Search results

If you don't walk in faith, you're condemned, not justified (Ro 14:23)--same as is taught in Romans 2. "Works" corresponds to "a righteousness of my own" : since "God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith", walking in faith doesn't qualify as "works", and walking in faith is part of...

It seems to me that "the Law of Faith" encompasses more than mere faith that Christ died and was raised. Romans 1:17 says "God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith", defining the Romans 3:21 "righteousness of God" men can have along the lines of Romans 4:12 "steps of faith of our...

Anyway, as I've said, for me, the only way to make sense of all the data is to take this other piece of the puzzle (ie, God forgets not only sin but righteousness) into account. Thanks!

I understand your angle, and I appreciate it; the OP explains how the word "works" has to have been misunderstood. The other user, who was responding to me, had misunderstood my position.

Romans 1:17 says "God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith", defining the Romans 3:21 "righteousness of God" along the lines of Romans 4:12 "steps of faith of our forefather Abraham", and explaining Romans 14:5 "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind [about the actions he is...

Please clarify.

Exactly! It's not even controversial! This is like getting your ABCs wrong! Everyone can see the error! hlf

The "faith alone" crowd argues that they don't have a problem with works, they only have a problem with works that are done for the purpose of salvation--and, because some of them feel that requiring anyone to believe would make it so that God is not the savior, but that that person saves...

Ezekiel 18 21“But if the wicked person turns from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall certainly live; he shall not die. 22All his offenses which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his...

hlfWell, we can also see the fact that works and faith are not in the same category in the text today : Romans 4 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6just as David also speaks of the blessing of the person to...

Apparently. God has revealed He forgets not only sin, but righteousness (Ez 18:24). Right, Jeremiah 31:34. Not necessarily (Mt 18:21-35), but we'll focus on my current questions. Was "God is forgiveness" my claim? No, I asked, "If you believe God still forgets sins, as He had done in the...

Question : Do you believe God still forgets righteousness as He has before? If not, why would you believe He still forgets sin (Ez 18:24; Jer 31:34)? If not, how is He "the same yesterday, today, and forever?" If so, how does that factor in to your conceptions--what does it look like?

Thanks for interacting.

Thanks. To attack a position, I train myself on the claims and bases of the claims. I say that God forgetting righteousness is the only way to make sense of the Biblical data, the only way to hold both that people can fall away, and yet no believer can lose salvation. When seeking to disprove...

Maybe some of you will enjoy this exchange. It is a discussion/debate of sorts on some Jewish objections to faith in Christ.

"Oddly OSAS" means I had thought that I was NOSAS based on all the doctrines teaching that believers could fall away--and that gave me trouble, prevented me from believing I was foreknown and predestined, couldn't be lost by Christ, etc--but, with recognizing God forgets righteousness (Ez...

It means I had thought that I was NOSAS based on all the doctrines teaching that believers could fall away--and that gave me trouble, prevented me from believing I was foreknown and predestined, couldn't be lost by Christ, etc--but, with recognizing God forgets righteousness (Ez 18:24), I...

He was thinking Judas had the Spirit, to try to use him as a case of how believers fall way today, and I was showing why that was not the case.

Could I ask you to read the thread? Many users ask me to clarify, and imagine if I kept having to clarify over and over instead of them reading my clarifications.

Are you asking me to clarify my view? If you are open to it, I do clarify my view as the thread goes on, in my interactions with other users; to avoid having to repeat myself, could I ask you to read the thread?