what one does, whether it is committing adultery to outright murder, if they have been once a son they are in like Flint. "Once a Swindall, always a Swindall."

 

[Martin]

Would I be assuming too much to call the president of the DTS a serious Bible student? I have heard him and many others use this very argument and take it to the ultimate extremes such as we have witnessed on this list.

==My whole statement included the following line, "The type of argument you are talking about maybe used by some popular teachers, however serious Bible students would either stay away from it or only use it once perseverance has been established". Since I don't know the context (etc) of Dr Bailey's statement(s) on this I cannot comment any further. I would suspect, since he is at DTS, he holds to eternal security. I do not, I hold to the perseverance of the saints.

The argument is made that no matter what one does, whether it is committing adultery to outright murder, if they have been once a son they are in like Flint. "Once a Swindall, always a Swindall."

==There are a whole bucket load of issues that must be dealt with before one gets to the "practical" issues of security/perseverance.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Would I be assuming too much to call the president of the DTS a serious Bible student?

HP: I apologize for any confusion as to the comments I made. It should have read, a 'former President' of DTS now Chancellor.

 

[gekko]

It has been claimed on numerous threads and in many theological circles that 'once a son always a son.' This notion is being promoted as proof of OSAS. Is it true and can such be supported by Scripture?

no it cannot be supported by scripture.
---

here's how i see it.

when we're born - and even when a person is not a christian - scripture states that we are children of the devil. children of wrath.

and so when a non-christian comes to God and is brought into the family (adopted) we have the "power to become the sons of God"

there is always the possiblity of leaving the family and going back to being a child of the devil. (if you don't believe that... well. i think you'd better learn how to read)

once saved always saved. what a croc. what's a croc? that's a croc. :laugh:

 

[Dustin]

I don't believe in today's popular teaching of OSAS. I don't even like the term "once saved, always saved." It's an antinomian thing. It's a strawman that some people love to beat up over and over. But I do believe in perseverance of the saints, all the saints will persevere. There's nothing unscriptural about that.



Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[BobRyan]

Now we are talking!

Preach it!

The saints will persevere - and all those who are saved in the end WILL have persevered FIRM until the end AS scripture teaches.

The difference is that SOME will have been saved - and failed to persevere firm until the end -- and will experience the forgiveness revoked problem of Matt 18 as Christ said "SO shall My Father do to each one of you IF you do not forgive your brother from your heart".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Alcott]

" Once a Son Always a Son? "

I say yes. "Sex change operations" may fiddle with some mutulations and plastic surgery and inject horomones, but I don't think they really change the essence of what a person was born to be.

 

[Dustin]

I beg to differ. Perseverance doesn't bring about salvation, but salvation brings about perseverance. Nor does repentance or holiness or anything else but Jesus Christ. From being united with Christ, justified by grace through faith, those things will come, and we will have them.

It's foolish to rest in deeds and duties we are commanded to do in Christ, rather than in Christ alone who makes those deeds acceptable to God. Without Chirst there can be none of those things and most importantly there can be no salvation.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[J. Jump]

HP your opening statement starts the thread off on the wrong foot to begin with, because we are not sons of God currently. We are children of God. Adoption and sonship is something that takes place in the future and is not a guarantee as some have stated on here.

Perserverance is not a guarantee, because if it was we wouldn't have to be told to do it.

Just reading through some of these threads really saddens me to see where Christendom is.

 

[BobRyan]

Perseverance does not create salvation - rather coming to Christ and BEING saved - BEING born again (the GOOD tree of Matt 7) results in perseverance.

BUT the person continues to have a free will - and as we see in Matt 18 that free will could result in a choice for the SAVED and FORGIVEN - that results in "forgiveness revoked".

As Paul said in Romans 11 "You too should FEAR for if God did not spare them NEITHER will He spare you" --

Perseverance is the condition of the saints when they are glorified - at the end -- it will be seen that they "persevered firm until the end" -- but what of those who like the one in Matt 18 experienced forgiveness revoked?

For them it will be "saved" then "lost".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Dustin]

Perseverance does not create salvation - rather coming to Christ and BEING saved - BEING born again (the GOOD tree of Matt 7) results in perseverance.

BUT the person continues to have a free will - and as we see in Matt 18 that free will could result in a choice for the SAVED and FORGIVEN - that results in "forgiveness revoked".

As Paul said in Romans 11 "You too should FEAR for if God did not spare them NEITHER will He spare you" --

Perseverance is the condition of the saints when they are glorified - at the end -- it will be seen that they "persevered firm until the end" -- but what of those who like the one in Matt 18 experienced forgiveness revoked?

For them it will be "saved" then "lost".

In Christ,

Bob

I beg to differ again. Perseverance isn't a condition, it's a promise to those who are in Christ. If you are in Christ, if you are saved, you will abide in Him, and you will persevere. It's a command, just like holiness, but it's also a promise. It's something that is worked in us by the Holy Spirit. Free will is a bit over-rated. I believe in free will, but before regeneration, it's only good at doing evil. Once the believer is regenerated by the Holy Spirit and united to Christ through faith, the the will is REALLY free, to do what the Lord has foreordained us to do as the Lord wills.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Dustin: I believe in free will, but before regeneration, it's only good at doing evil. Once the believer is regenerated by the Holy Spirit and united to Christ through faith, the the will is REALLY free, to do what the Lord has foreordained us to do as the Lord wills.

HP: You give lip service only to free will. You have the will acting of necessity to evil before salvation and according to necessitated foreordination subsequent to salvation. According to you the will is never free. It is completely necessitated and coerced by forces outside of the formation of its own intents. Your free will is no free will at all.

For freewill to be present one must be able to do something other than it has chosen, under the very same set of circumstances. Your post exhibits no such possibility that I can see.

 

[Dustin]

HP: You give lip service only to free will. You have the will acting of necessity to evil before salvation and according to necessitated foreordination subsequent to salvation. According to you the will is never free. It is completely necessitated and coerced by forces outside of the formation of its own intents. Your free will is no free will at all.

For freewill to be present one must be able to do something other than it has chosen, under the very same set of circumstances. Your post exhibits no such possibility that I can see.

HP, you misunderstand me. The will of the unregenerate unbeliever is free to do whatever thier heart desires. But the desires will be evil, unless and until, the Holy Spirit works in them. So yes, according to your definition, unregenerate free will is no free will at all, it's in bondage to sin. It's coerced by sin, it's own intents are evil and disobediance.

You do indeed make a choice to follow Christ, I do not deny that, in the same way a sinner chooses to fornicate or murder or persecute the righteous, in the same way you choose to eat steak one day or peanut butter and jelly the next. But apart from God's grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, you won't have a desire to follow Christ. Once the heart is changed, the desires will change, and the sinner will desire Christ instead of evil.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Dustin: HP, you misunderstand me.

HP:I wish that were the case.

Dustin: The will of the unregenerate unbeliever is free to do whatever thier heart desires.

HP: We are called upon to choose against desires every day. There is not an once of freedom in ‘doing as one wills,’ or ‘doing as one desires,’ IF it is as the Calvinist proclaims, and that is the unregenerate heart can ONLY desire evil and that continually. Morality can only exist in a setting of choice, choice between selfishness and benevolence. If the only possible outcome is selfishness, no morality can be predicated of the supposed choice. In reality you have no choice at all and no morality can be predicated period. All you have is pure unadulterated necessitated fatalism.

If there is only one possible consequent for a give antecedent, no freedom of choice can be predicated. Only as two or more possible consequents are possible for a given antecedent is any choice or freedom possible. There are no exceptions to these truths.

Dustin: But the desires will be evil, unless and until, the Holy Spirit works in them.

HP: That is in essence true, for without some outside influence upon the will to benevolence, the will could not be motivated to choose it. If that were true of unbelievers, they could not be held accountable for not producing an effect that had no cause. Not even God can do that.

All men have been given a measure of faith. All men have received some light as to right and wrong. This is in itself at least a measure of the Spirit of God working in the hearts and minds of even the heathen. Consider the following verses. Ro 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Dustin: So yes, according to your definition, unregenerate free will is no free will at all, it's in bondage to sin. It's coerced by sin, it's own intents are evil and disobedience.

HP: The will of the unregenerate is indeed evil and in bondage to sin to one degree or another. This is NOT to say that they could not have did something other than what they did under the very same set of circumstances as you would have it, but rather that they will not because they desire selfishness as opposed to benevolence. If the will ever gets to the place where the possibility does not exist to do anything other than what they do, they have left the realm of morality, and are no longer to be blamed for their actions, but rather we would place them in the protective custody of a mental institution. They would cease to be responsible for their actions and as such receive no direct blame.
The very fact that God blames moral agents for their choices is evidence that this is not the case. Men choose to do evil in spite of the motivation God, via the Holy Spirit and conscience, gives them. They are willingly evil. They do not act in benevolence 'in spite' of all the influences God has given them.

 

[gekko]

Perserverance is not a guarantee, because if it was we wouldn't have to be told to do it.

J.Jump! good to see ya!

hey. at least that's one thing we can agree on

 

[Dustin]

HP:I wish that were the case.



HP: We are called upon to choose against desires every day. There is not an once of freedom in ‘doing as one wills,’ or ‘doing as one desires,’ IF it is as the Calvinist proclaims, and that is the unregenerate heart can ONLY desire evil and that continually. Morality can only exist in a setting of choice, choice between selfishness and benevolence. If the only possible outcome is selfishness, no morality can be predicated of the supposed choice. In reality you have no choice at all and no morality can be predicated period. All you have is pure unadulterated necessitated fatalism.

If there is only one possible consequent for a give antecedent, no freedom of choice can be predicated. Only as two or more possible consequents are possible for a given antecedent is any choice or freedom possible. There are no exceptions to these truths.




HP: That is in essence true, for without some outside influence upon the will to benevolence, the will could not be motivated to choose it. If that were true of unbelievers, they could not be held accountable for not producing an effect that had no cause. Not even God can do that.

All men have been given a measure of faith. All men have received some light as to right and wrong. This is in itself at least a measure of the Spirit of God working in the hearts and minds of even the heathen. Consider the following verses. Ro 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another




HP: The will of the unregenerate is indeed evil and in bondage to sin to one degree or another. This is NOT to say that they could not have did something other than what they did under the very same set of circumstances as you would have it, but rather that they will not because they desire selfishness as opposed to benevolence. If the will ever gets to the place where the possibility does not exist to do anything other than what they do, they have left the realm of morality, and are no longer to be blamed for their actions, but rather we would place them in the protective custody of a mental institution. They would cease to be responsible for their actions and as such receive no direct blame.
The very fact that God blames moral agents for their choices is evidence that this is not the case. Men choose to do evil in spite of the motivation God, via the Holy Spirit and conscience, gives them. They are willingly evil. They do not act in benevolence 'in spite' of all the influences God has given them.

Truth be told, I heard a very similar argument from an atheist who was debating a Calvinist in favor of human choice.


The simple fact is, God is sovereign, man is responsible. No way around that. Man is responsible for every bit of evil, and God is sovereign even over that.

Why does one unregenerate man do evil and one unregenerate man do good? It's a matter of conscience, one chooses good and the other chooses evil, because one might respect other people and the other doesn't care. The good we see doesn't mean anything, because the heart is still darkened. So, in fact, the intended good is filthy rags in the eyes of God. It's just superficial morality. Both the do-gooder and the evil doer are justly condemned in the end. One chose good and one chose evil, but neither were in Christ. So, at least in this model, choice doesn't mean anything.

Why does one man believe that Jesus is the Son of God,and the other man deny that? What's the difference there? God is the difference. It's not of ourselves that we choose, but by the grace of God. All men are responsible, all are called to repent and believe, regardless of whether or not they are regenerated. Why is that? Read Romans 9 verses 6-24 in particular. God is certainly not obligated to save anyone, because we are responsible for what we do, in the end all those in heaven will be there because of God's grace in Christ, and all those in hell will be there justly, because they rejected the only way of salvation.

Is saving faith and/or a choice for Christ an excercise in morality, or it is it a gift given by God to us despite us?

If you want call me a fatalist, then do what you will, I'm only arguing in the light of Scripture. If you think I'm glossing over other Scriptures to make my argument, you are wrong. Man is completely responsible, all men everywhere, and God is sovereign over every single one of them. That's what the Scriptures say, that is what I'm going with.

What Christ did (His atonement) was completely outside of us. Where then is the error in saying that perseverence and holiness and a moral life is also outside of us? Because it's not us who made it possible, it was Christ.

Something to chew on.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Dustin: Truth be told, I heard a very similar argument from an atheist who was debating a Calvinist in favor of human choice.

HP: What is sad Dustin is when the heathen and atheist’s understand some truth better than some believers. The atheist has no dogma in this case to protect and can readily accept the plain and ‘should be accepted as’ ‘universal truth’ of free will and choice.

Dustin: The simple fact is, God is sovereign, man is responsible. No way around that. Man is responsible for every bit of evil, and God is sovereign even over that.

HP: You deny the sovereignty of God not uphold it. You deny His testimony of Scripture and conscience that affirms that God has chosen to instill within all moral agents the necessary abilities to obey His commands. You deny the sovereignty of God by refusing to admit even the possibility that God has created a man as the creator of his own intents and thereby responsible for them. You speak of responsibility for evil and then contradict that by stating that God is sovereign over that, as if thought to be secretly admitting that God, according to the logical end of your argument, must be the author of all evil. Dustin, you cannot have it both ways. Some truth, i.e. man is responsible, is not balanced with error, in that God is the ultimate cause of evil. This is precisely the double talk and confusion this system of Calvinistic thought engenders.

Dustin: Why does one unregenerate man do evil and one unregenerate man do good? It's a matter of conscience, one chooses good and the other chooses evil, because one might respect other people and the other doesn't care. The good we see doesn't mean anything, because the heart is still darkened.

HP: When the unrighteous man choose to do the right thing it sure means something to me. Thank God that often the unrighteous do act in a good manner. I cannot help but think God may offer some of those that act appropriately special favor or invitation to follow Him, or even reward them in some way for their faithfulness to truth. Just the same, we will all agree that no matter what they do, it will not ATONE for one solitary sin that is past, neither are their proper deeds meritorious in salvation in any way.

Dustin: So, in fact, the intended good is filthy rags in the eyes of God. It's just superficial morality. Both the do-gooder and the evil doer are justly condemned in the end. One chose good and one chose evil, but neither were in Christ. So, at least in this model, choice doesn't mean anything.

HP: It is not that choice doesn’t mean ‘anything,’ it simply means that good choices do not, nor can they, atone for sin.

Dustin: Why does one man believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and the other man deny that? What's the difference there? God is the difference. It's not of ourselves that we choose, but by the grace of God.

HP: Here you have it once again, 50% right and 50% wrong. Yes, it is by the grace of God that any are saved, but none will be saved without their own formation of an intent to believe and obey God. We are not saved for the sake of our choices, i,e., in the sense of ‘that for the sake of, but neither will any man be saved apart from the formation of intents thought of in the sense of ‘not without which.” Try reading the prison illustration again to see this distinction illustrated.

Dustin: All men are responsible, all are called to repent and believe, regardless of whether or not they are regenerated. Why is that? Read Romans 9 verses 6-24 in particular. God is certainly not obligated to save anyone, because we are responsible for what we do, in the end all those in heaven will be there because of God's grace in Christ, and all those in hell will be there justly, because they rejected the only way of salvation.

HP: What do you mean ‘they rejected the only way of salvation?” This is nothing more than Calvinistic double speak. On the one hand you tell me that it is God that determines or predestines those that will receive His salvation, and now you are telling me that the reason why some are not saved is due to the fact they rejected that for which they were never chosen?? Which is it Dustin? You cannot have it both ways.

Dustin: Is saving faith and/or a choice for Christ an excercise in morality, or it is it a gift given by God to us despite us?

HP: The opportunity of accepting Christ is a gift. One must take advantage of the opportunity in obedience to God’s demand of exercising faith and repentance in order to receive the gift. As BR has told us many times in accordance to Scripture, it is God that stands at the door knocking with the gift, but it is up to us to open the door and invite Him in. Our opening the door is not the grounds of salvation, but neither will salvation be accomplished apart from our willing obedience in opening the door in faith and repentance.

Dustin: What Christ did (His atonement) was completely outside of us.

HP: Yes indeed. The problem is that what you say was accomplished at the cross, and we both agree was 'apart from us,' in fact happened, but it did not transpire as you say it did. God indeed built a bridge to allow the possibility that all might be saved, and satisfied the laws demands concerning the penalty applied to any and all sin, but that was ‘atonement for’, not a ‘literal payment of,’ the sins of the world.