Search results

1a. So, you're NOSAS? 1b. Even NOSAS should trust they are foreknown, predestined, that they were with Christ from the beginning, that Christ won't lose them, etc, just like OSAS. You'll obtain grace, trust in God. 2. Right, what do you do with "if they were of us, they would've remained with...

Yeah, it was Brown, speaking with another scholar, I believe, who said Strong's is fine for someone who is a layman, but isn't useful for scholars. It can be used to draw a circle, but it's not accurate enough to machine cylindrical engine parts.

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.

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...

Either way, I'm satisfied.

@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.

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.

If it "showed hubris", why did you "ask" if it made me feel better? Dishonesty? No, not hubris at all, just the deepest satisfaction.

It is an expression of my deep satisfaction at how the conversation has been going, is going, and will go.

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...

Sounds good. Chime in whenever you please.

"Their sins I will REMEMBER no more." : In the New Covenant, God FORGETS sin. There is no place to hide.

That's all right. I'm satisfied that your view is invalidated.

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...

Your question is poppycock, trying to introduce irrelevancies that disrespect the stark reality of the matter, so I cut through the murkiness you desire to hide in.

It teaches us about God's character--He still forgets sin, so He still forgets righteousness.

Nope, their salvation from Egypt was already the type of our salvation (both by Passover), so the assumption is he's addressing truly saved people (Heb 10 "my righteous one will live by faith but if he draws back my soul has no pleasure" "without faith it's impossible to please God", "don't...

Our profession should be that we were foreknown, predestined, and Christ will never lose us--as for the person who was a believer, but whose righteousness of faith is forgotten, whose name is blotted out, God never said any of those things to them (so He is 100% faithful to His Word), and anyone...

An on topic answer--finally.

I'm not an "actual scholar", I heard Dr Michael L Brown affirm it. I Google and found article for you Strong’s Concordance – a Good Tool Gone Bad Let me know if it's helpful About the original point : I just wondered about the words' meanings, bc they sound similar and are apparently...