Loss of salvation???

Since both your questions are loaded I will attempt to answer them as best I can.

How is one unborn? You can not be unborn hence the nonsensical nature of the question.

How can you be separated from the love of God? The same way Esau was separated and Jacob was not.

Okay now how about this one...Were you a married bachelor when you stopped beating your wife?

"...though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue..."
You have to read the whole thing.

The question of whether Jesus has always been the Son of God is a fascinating and complex theological subject. The term “only begotten” is derived from the Greek word “monogenes,” which signifies that Jesus is uniquely the Son of God in a way that no other being is.

I hope the perspective I am about to give is received with respect and consideration, as it is not my intention to provoke harsh criticism. I hold the belief that Jesus has not always been the Son of God, although I firmly believe that He is the third person of the Trinity, has always existed, and has always been God. My understanding is that Jesus did not always exist as a human; rather, He was born into this world as a baby and grew up just like any other human being. This is a fact clearly taught in the Bible, particularly in the narrative of His birth.

Some theologians argue that Jesus has always been the Son of God, eternally begotten by the Father, a concept known as the “eternal generation of the Son.” This view maintains that Jesus, as the second person of the Trinity, has always existed in a subordinate relationship to the Father, even before His incarnation.

Others, like myself ,propose that Jesus became the Son of God at a specific point in time, such as His birth, baptism, resurrection, or ascension. For example, the angel’s announcement to Mary in Luke 1:35 indicates that Jesus was called the Son of God at His birth.

My belief that Jesus has always existed as the third person of the Trinity but became the Son of God at His incarnation is supported by various scriptural passages and theological arguments. It is important to recognize that these discussions are part of a broader theological exploration, and differing views can coexist within the Christian faith.

Can you define married bachelor for me? I'm unfamiliar with the term.
Natural birth is a picture to help us understand spiritual birth. The fact that it cannot be undone is one of the lessons.
And what makes you think Esau ever experienced the love of God?

I have read the "whole thing".

What part of these verses makes you think that Esau did not deserve the "hate" of God?

Did not Esau give away his birthright feely?

Did he not show contempt for his birthright?

Did Jacob not desire the birthright?

Did he not express value for the birthright?

It seems an omniscient God would judge wisely between the two.

Its a nonsensical answer to your nonsensical question.
There are many things that can be "undone". Having your name blotted out of the "Book of Life" is one.
All of creation has experienced the love of God, even Esau.

You still didn't read it.

But not the love of God in Christ Jesus. It cannot be undone.

Well...NightTwister you really know how to prove a point.

OHHHH...that love. Never mind.
I thought we were talking about the love of God, not the love of God in Christ Jesus.

My bad.

Glad you have a sense of humor. Kudos to you.

I dont think you read my response very closely. I said that the firstborn references to Christ have to do with his status as heir (firstborn in ancient times was the primary heir of the father’s estate) and not as his being “begotten“ in the sense of coming into existence.

I agree he was not always “the Son” and the begotten is also referencing his incarnation. Prior to the incarnation he is referred to as “the Word.” However, I think the primary meaning refers to him being the heir.

Id also add, I wasn’t trying to be disparaging. I just thought it was a strange turn in the conversation. Most cults tend to focus on the nature of Christ and turning away from the historic Christian view on the issue (i.e. man or angel, not God, one of many gods/brother of Satan, etc.)

As I understand it, in natural terms anyway (which I don't believe would be entirely irrelevant) one isn't begotten until another bears them to a one that begets.

Not that I always succeed, but I do try to give others the benefit of the doubt, that is, if there is even just a hint of doubt I offer full benefit of it so, please don't sweat it, I didn't take it disparagingly. I understand the environment in which we are communicating in is susceptible to the roam of cult members. I did entertain some conversations with visiting JWs and LDSs also, but the conversation usually, er no, not usually but unfailingly, came to an impasse upon that particular subject.

Thanks for the clarification, I might've dismissed that statement seeing that I agreed it likely has something to do with the firstborn being heir, or receiving a double portion, although I was thinking more about the aspect of the firstborn's dedication, firstfruits (i.e. the tithe?) to God. '
I guess it's my artsy tendency to try and capture every facet of a picture, even though not even a camera can actually do that.

oh, and this was loooong, long ago.

Yeah, i hear you. Obviously some of this stuff is beyond our comprehension. I just brought it up because some were trying to use the 1:1 correlation of physical realities exactly describing spiritual realities. I thought this was a good example of that. Clearly “firstborn“ in reference to Jesus is not an exact relationship to what we think of when we think of a child that is “firstborn” or “begotten.” So, the idea of being “dead in sins” or “born again” is not an exact relationship to physical death or physical birth. Here are a few verses that make it clear that Jesus being “begotten“ is not referencing his preincarnate state as being another created being as some cults claim:

Many many more could be referenced. These are just a few.