Defeating the Objection: That there is a certain strain of human (like the Nephilim) that can't be saved from being that strain

   The objection as stated can rightly be called heresy from it being biblically incorrect and not sound teaching. Inherent in the wrong thinking of it is esoteric gnosticism in which parts or all of sound teaching are selectively rejected. Those propagating this point are gnostic heretics who rely on natural theology in combination with their erroneous gnostic peccadilloes. I've met staunch Jews who hold to a similar heresy that only those of a certain ethnicity are qualified to be saved. The doctrines of Mormonism contain yet another similar heresy, propagated by early Mormon leaders, that the pre-existing spirits of black people had sinned in heaven by supporting the rebellion of Lucifer against God [to say it more precisely, these premortal spirits were taught to have been neutral in the war in heaven and/or did not fight as valiantly against Satan] - a viewpoint that regarded them as spiritually unequal, but not necessarily barred from the Mormon concept of heaven.
   The objection is dealt with rather well by even just a small group of Bible verses. We know from Romans 5 that as a result of the sin of Adam (and Eve), death, condemnation, and sin spread to all men. Therefore, whatever ethnicity one is born as, they are still born under the condemnation of original sin. All have this, and so all have a "sin" or "wicked" nature. There is not one ethnicity more prone to sin than any other. The doctrine of "total depravity" spells out the human nature is thoroughly corrupt. We know also from Romans 5 that even "as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men" (Romans 5:18). The stipulation there of justification to "all" is covenantal and in regards to those of any race or ethnicity being able to receive the gospel after the ushering in of the new covenant by Christ. Similar verses, such as John 3:16-17 that refer to "the world" being now saved are taken to mean that in the cross-section of the elect who are saved, we will find those from among all nations and ethnicities- whereas the old covenant was expressly, first and foremost, for the Jews, the children of Israel. Likewise, 1 Timothy 2:4 "all persons to be saved" is taken to mean "all sorts of persons." Thus is the gospel message supposed to be preached through the whole world (Mark 16:15).
    The biblical evidence that there is not one "strain" that can't be saved for being that strain is abundant. Paul seems to spend a large part of Galatians arguing against thinking like that. "There is [now no distinction in regards to salvation] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you [who believe] are all one in Christ Jesus [no one can claim a spiritual superiority]. And if you belong to Christ [if you are in Him], then you are Abraham's descendants, and [spiritual] heirs according to [God's] promise" (Galatians 3:28-29 AMP). Throughout the Bible I find precept after precept, verse upon verse, that salvation is through faith, not my fleshly ethnicity or ancestry. There's no need to belabour the point here for the reason that it is heavily promoted in the Bible to begin with.
   The idea of some "Nephilim" (defined irrationally by some as "angelic entities" or aliens) being involved with humans is drawn by these heretics (wrongly) from Genesis 6:2 and 6:4. There is no way to prove or assert that the "sons of God" in this passage are angels. It is more likely the fact of the matter that the passage is describing men who were "of God" in their thinking and conduct. As the Keil and and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament says "But if the title 'sons of God' cannot involve the notion of physical generation, it cannot be restricted to celestial spirits, but is applicable to all beings which bear the image of God, or by virtue of their likeness to God participate in the glory, power, and blessedness of the divine life." The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges says, "There is no trace, however, in the book of Genesis, of any tradition respecting either the fall, or the rebellion, of members of the angel-host." To read into the passage that angels took human women as wives, is reading something into the passage that cannot be reasonably brought out from exegesis. The word "Nephilim" of Genesis 6:4 in the original language simply means "giants." They were "the men who were of old, men of renown" (6:4). It was likely a race of people like the Anakim who were large (Numbers 13:33).
   The scriptural evidence, interpreting other scripture with scripture seems to indicate that the verses Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 are talking about men, not angels. Even so, all the progeny described in Genesis 6:1-4 are destroyed and wiped off the face of the earth in the Great Flood in Genesis 7. No doubt my heretic opponents who are "of the devil" will want to say that a wicked (somehow unsavable) strain came through Noah even. While it is correct by sound doctrine that humanity is by nature totally depraved after the Fall of Man, the line and genealogy of Noah is blessed actually for being through Seth, not Cain. While it's possible that God did bless some ancestral lines over others, salvation is not by one's ancestry or ethnicity. Furthermore, the punishment of the Great Flood was a judgment upon humans for their evil (see Genesis 6:5).
   Like the other heresies I have written about, the one I have refuted here is especially heinous for trying to bind people's thinking into believing that they can't ever be saved from being from an evil ancestral line. These people have devised machinations of thought by which to send people to hell by eroding their faith through wrong beliefs. There is not one race more wicked by nature than any other, and such an assertion is actually patently racist also. The way to both account for the existence of evil, and to justify equality in the traditional sense, is from the Bible.

I don’t have legalism. That should explain things

Many of you probably noticed that I have referred to secular songs multiple times in my posts. The reason why I can be a professing Christian and listen to and/or refer to secular songs...

ThiS iS hOw wE HAve To coMmuniCAte riGht NOW: I don’t have legalism. That should explain things: