OK, we need not continue.
Feel free to ask a question of me should you wish, but this isn't fruitful.
Much love!
Oddly OSAS
- Thread starter GracePeace
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Feel free to ask a question of me should you wish, but this isn't fruitful.
Much love!
Does God only forget sin under the Law?
Doesn't He forgive Gentiles who were never under the Law?
Doesn't He forgive sins people commit whilst under the New Covenant?
Has God changed, and stopped forgetting sin?
If not, why, then, would He have changed, and stopped forgetting righteousness?
No, He doesn't change--He still forgets both sin and righteousness.
That's just how God has described Himself to us in Scripture.
He isn't going to change--that's just Who God is.
In the New Covenant, God removes sin. Behold the Lamb of God, who carries away the sin of the world.
Much love!
Personally I think you've barely scratched the surface of my view on this. No matter!
Much love!
"Their sins I will REMEMBER no more." : In the New Covenant, God FORGETS sin.
There is no place to hide.
OK, cool, God will not remember their sins. Why? Because they are removed, and replaced with righteousness. Which you claim that God may likewise remove, forget, even in the New Covenant. But you can only quote from the Old covenant to show this. Hence my complaint that you are defining the New Covenant according to the Law covenant.
I'm curious . . . why do you include so many comments along these lines, "There is no place to hide."? Does that make you feel better? It really has nothing to do with me. That's not how my mind works.
And in the meantime, there remains a bunch of passages in the NT that God does not do this - remove the regeneration He gives to His children.
Though you continue to make the argument that His children weren't His children if they become unsaved.
It's long the lines of saying, since my sister died a few years ago, I never had a sister.
Much love!
Irrespective any caveats, what we know is God forgets sins today just as He did yesterday--any attempt to "re-jigger" this, to deny this is an instance of God not changing, but continuing as He always has, is an invalid arbitrary convenient attempt to save your view.
Maybe you consider it a "coincidence" that God says He "does not remember" sins in the New Covenant, just as under the Old, but I take it as God just rolling on as He always has--the same yesterday today and forever.
LOL Because you think by raising all of these empty rebuttals you're actually going to overturn reality.
Wherever you go, what ever verse you try to raise, your poppycock will be found out and invalidated.
Those He called His children before unbecame His children, so I go by Scriptural precedent (Dt 32:5, etc).
Yes. If God forgets their righteousness of faith, they never were His children.
Nope, again, I don't go by carnal reasoning, I go by Biblical precedent.
If God says "they are no longer His children because of their defect", I don't say, "Come on, God, aren't you aware that if a man has a son, no matter what that son does, the man's DNA is in his son? Don't you know how reality works here on earth?" Poppycock. God says what He says, and I bow down to it. I do not seek to overthrow reality.
It is an expression of my deep satisfaction at how the conversation has been going, is going, and will go.
Well I hope that changes for you. For myself, these little personal comments show hubris.
Much love!
If it "showed hubris", why did you "ask" if it made me feel better? Dishonesty?
No, not hubris at all, just the deepest satisfaction.
Yes, with respect to this matter, my conscience is clear of seking to overthrow reality--I simply read and bow down to God's Word, I haven't "corrected" God.
@marks Anyway, at the end of the day, I would prefer all Christianity agreed with, were discipled into, your view--even using the false arguments you use to get there--than to have all Christianity be more like the synergistic Orthodox and Catholic.
Fortunately, those aren't the only two options.
Fortunately, those aren't the only two options.
There's not really any point to you continuing to post to me. I'm just not interested any longer.
Much love!
You already know what I think of your views--I'm arguing against them--so what's the difference?
Maybe you would've preferred if I'd included "in my view" or "what I consider" rather than just saying "your false arguments"?
I can do that--makes no difference to me, but, if it makes a difference to you, I can accommodate.
Either way, thanks for the discussion!
Phoneman777
Well-Known Member
- Jan 14, 2015
- 8,121
- 2,764
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
The result is the same, but the paths to it are not - the one was never written in the book, and the other had his name blotted out the book.
BTW, Matthew 24:12-13 KJV disproves OSAS when we compare it to 1 John 5:3 KJV ands Romans 8:7 KJV.
If the name is not going to be read out of it, if Christ will not confess the name before God, because the man denied Christ, and is now being denied by Christ, there is effectively no difference. He's not in the Book of Life, he is unknown.
I hold to OSAS. I thought you held to OSAS.