FreeGrace2
Senior Veteran
- Nov 15, 2012
- 20,401
- 1,703
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
I said:
"GG101, I wish you would face the reality of the fact that God uses words of a human PERMAMENT relationship (father and child) to explain the PERMANENT relationship between Himself and His children.
Since it is unarguable that the relationship between a human father and child is permanent, why would God use such a description of His own relationship with His own children?
Can you explain that?"
I'll take that as you CANNOT explain that. Which I already knew.
Now, would He?
If the believer's relationship with God isn't permanent, but conditional on things AFTER receiving salvation, then WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD HE USE A HUMAN PERMANENT RELATIONSHIP to describe His relationship with His children.
The FACT remains that God's relationship to His children (believers) is JUST AS PERMANENT as YOUR relationship to your father.
And you certainly can't disprove that.
"GG101, I wish you would face the reality of the fact that God uses words of a human PERMAMENT relationship (father and child) to explain the PERMANENT relationship between Himself and His children.
Since it is unarguable that the relationship between a human father and child is permanent, why would God use such a description of His own relationship with His own children?
Can you explain that?"
I'll take that as you CANNOT explain that. Which I already knew.
Another dodge. The Bible uses human relationships to define our spiritual relationship with God. That is a fact. If God did NOT mean to compare the PERMANENT human relationship between father and child, He certainly WOULD NOT HAVE used such wording to describe His relationship with His children.I'm not replying to the above because it just demonstrates how you do NOT understand 70% of what I post.
Now, would He?
Oh, I do understand them. But it's you who won't face the reality of what I've just said again above. It's you who refuse to face that reality.This might be my problem,,,but it seems everyone else understands my points except you.
It's biblical which I've shown.I'm not really worried about you FG,,,but I AM worried about those that read this stufff about OSAS and actually might come to believe it.
You have NOT done that at all. You won't even discuss the reality that God uses terms of a PERMAMENT human relationship to describe His PERMANENT relationship with His own children.BECAUSE IT IS NOT BIBLICAL and I've shown you many times why it is not.
If the believer's relationship with God isn't permanent, but conditional on things AFTER receiving salvation, then WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD HE USE A HUMAN PERMANENT RELATIONSHIP to describe His relationship with His children.
When and where have you "disproven" anything that I've posted???YOU, OTOH, only post a couple of passages that can be disproven in a minute of writing.
I don't need anything "new". As Solomon once said, "there is nothing new under the sun". Maybe you didn't read what he wrote.If you ever come up with something new...reply -
otherwise, what's the use?
No reply necessary.
The FACT remains that God's relationship to His children (believers) is JUST AS PERMANENT as YOUR relationship to your father.
And you certainly can't disprove that.
Upvote
0