It's just a Biblical truth I hold to. Where does God forgetting righteousness factor in to your theology?
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!
God forgets righteousness just like He forgets sin.
We see this about God in Ezekiel.
That's all I'm saying--forgive me for reading and believing Scripture.
I see this aspect of God at work in Mt 18.
Exactly where He put it, in the covenant of obedience God made with Israel at Mt. Horeb.
Much love!
... yet you don't see it as being in "error" to accept that God still forgets sins, even though it was "in the covenant of obedience God made with Israel at Mt. Horeb"?
Seems arbitrary. You get to pick and choose--"My God does THIS thing He used to do... but He doesn't do THIS thing He used to do."
You're what parents would call a "picky eater"--I eat the whole meal. Sorry.
I strive for consistency.
Concerning who pays the support for those who serve the Gospel. This is not a soteriological passage. Or do you see this as defining our rebirth?
Go back to the context, he is talking about rewards, not losing regeneration.
Not where it's not specific, and where your conclusions disagree with plainly stated NT theology. The two covenants are not the same.
I fleshed out a little more to what we are doing if we are importing OT terms into NT theology. Now, if you have a concept of certain parts of the Law and the Prophets that do, and certain parts that don't apply, then you are free to make that assertion.
However, I'll insist that you show me from the Bible itself how we know these things to be so. Jesus referred to the "Law and the Prophets" as a single thing, and so they are. God's covenant was that Israel do all He told them, which is in the Law and the Prophets.
So then which parts apply and which do not? And how do we know? Biblically?
God does not change, however, what He does concerning men does at times change. To some men, He gave a covenant of obedience, and that covenant didn't apply to anyone except that one nation. Does that mean "God changed" for the other nations? No. Does it mean "God changed" when nations to whom this covenant was NOT given come to Him directly through Jesus Christ? No, it does not mean that.
I don't think this is a valid rebuttal. God does not change, but the way He deals with people does. Only 2 people have ever been exiled from the Garden of Eden, for instance, but that doesn't mean God changed.
Much love!
Then again you have some erroneous ideas about me.
You are still insisting on the OT terms for the NT regeneration.
God flooded the earth but He won't again. Is it being a picky eater to know that? Or are you just throwing out some words to impugn me?
Instead of just saying, "you pick and choose", why not look at why I assert the things I do? Each have specific reasons which I've given to you. First and foremost if Scriptures seem to contradict without added hidden caveats, I'd rather say that's an example of not taking it all in.
All of Scripture harmonizes without changing the message of any passage, including those which tell us the born again will be with Jesus at the end.
Much love!
So, you're fine with OT passages as long as they don't t discuss soteriology. Arbitrary.
Nope, the next verse explains what he is talking about--they sinned and God swore in His wrath they would never enter His rest, and they didn't inherit the promise. If you think otherwise, you're saying they will go ahead and inherit God's Kingdom and Promise, despite committing the sins outlined, despite his having already warned them that those who do such sins will not inherit God's Kingdom (1 Co 6).
They don't disagree with NT theology--this fallacy of yours is called "begging the question".
I never suggested they were--fallacy of strawmanning.
LOL All of NT theology is based on OT. Not some of it. ALL of it.
Everything Paul understood and taught was because he was the "scribe or lawyer" Jesus spoke of.
If I see that people can unbecome children, that is a dynamic at play.
If I see that God forgets sin, that is a dynamic at play.
If I see that God forgets righteousness, that is a dynamic at play.
I see there are passages in the NT that can only be explained by God forgetting righteousness--and I hear your clunky unsatisfactory responses that rely on cherry-picking attributes of God, dynamics, and dismissing which ever ones that tickle your fancy. Sorry, I don't read like that.
You have no issue with standing by one thing God did under the Old Covenant (forgetting sin), but you complain that it's "Old Covenant" when I say God forgets righteousness. When you say He doesn't forget righteousness, what ever the terms and conditions are for Him forgetting righteousness are, and what ever the righteousness He is forgetting is, you're saying God changes.
Peace
Nope, God "destroyed the world of sinners" with a Flood, yet God will still "destroy the world of sinners" with Fire. He still judges. That principle remains.
Yes, you most certainly are being a "picky eater".
I've already answered each specific claim and rebuttal and complaint.
I already agreed the born again will be with Jesus at the end.
If I misunderstood you, please clarify.
Your complaint was about me using the OT passage about God forgetting righteousness... but, here, you accepted Paul's use of OT passages because they didn't concern soteriology.
Paul says that the words were written FOR OUR (CHRISTIANS') SAKE : your complaint was that I was going to OT realities to understand Christianity, yet Paul says it was written precisely FOR US, and he uses OT realities to understand Christianity, and to teach about Christianity.
Your complaint about my reliance on the OT to understand God's character (specifically, that He forgets righteousness--and He's not going to change) is baseless.
Is that what I said? No it is not.
My complaint is concerning using the terms of the covenant of obedience God made with Israel at Mt. Horeb to define the new covenant.
Perhaps you could repeat that back to me in your own words, that helps to ensure we are understanding each other.
Much love!
1a. It wasn't a Covenant of "obedience"--as if it would be appropriate to contrast it against the New Covenant, making the New Covenant one of disobedience.
Both Covenants are Covenants including aspects of "service to God", only having two different means (one is Law that relies on flesh Ro 8:3, Gal 3:3, the other is Grace that relies on God to perform it, and Whose performance we are called to obey Pp 2:12,13).
1b. Is it the same "error" you allege I'm committing for Paul to warn the Corinthians they will be "reprobate" if they are found guilty of committing the sins outlined in 1 Co 10--as he had already warned the unrighteous, who do those very same sins, by name, would not inherit God's Kingdom (1 Co 6)? Maybe you would say so!
2a. Paul cites a literal term of the Old Covenant to authoritatively define how Christianity works, so it wouldnt be wrong to understand the New through the Old, though it would obviously be possible to do so incorrectly. Nevertheless, what is more, Paul talks about how Christ is the atonement. Why is Paul using terms of the Sinai Covenant to define the soteriology of the New Covenant (since you said before you have no problem with defining Christianity using the OT Scripture, just as long as it didn't veer in to soteriology--an arbitrary and convenient position to hold to that you apparently think "saves" your position when it just demonstrates its weakness)?
2b. I am looking at the fact that God forgets righteousness, and saying "This character trait of God, which no one informed me about before, might help me understand God's behavior, and descriptions of His behavior, in the New Testament," and I'm finding how it helps solve previously unresolvable problems.
To be clear, THIS is what you're complaining about.
While being incapable of providing better answers for these problems I believe accepting this dynamic resolves, you're rejecting this "tool" for understanding God by complaining, "God forgetting righteousness is from the Old Covenant" at the same time as having no issue with believing (the flip side of the same "Old Covenant" coin) God forgets sin.
Why is it kosher for you but treif for me? Seems arbitrary and mighty convenient.
Last edited:
My real point was that the substance of NOSAS trust and comfort should be the same as OSAS : we've been with Him from the beginning, we are foreknown, predestined, Christ will lose none, no one can pry us out of God's hand.
ESV Proverbs 11:22 Like a gold ring in a pig 's snout is a beautiful woman without discretion.
The biggest part of us is what is going on between our ears--therefore, the most important thing we can do is TRUST GOD.
That's the only alternative you can think of? What about, "The law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ"?
This would be a "false dichotomy" attempting to discredit other views.
Much love!
You don't quote the passages, nor do you highlight their statements, only making claims that they say things they don't say, so it's just not really convincing. I know these passages. I know what they say.
(1 Co 6)? Maybe you would say so!
Look at the context, finish through to the end of chapter. Context is king, as they say. When you remove something from the context that frames what is being said, confusion results.
Much love!
I just hope my NOSAS brothers are getting comfort or encouragement from the Scriptures.
English Standard Version
For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
Berean Standard Bible
For everything that was written in the past was written for our instruction, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures, we might have hope.
Berean Literal Bible
For whatever was written in the past was all written for our instruction, so that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures, we might have hope.
King James Bible
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
New King James Version
For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.
New American Standard Bible
For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
Last edited:
Nope, I already provided the alternative--the fact that your view is debunked is not my fault.
I've quoted them, and I can quote them again--but I go on the assumption everyone knows the passages.
1 Corinthians 9
26Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; 27but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.
1 Corinthians 10
1For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3and all ate the same spiritual food; 4and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.
6Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved. 7Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, “THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK, AND STOOD UP TO PLAY.” 8Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. 9Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. 10Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
His argument is that their having been saved by the blood of Passover lambs, their having had the cloud of the Presence, their having been baptized, their having eaten spiritual food didn't save them from the sin they indulged in afterward--and the same applies to us, because we are saved by the blood of Christ our Passover Lamb, we receive the Presence by the Spirit. we are baptized, we eat communion, so let us not indulge afterward or else we will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Now, Paul had already said if people commit those sins people commit when they don't make their bodies into their slaves--and, instead, do anything their bodies tell them to do, become their bodies' slaves (no, "all things are lawful, but I will not be mastered by anything")--they will not inherit God's Kingdom :
1 Corinthians 6
7Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? 8On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.
9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Now, maybe you want to argue "righteousness, inheriting God's Kingdom--these aren't issues pertinent to justification and eternal life or salvation", but I'm going to disagree, and go with Romans 2, where it says otherwise :
Romans 2
5But because of your hard and unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God “will repay each one according to his deeds.”a 7To those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, He will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow wickedness, there will be wrath and anger.
9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil, first for the Jew, then for the Greek; 10but glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, first for the Jew, then for the Greek. 11For God does not show favoritism.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous.
14Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them 16on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Christ Jesus,b as proclaimed by my gospel.
The Gentile believers, who were maintaining a clear conscience by walking in their inspired convictions, written on the heart by the Spirit (Jer 31:31-34), fully convinced in their own minds (Ro 14:5, 23), were deemed "doers of the Law" who would be justified at the eschatological judgment, whereas the Jewish believers, who were looking down on them for their being Gentiles (not circumcised, no knowledge of Torah, no lineage from Abraham), were storing up wrath for themselves (because of their "hypocrisy" in professing, correctly, the sinfulness of sins (eg, stealing, adultery , etc), while still committing them, because of not serving by grace), meaning they would not be in the category of men who would receive eternal life (Ro 2:6,7) but in the category of men who would receive wrath and anger (v8). That was why Paul said God shows no partiality--"Whether you are a Jew or a Gentile sinner, you will be condemned to receive wrath and fury, and whether you are a Gentile or Jewish saint, you will be justified and receive eternal life".
His point is God cares about men performing righteousness, not lineage. That was Paul's point. That is why he goes on to ask, "What benefit does being circumcised have, then?" As he says,
1 Corinthians 7
19Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.
Last edited: