Search results

We'll see. Not just "people", but "His people" . Not all people are in His book.

@marks An example of what this means would be Paul saying "I could wish that I could be accursed", not "someone died".

I understand your perspective--as explained, I 100% agree with the individual parts of your argument, I only disagree with the conclusion of your argument, which does not take into account that God forgets righteousness.

Things He has people do is irrelevant, doesn't change Who God is (God's character, what God does). God forgets righteousness--what righteousness is may have changed, but His forgetting righteousness cannot. For the purposes for which names are written there it was never there. No, names being...

It's irrelevant. The issue is God forgets righteousness--that dynamic is at play bc He doesn't change. How does it manifest itself in your "take" on Scripture?

I'm saying something that hits the ear a little odd--your having partaken will retroactively never have occurred if you do not continue in faith.

God forgetting righteousness is not going to change, because God doesn't change, and "these things were written for our instruction". Righteousness is still how we are blessed, only what righteousness is is different today. Faith is counted as righteousness. "God Is Our Righteousness" (Jer...

Without the realization that God forgets righteousness, I understand why you'd say what you're saying. You need that fact to affirm what I affirm it says. "If all you have is a hammer, everything look like a nail."

Ez 3:20, God forgets righteousness. In the NT, faith is counted as righteousness.

Again, I affirm your grammatical breakdown, but I affirm God forgets righteousness (faith is counted as righteousness), so their definitely having partaken in the past tense will never have occurred, will be forgotten, if they don't continue. I understand it doesn't make sense to say if you...

I appreciate your gracious interaction, so I hope you'll forgive me for coming across in a less careful way, esp bc I don't like it when people avoid getting to the point by ad hominem.

If I came across uncharitably, I apologize, especially because I have yet to see you have the wrong attitude in interactions. I accept your breakdown of the grammar (though I misspoke previously, having not had my eye on it--commenting that it contained a "command", which didn't even matter...

We interpret it differently--he tells them to continue, or else their having partaken will not have happened at all, because God will forget their righteousness of faith. You see, in your systematic theology, there is no place for this Biblical dynamic (ie, of God forgetting righteousness, of...

This is not a problem--those who don't continue in the faith are blotted out, their righteousness (of faith) is forgotten (Ez 3:20), so it is as though they were never partakers in the first place (eg, "they were never of us"). The issue is you need to work with Scriptural precedent. Without...

^ 1 Jn 2:28 instructs the children to abide, not be led away by idolatry (1 Jn 5:21). I've already provided the example of the Galatians. The branch that does not abide gets burned in the fire.

I do acknowledge I am having this discussion in order to hammer out, with God's help, a mental (not just words) balance between the justification by the righteousness of God that occurs upon hearing with faith and the ongoing justification that is by walking by faith (Ro 14:5,23). It is possible...

Right, so you now openly admit that you're denying the Greek, which doesn't state "one and done, believe one time", but "is believing ongoing action on the present" by appealing to a mangling of another doctrine. You have to deny the "abide" doctrine. Your tradition can't handle it.

"Is believing" means an ongoing action in the present, which speaks to the need to abide to continually receive the life. Already explained it. Yes, when you believe, you get the life. Never denied that. I only ALSO believe that it's not a one-time transaction. That's not what the text says.

Even if I granted this argument, that it is necessary to believe this, it would be an argument for my case (that abiding depends, in part, on believing, and not all abide by obeying the command to believe--eg, the Galatians deserted God (1:6) and were severed from Christ (5:4) when they fell...

Oops, He said "The one who IS BELIEVING" (continuous ongoing action in the present), not "the one who believes" (one-and-done), so, this goes to the "abiding" doctrine, which goes to the doctrine that continuing to receive the life depends on continuing to abide in Him where the life is.