I know what was being said. I'm following the discussion. You aren't fooling me.
The point is, you are using apples to object to his oranges. You know it and I know it. You could do much better to stay on point, but I don't think that serves your agenda.
You blend the old and new covenants, casting doubt against the salvation from God. That's all there is to it.
We'll go round and round til kingdom come, and that won't change. The old covenant, a covenant made with Israel, is not like the new covenant, which is based on better promises.
Where do you see someone in the Bible "give up forgiveness of sins"?
Where do you see God having forgiven someone their sins, that God later took back His forgiveness?
You cite parables taught by Jesus, teaching and instructing those who were under the Law. And you dissect the details of parables, and derive doctrine from that, parables, and hold to those doctrines even though they are flatly contradicted by passages given to establish our faith in the new covenant.
Apples and oranges.
The thing with parables, they are stories not unfamiliar to the hearer, which contains a truth within it's lines, but not every element is meant to express doctrine.
Consider the "Parable of the Unjust Judge". Jesus compares our Heavenly Father to an "unjust judge". Of course we know that our Father is not in the slightest unjust!
Much love!
