Born is the King

[Rinse & rePeat]

I’m not sure how a child born in a stable, who later went around healing people, telling parables and dying an horrific death on a cross to redeem our sins is some kind of authoritarian monster.

Jesus wants to redeem man back to God. Satan is the jealous authoritarian who wants to separate man from God.


Orthodox male Jews tie Tefillin on their heads and arms. We live near a Jewish bakery. The orthodox young men occasionally stand outside the bakery and wrap them on to secular Jews.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iZmPSPGNmik

Thank you for making sense of that :)

 

[Richiebogie]

It is good that the Jews honour the Passover in Egypt, where the blood of the lambs on the doorposts saved the firstborn Jews from the Spirit of Death in this world.

However they deny the Passover in Jerusalem, where the blood of the Lamb of God saves all from Judgement in the next world who profess it in this world!

Communion may be the Christian version of Tefillin, where we partake in eating the body and blood of Christ.

The unleavened flatbread and the wine are symbols from the Passover Seder which Jesus reinterpreted at the Last Supper.

 

[TheSir]

If you think you have more knowledge on the subject let's see your counter arguments for the ''false conceptions'' and not be hanging with ''muuh it's unclear, muh lack of depth, muh arbitrariness''.

Consider that one does not need to have arguments of their own in order to pick apart arguments of yours. Consider also that I'm with you, rather than against you. I'm trying to guide you towards producing robust reasoning or evidence in favor of your argument, since as for now, you may be doing more harm than good in regard to getting others to understand where you're coming from. This is not what either of us wants.

Your attempt to discredit the evidence I've presented is unsuccessful.

Akin to above reasoning, I'm not trying to discredit your evidence. I'm trying to get you to be more sensible in regard to what you define as evidence. Loose associations are comparable to hypotheses, rather than evidence.

This thread is to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ

We are brothers in Christ. This does not necessarily mean we are brothers in our conceptualization of other religions. For sure, the magnificence of Christ transcends institutionalized religion and other man-made concepts. You are not required to call yourself Christian in order to follow the Truth of Christ that is written on your heart (and on the heart of every human). Evidently many Muslims and Jews -- and many from the pagan world at large -- have, be it by luck or grace, stumbled upon this Truth, in spite of not knowing what to call it. Indeed, what we call this Truth is inconsequential, as it is not our subjective thoughts and ideas that define our faith, but our objective actions.

 

[Twohandsondeck]

Indeed, what we call this Truth is inconsequential, as it is not our subjective thoughts and ideas that define our faith, but our objective actions.

Are you sure that you're meaning to say what you've written here?

That "Truth" IS consequential because if it's not given the appropriate title, it is for not.

The Truth, of course:

John 14:6-7
[6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
[7] If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Now there are many examples of people who try to follow the golden rule, and they do great and wonderful works to justify their own lives. The first example that comes to mind are speakers such as Oprah Winfrey, Eckhart Tolle, and Deepak Chopra who use the expression "Christ consciousness" to convey this truth of good will to all, yet since they do not abide within Christ, they are without Him. Christ is right under their nose, but they remain deceived.

Another example are devout Catholics. They also use the name of Christ, but ultimately bow to Mary or the pope and with those continued actions without a full surrender to Christ, there certainly will be hell to pay.

Firstly, every knee shall bow and appear at the judgment seat of Christ:

Psalms 95:6
[6] O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker.

Isaiah 45:22-23
[22] Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
[23] I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Mark 15:18-19
[18] And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!
[19] And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.

Romans 14:10-11
[10] But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
[11] For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Ephesians 3:14-15
[14] For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
[15] Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

Secondly, doing many wonderful works while using the name of Christ yet not doing the will of the Father will land a person departed from Christ:

Matthew 7:21-23
[21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The Father's will:

John 6:38-40
[38] For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
[39] And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
[40] And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

_______________
The other half of my question is what defines our faith. You said that you believe that it's entirely our objective actions, but clearly that's not the case considering that we are all still abiding in this fallen flesh. A man could have received salvation at a complete surrender to Christ yet - in present day - be a brawling, scorning drunkard that has since continued to sorely lose the battle against the lusts of the flesh. A man either has faith or he does not, and the number of pies that he makes for his neighbor is no way to judge whether or not he has (is in) faith.

Faith being explicitly defined:

Hebrews 11:1
[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Before considering the Strongs concordance of the word "substance," I was set to illustrate a point that faith is solely subjective, based entirely on the thoughts and intent of the heart (which is also interchangeably written with the word "mind" in the Book) but in accordance with what both the Strongs concordance and Webster's 1828 dictionary has to say about the word, "substance," I now see that it is both subjective and objective together:

Webster's 1828 dictionary entry -

SUB'STANCE, n. [L. substantia, substo; sub and sto, to stand.]
1. In a general sense, being; something existing by itself; that which really is or exists; equally applicable to matter or spirit.
...
5. Body; corporeal nature or matter.

Strong's concordance entry -

Strong's Number - G5287
Greek: ὑπόστασις
Transliteration: hupostasis
Pronunciation: hoop-os'-tas-is
Definition: From a compound of G5259 and G2476; a setting under (support) that is (figuratively) concretely essence or abstractly assurance (objectively or subjectively): - confidence confident person substance.
KJV Usage: confidence (2x), confident (1x), person (1x), substance (1x).
Occurs: 5
In verses: 5

For a more complete picture, these are the next two verses of Hebrews 11 -

Hebrews 11:1-3
[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
[2] For by it the elders obtained a good report.
[3] Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Cool! I learned something, thanks for that ^.^

 

[TheSir]

Are you sure that you're meaning to say what you've written here?

That "Truth" IS consequential because if it's not given the appropriate title, it is for not.

Though I can assure that I meant what I wrote, I can't ensure that what you read matches with what I meant! To build upon the postulation, we note that the absence or presence of our mental conceptualization for the name of Truth should in no way influence our living relationship with such Truth. This is because the subjectively conceptualized semantic level of Truth is wholly separate from the actual objective instance of Truth. It does not, can not and needs not to interact with the latter through any means. The name of Truth is a mere helpful anchor for our minds. Outside of our minds, names cease to have any function. Evidently our hearts do not deal in words, ideas or concepts (they appear to deal with something far more immediate and direct). As such, we could even infer that there may be no fundamentally necessary role for the mind to play in one's relationship with God, as our hearts already know Truth before we even attempt to conceptualize it.

Consider how Father, upon being asked about his identity, only revealed that 'he is who he is'. Could our mental conceptualization of Father's name bear any significance to the living relationship with Him, the one which we are cultivating within our hearts, then should we not expect Father to have revealed his exact name to us?

The other half of my question is what defines our faith. You said that you believe that it's entirely our objective actions, but clearly that's not the case considering that we are all still abiding in this fallen flesh. A man could have received salvation at a complete surrender to Christ yet - in present day - be a brawling, scorning drunkard that has since continued to sorely lose the battle against the lusts of the flesh. A man either has faith or he does not, and the number of pies that he makes for his neighbor is no way to judge whether or not he has (is in) faith.

To clarify, I am not talking about works nor dealing with the subject of works vs faith. My attempted point is that faith is foremost an action, rather than a mental concept. Or, more aptly put, faith is the basis from which all action sprouts out. It is an active underlying attitude, something that is lived true in our concrete actions. We can see this reality in the following sentence from your post:

Secondly, doing many wonderful works while using the name of Christ yet not doing the will of the Father will land a person departed from Christ:

in which we shall note the 'doing' the will of the Father. The implication being that merely harboring an accurate idea of the will of the Father must be worthless so long as one is not actually carrying it out, much like believing in the existence of God must be worthless so long as one does not believe in God.

Faith being explicitly defined:

Hebrews 11:1
[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Aptly, Hebrews 11 is titled as "Faith in Action." At large, the chapter in question offers numerous examples of actions defining the faith of a person.

I hope we found some common ground here.

 

[sladerunner69]

Bald-faced lie.

Would you like to support such a bold accusation? Or are logic and evidence-driven arguments not part of your Christian etymology? On the contrary, my position is simply in line with the vast majority of objective historical accounts from that period.

 

[sladerunner69]

I’m not sure how a child born in a stable, who later went around healing people, telling parables and dying an horrific death on a cross to redeem our sins is some kind of authoritarian monster.

Jesus wants to redeem man back to God. Satan is the jealous authoritarian who wants to separate man from God.


Orthodox male Jews tie Tefillin on their heads and arms. We live near a Jewish bakery. The orthodox young men occasionally stand outside the bakery and wrap them on to secular Jews.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iZmPSPGNmik

Another disturbing ritual I haven't heard of, it seems they always have something else. At least this one is (seemingly) benign.

 

[Perry Staltic]

Would you like to support such a bold accusation? Or are logic and evidence-driven arguments not part of your Christian etymology? On the contrary, my position is simply in line with the vast majority of objective historical accounts from that period.

Total BS. Anyone who says this knows nothing about the history of the church. It's not my job to disprove your ridiculous claim. He who makes a claim must prove it. Show the evidence that 1st-2nd century Christians were violent insurrectionists like antifa. The wikipedia article you linked to is nothing but speculation.

 

[TheSir]

Would you like to support such a bold accusation? Or are logic and evidence-driven arguments not part of your Christian etymology? On the contrary, my position is simply in line with the vast majority of objective historical accounts from that period.

Your argument is that ancient Christians were equivalent of antifascists. Consider that theologically, the Christian view of the world could be called divine fascism. In practice, Christianity was spread through pacifism and totalitarianism alike, neither of which is explicitly connected to the modus operandi of the antifascists. Where as antifascists react to perceived threats, Christians react to the imperative to align themselves with a perceived existential truth.

 

[sladerunner69]

Total BS. Anyone who says this knows nothing about the history of the church. It's not my job to disprove your ridiculous claim. He who makes a claim must prove it. Show the evidence that 1st-2nd century Christians were violent insurrectionists like antifa. The wikipedia article you linked to is nothing but speculation.

Look kid, you can literally find dozens of sources within minutes using a search:
Christians committing arson
A Whole Book Written on the subject of Christianity being responsible for the destruction of the religiously harmonious classical world
Christians persecuting and genociding pagans during the latter roman empire

There are MANY more. If you were genuinely concerned with the subject, or with truth at all, you would take a little bit of time out of your day to look into the subject. However, like many Christians I've met who seem to be deeply insecure in their beliefs, I bet you probably aren't interested in that sort of thing.

Your argument is that ancient Christians were equivalent of antifascists. Consider that theologically, the Christian view of the world could be called divine fascism. In practice, Christianity was spread through pacifism and totalitarianism alike, neither of which is explicitly connected to the modus operandi of the antifascists. Where as antifascists react to perceived threats, Christians react to the imperative to align themselves with a perceived existential truth.

HAHA that's an entertaining idea, but I think you're living in a fantasy, one in which Antifa members are all well-read in philosophy and political science, and one where the average Christian of today is knowledgeable of the Classical world. Antifascists don't care about fascism- it's reasonably clear that most of them cannot even define the term. They just associate it with "mean old bad racist white men" like Hitler. In fact, Antifa's use of force to silence dissidents and support of more state authority is far far far more fascist than their opponents- American conservatives (classical liberals).

The force underlying Antifa is the reactionary, destructive force of "spiteful mutants" which has been observed across different populations through histories and demonstrated in rodent models (look up rat utopia). After a civilization progresses to a certain point, and as good/bad (productive/destructive) genetics separate and create a rift in the population, the lower tiers of genetic misfits and cretins begin to gnaw, rebel and lash out at the successful and productive portion of the population. This has been an issue throughout history, and only a handful of civilizations have come up with an effective solution for it (China through factory slave labor, Great Britain through expulsion to distant territories, Germany through workcamps/execution). The situation in America today is made worse because these spiteful mutants are being organized by intelligent forces (a certain ethno-religo minority group who shall go unnamed but dominates the media, finance, and academia) and led by social climbers (people with good genes but bad ethics and seek personal gain in wealth/fame at the expense of society - actors, talking heads, politicians)

The Christians of the Roman Era were cut of this same cloth. They were made up of the genetically deprived spiteful mutants of their era, and led in turn by opportunists seeking power and wealth for themselves. The Jews at first hated the Christians (as they did any of their neighbors, really) especially because so many would-be Jews were being lured away by the hip new thing (Christ). However, once they witnessed the destabilizing effect that the Christians were having within the Roman Empire, they began to support and organize and even sometimes lead the christians over the centuries until Rome fell. Joseph Atwill goes into depth on all this in "Caesar's Messiah"

Today Christianity is the tradition and the organizing force, and followed by the higher gene pool, and the anarchists and antifa communist types are the ones trying to destabilize society, but it is the same dynamic pattern at play.

 

[ThinPicking]

@sladerunner69 ?

"spiteful mutants"... what a load of absolute shite.

 

[Perry Staltic]

Look kid, you can literally find dozens of sources within minutes using a search:
Christians committing arson
A Whole Book Written on the subject of Christianity being responsible for the destruction of the religiously harmonious classical world
Christians persecuting and genociding pagans during the latter roman empire

There are MANY more. If you were genuinely concerned with the subject, or with truth at all, you would take a little bit of time out of your day to look into the subject. However, like many Christians I've met who seem to be deeply insecure in their beliefs, I bet you probably aren't interested in that sort of thing.

You started off comparing Christians with antifa and used a wikipedia article about 1st century Christians to try to support that claim. I called BS. Then you switched over to Christianity after it become the state religion several centuries later. Yes, the state did destroy pagan temples and such because such was against the law of the empire. But it wasn't antifa-like actors trying to undermine the established state, it was the state itself destroying paganism. So your comparison of Christians with antifa is BS on both counts.

You really don't know Christian history well enough (if at all) to try to act like you know what you're talking about. Like some woketard, you get an idea you want to champion, and then search for stuff to try to support it, and do stupid stuff like call me 'kid' when I call out your stupid BS.

 

[Perry Staltic]

The Christians of the Roman Era were cut of this same cloth. They were made up of the genetically deprived spiteful mutants of their era, and led in turn by opportunists seeking power and wealth for themselves. The Jews at first hated the Christians (as they did any of their neighbors, really) especially because so many would-be Jews were being lured away by the hip new thing (Christ). However, once they witnessed the destabilizing effect that the Christians were having within the Roman Empire, they began to support and organize and even sometimes lead the christians over the centuries until Rome fell. Joseph Atwill goes into depth on all this in "Caesar's Messiah"

Ooooo you read Atwill. You smaht man

 

[Perry Staltic]

You realize Atwill is a fiction writer, right? No, I guess you don't.

 

[TheSir]

but I think you're living in a fantasy, one in which Antifa members are all well-read in philosophy and political science, and one where the average Christian of today is knowledgeable of the Classical world. Antifascists don't care about fascism- it's reasonably clear that most of them cannot even define the term.

Well, if by antifascists you don't really mean antifascists, and if by Christians you don't truly mean Christians, then there isn't much ground on which to have a conversation. Consider the following dichotomy:

1) I am dealing with the fundamental principles that define each movement.
2) You are dealing with the people who identify with these movements.

As we both are aware of, the two of these spheres don't necessarily match with each other. Whether people call themselves Christians or antifascists, their identity has no bearing on whether or not they objectively are Christians or antifascists as per the actual definitions of these words, much like a man objectively isn't a woman just because he identifies as one.

 

[Twohandsondeck]

Evidently our hearts do not deal in words, ideas or concepts (they appear to deal with something far more immediate and direct).

We're to renew our minds after the words written in the book. Conveniently enough, our mind does deal with words, ideas, "Heart" and "mind" is interchangeable:

Hebrews 8:10
[10] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a Gandan and they shall be to me a people:

Hebrews 10:16
[16] This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

Of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh:

Luke 6:45
[45] A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

As such, we could even infer that there may be no fundamentally necessary role for the mind to play in one's relationship with God,

What are you talking about?

There are many verses which pertain to this, but here are just a few:

Romans 12:2
[2] And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

1 Corinthians 2:16
[16] For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Philippians 2:5-8
[5] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
[6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
[7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
[8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

as our hearts already know Truth before we even attempt to conceptualize it.

Again, what are you talking about? Our hearts do not naturally stoop in the way of Truth, but the opposite:

Jeremiah 17:9
[9] The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Consider how Father, upon being asked about his identity, only revealed that 'he is who he is'. Could our mental conceptualization of Father's name bear any significance to the living relationship with Him, the one which we are cultivating within our hearts, then should we not expect Father to have revealed his exact name to us?

I don't quite understand what is being said here.

Does it bear any significance to the living relationship with Him? Yes, of course it does, because He's the mediator. We ask in His name. We pray for the sick in His name. We are baptized in His name.

1 Timothy 2:5
[5] For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

John 16:26-28
[26] At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
[27] For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
[28] I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

James 5:14
[14] Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

Acts 10:48
[48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

My attempted point is that faith is foremost an action, rather than a mental concept. Or, more aptly put, faith is the basis from which all action sprouts out.

It either is or isn't an action.

The second sentence contradicts the first, but I agree with the second.

in which we shall note the 'doing' the will of the Father.

Again, the will is to believe. To believe is to have faith. Faith is specifically written to be not a work:

John 6:40
[40] And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Ephesians 2:8-9
[8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
[9] Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Aptly, Hebrews 11 is titled as "Faith in Action." At large, the chapter in question offers numerous examples of actions defining the faith of a person.

But actions don't define faith. Actions are a by-product of faith. There are people who are out of the faith yet do actions which might convince (that is, deceive) the passerby into thinking that the actionable person is in the faith by virtue of their actions... Even if the actionable person isn't in the faith, but just trying to be a morally good person outside of bringing glory to the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[TheSir]

"Heart" and "mind" is interchangeable:

I'm afraid that nothing that follows this is justifying this view. Were they interchangeable, why would they be mentioned separately? I would argue that to suggest that the heart and the mind are interchangeable is to largely disregard 2000 years of Christian theology.

But actions don't define faith.

What else could? As far as I know, there is no other way to define the quality of one's faith than the extent to which their actions are made subject to God. If our actions do not reflect our faith, then we simply do not have faith, yes? Why did Peter deny Christ thrice? Because he lacked faith. Why do the martyrs willingly die for Jesus? Because they have tremendous faith. Both are faith-defining actions alike. Agree?

Actions are a by-product of faith.

What is the main product of faith, if not faith in action?

There are many verses which pertain to this, but here are just a few:

That's fair.

Does it bear any significance to the living relationship with Him? Yes, of course it does, because He's the mediator. We ask in His name. We pray for the sick in His name. We are baptized in His name.

Not in a sense that truly matters I think. The importance of an action done in God's name (which we don't even know) comes from the intention with which the actions is carried out, rather than any semantically arbitrary utterance we attach to the action (such as God, Father, Christ, or the Holy Spirit). We use these names to help US focus on God, not to validate our actions in the eyes of God. Praying in God's name does not bring us any closer to God than praying without God's name, as we are unable to approach God on our own in any case. Instead, as we pray with intent, God approaches us out of mercy, in spite of of what words or names we use or refrain from using. Consider the possibility that you are attributing too much divinity to language.

There are people who are out of the faith yet do actions which might convince (that is, deceive) the passerby into thinking that the actionable person is in the faith by virtue of their actions. Even if the actionable person isn't in the faith, but just trying to be a morally good person outside of bringing glory to the name of Jesus Christ.

To clarify: actions define your faith in the eyes of God. How your actions are perceived by others has no relevance to the topic.

It either is or isn't an action.

The second sentence contradicts the first, but I agree with the second.

Not sure I'm following, but if you agree that's a step forward.

Again, what are you talking about? Our hearts do not naturally stoop in the way of Truth, but the opposite:

Hebrews 8:10
[10] I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts
Jeremiah 17:9
[9] The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

1) Pick one. You can't simultaneously argue for both, at least not in the way you used these passages to deliver separate points in your post.
2) Consider that in these two passages, heart refers to two different things.
3) The point made in Hebrews 8:10 stands: Truth has been written on our heart, i.e. the core of our being, since the very beginning of our conception. Truth never left our hearts, we merely lost our sight on it.

Again, the will is to believe. To believe is to have faith. Faith is specifically written to be not a work:

You are still trying to turn this discussion into a works vs faith debate. As I already said, the debate has no contextual relevance to anything I'm discussing. Please don't do this anymore. If you refuse to acknowledge the difference between 'faith in action' and 'works' as used here, just say so, as there is little sense in continuing this exchange then.

 

[Perry Staltic]

What is the main product of faith, if not faith in action?

Calling our actions a by-product of faith makes it sound like righteous behavior is inferior to something else

 

[Perry Staltic]

But actions don't define faith. Actions are a by-product of faith. There are people who are out of the faith yet do actions which might convince (that is, deceive) the passerby into thinking that the actionable person is in the faith by virtue of their actions... Even if the actionable person isn't in the faith, but just trying to be a morally good person outside of bringing glory to the name of Jesus Christ.

What does it mean to be "in the faith"and how does one get out of the faith if one is baptized into the faith?

 

[Twohandsondeck]

What does it mean to be "in the faith"and how does one get out of the faith if one is baptized into the faith?

To be born again, thus becoming a member of the body of Christ. Once a person is born again - by baptism of the Spirit - their spirit is regenerated and they are sealed unto the day of salvation.

There are several verses which corroborate these points, but suffice it to say that a person who is born again cannot be unborn, nor can their spirit be degenerated.

To the extent that a person tries to "get out of the faith" will only incur the chastening of God as their Father in their lives. As long as we are still in this flesh, we will reap what we sow, regardless of having been placed in the faith or not.