Fallacies of the Present Day Church

[eternally-gratefull]

Any willful sin will cut one off.

all sin is willful sin, there is no such thing as unwillfull sin, stop fooling your self and trying to make excuse for your own sin, while condemning others.

If we sin willfully after coming to a knowledge of the truth and having been sanctified by the blood then no sacrifice remains but only a fearful expectation of judgment. That is what the Bible plainly teaches.

yeah it does. but lets look at context.

10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Our sanctification is once and for all. Not like the animal sacrifices which were offered continually but could never take away sin. As he said next

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.


Unlike those sacrifices, His one sacrifice PERFECTS THOSE FOREVER, those who are BEING SANCTIFIED, or growing in Christ. And he goes on to say he will put his law in our hearts, and out minds, and their lawless deeds he will remember no more. not just the past in, but the present sin and future sin, why? because there is no more offering for sin, Christ paid the price in full



“Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”[d] 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.


Then he tells us to live in faith, without wavering, for we have a high priest who does not have to enter year after year, but one whihc made the one sacrifice which takes away sin forever.


Then he gives those he is talking to a warning. He already exposed the legalist trying to return to law. And he gives them a stern warning (remember, If they sinned, they needed to sacrifice either personally, or the high preist at the end of every year. so if they sinned willfully and expected work to pay for that sin, they trample the grace of God,





26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”[e] says the Lord.[f] And again, “The Lord will judge His people.”[g] 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


1. They heard the gospel. but that is all they had head knowledge,

2. The law says one is judged with two or three witnesses, And you can expect fearfull judgment if you broke the law. Now if you return to it, that is all you can expect.


Unlike those who are saved, who are not given a spirit of fear but adoption.



3. How more sever do you think the punishment will be for those who recieved the word. But trample God underfoot by returning to law? And in doing so, say the death of Christ is just a common thing, It does not remove all sin, if it removes any at all (oh if you only understood, this is talking directly to you!!)
4. They have insulted the spirit of grace, and tries to replace it with works.

5. Remember the context of the WHOLE PASSAGE. Ceremonial law and sacrifice, vs the cross.


You can't take a part of a passage out and form a doctrine in it. You must take the whole context.

An individual either forsake all their rebellion or they don't. If you sin you are of the devil. If you do right then you are righteous. It is not hard to understand.

So your of the devil? You sin, I sin we all sin?

No if your living like the world. You were never saved, But if you are born of God, as John said, you can;t live in sin.

It takes a theologian to obfuscate the truths of scripture.

Thats interesting, a sameritan woman who was an evil sinner living with her boyfriend after having many adulterous marriages understood the gospel quite clearly. It does not take a theologian to understand the gospel. it takes an open heart.

The problem today, due to repentance not being preached correctly, is that very few people are actually coming out of their sins in the first place. They come into the kingdom under a false assurance that they are actually saved believing that their old man is crucified by degrees over a period of time. Thus they erroneously believe that a good tree can produce good and bad fruit and that one can be double-minded and still be in Christ.

I agree, repentance is not taught at times, thus we have many who believe, but have no faith. Thus they still live in sin, because they have not been made new creatures. But the fact is, they were never saved. Thus they had nothing to lose.

What the problem is is others want to take the grace of God and make it works. a merit based system on how good they are. Instead of coming to God with humility, and be made alive based on his promise, so we can be made new from the inside out.

 

[unclefester]

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:19-20)

It is the law that made us aware of our sin. Only without the law could we sin in ignorance. We sin because we are sinners. We are saved because we have believed and trusted in His name. I would agree that some sins are more damaging than others. But if we fail in only one (small) part of the law, we have still fallen short.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:19-20)

It is the law that made us aware of our sin. Only without the law could we sin in ignorance. We sin because we are sinners. We are saved because we have believed and trusted in His name. I would agree that some sins are more damaging than others. But if we fail in only one (small) part of the law, we have still fallen short.

you made a great point.

before the law, we sinned in ignorance. after the law, all sin became willfull because we knew it was sin when we did it. this as was said earlier, there is no such thing as unwillfull sin.

 

[Skinski7]

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:19-20)

You have a complete misunderstanding of what the Bible plainly teaches.

The reason that "by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified" is because the law once broken can only bring death.

A return to obedience can not undo condemnation. That is why salvation is by grace through faith, it is a gift of God not of works that any many should boast.

God gives us the gift of salvation purely through his graciousness and mercy. Yet this gift is not some sort of abstract package which all you do is just mentally acknowledge and trust in. No, no, salvation is wrought through yielding to God.

This is why Tit 2:11-12 reads that it is "the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men TEACHING US to deny, ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly uprightly in the present age."

Rom 1:5 states that "we receive grace for obedience to the faith" and Romans 5:2 states that "we access the grace in which we stand by faith."

Paul taught in 2Cor 6:1 that we "work together with God for if we do not then we receive the grace of God to no effect."

You see the grace of God is only effectual to the saving of the soul when one yields to its leading. One does that by a working faith (1Th 1:3) which is the dynamic of being a doer of the word (Mat 7:21-27).

This is why the Bible teaches that the "deeds of the law will not justify anyone." Justification or righteousness is via faith as opposed to the law. The law is simply a set of sterile instructions which when adhered to outwardly only regulate outward conduct.

Faith on the other hand regulates outward conduct through a pure motivation of the heart. This is why Paul would write that "being circumcised or not makes not difference because it is faith that works by love" (Gal 5:4-6). It is love that fulfills the law (Gal 5:14) and thus if one is led by the Spirit they are not under the law (Gal 5:18) and they will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh (Gal 5:16) in disobedience to God. This is why Paul would say that faith does not void the law but rather it establishes the law (Rom 3:31). The law is established in the inward man whereby he then walks after the leading of the Spirit and fulfills the righteous requirements of the law as he loves God and his neighbour. Read Matthew 5 for this is what Jesus is talking about when He states that our righteousness MUST EXCEED that of the scribes and Pharisees.

The false teachers don't understand any of this and have replaced the whole working dynamic of faith and how it relates to grace in saving the soul and have replaced it with an abstract package which they teach is accessed by simply believing and trusting in it.

This is why you'll rarely if ever see a pastor connect scriptures together like I did above. They are blind to what the Bible is plainly teaching them right in front of their noses.

Thus when someone like myself comes along and tells them that you have ti stop sinning it throws them into fits of anguish because they perceive the truth as pure heresy and a doctrine of demons.

Don't be fooled by these people I implore you. Jesus warned that the MAJORITY who profess His name would be deceived.

 

[Skinski7]

It is the law that made us aware of our sin. Only without the law could we sin in ignorance. We sin because we are sinners. We are saved because we have believed and trusted in His name. I would agree that some sins are more damaging than others. But if we fail in only one (small) part of the law, we have still fallen short.

The statement that we "sin because we are sinners" is an allusion to "being born a sinner." Those who hold to such a doctrine are actually blaming God for their sin because they are basically saying that "the way I was made made me do it." Sin is a choice and not a disease.

People sin because they CHOOSE to sin. Jam 1:14-15 clearly teaches that sin is born when men yield to the temptations wrought by the lusts of the flesh. This is the same reason Eve sinned in the garden (Gen 3:6). Eve did not need to be a "sinner" in order to sin and neither do you.

Sin is a choice not a malady.

You make an allusion to Jam 2:10 in order to imply that all sins are the same. They are not for even Jesus Himself in Joh 19:11 mentioned that there are different degrees of sin and condemnation. Heb 10:26 is very clear in regards to willful sin bringing condemnation and in 1Joh 5:16-17 it speaks how all unrighteousness is sin yet there is a sin unto death. A sin unto death involves yielding to it (Rom 6:16) and thus is clearly "willful" in nature which harmonises with Heb 10:26 and even 1Joh 3:8 where it says that "he who commits sin is of the devil" where "commit" in the Greek is poieō which means to produce/ /execute/to do which relates to an active choice. This is further confirmed in Rom 5:13 where it is written that "sin is not counted when there is no law" which mirrors what Paul wrote in Rom 7:8-11 where he teaches that sin only kills spiritually when committed knowingly, hence "willful sin."

It appears you believe that all sins are the same therefore whether you are obeying God or not if you err in any fashion then you might as well have been blatantly sinning anyway. Thus under this mindset salvation is merely a provisional book keeping entry obtained by trusting in the "Finished Work of Christ" because you couldn't obey Him if you tried. I'm sorry but that is Satanic hogwash and is very dangerous.

 

[RickShafer]

I'm reposting this, because in it Skinski claims there were other righteous souls before Christ :
(Read Bold statement in black two third's down.)

Skinski - Black RickShafer - Red
Fallacy 3: God Transferred Jesus Righteousness and Obedience to you when you believed by faith......
(We shall see)
No where in the Scriptures does it actually say that the righteousness of Christ is transferred to you by passive faith(notice the qualifier - 'passive'........no where in scripture does the term 'passive faith' occur either) – only by conjecture can this be proven. On the contrary, the Bible does say “he who DOES what is right is righteous” (1 Jn. 3:7) and that “the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezk. 3:20).(Notice he reverts to the O.T. to prove his point) Virtue, like vice is NON- transferable since they both originate with the will. Therefore, the idea of Jesus swapping moral track records with those who trust in the provision is mythical.Here, the author equates Jesus with fallen man. No one ever taught this in early times, instead, they taught one was made righteous by obeying the teachings of Christ by freewill. Nothing was “positional” or “forensic” (that is ALL Reformed terminology, which traces back to Augustine – NOT the Early Christians!). Well.... let's prove his claim with scripture, shall we? "And hath raised us up together, and made us SIT together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus"- Ephesians 2:6. Does that sound volitional? Did we make ourselves sit together in heavenly places by our right doing? Or was it God who MADE us sit,(rest)? If one were justified, then they were also sanctified.How very Calvinistic of you, because that is what he claimed(according to I Cor. 1:30), because he said one couldn't have 'part' of Christ. Yet today, because the majority embrace Augustinian exegesis on original sin, they separate justification and sanctification and hold to some sort of Covenantal Representational theory (Reformed doctrine).Again, I will go back to scripture, - "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" - Psalms 51:5.The author of this thread would say, 'No original sin there, just a prophet/king being conceived......etc.,etc.' What this has birthed is the Carnal Christian idea among many other errors. People are told that through mere belief,(through MERE belief, like that very belief is not a gift from God, but some disingenuous 'effort' on the part of luciferian man! God transfers the obedience and righteousness of Christ to their account, thereby making them positionally righteous in His sight and Eternally Secure by a moment of faith (the trick here is to understand that the sin NATURE remains in tact after regeneration, which means, the saved will continue to sin daily in thought, word and deed without any more condemnation!).He says 'Aauugghh'!!! (See how he presupposes that any 'faith' is just from the soul of unregenerate man and therefore will yield the coldest of hearts and the dirtiest of reprobates? See how the author regards faith? As almost a dirty thing that is cajoled up out of the heart of lost mankind as man's substitute for 'Godly' righteousness? How he doesn't know that faith itself is a gift from God is beyond me. - (Read any part of the Pauline epistles to see where the Apostle Paul said faith originates from, there are over 140 references to faith.....I assure you it's not from the heart of man. One must now rest in this arrangement (which they will IF they are truly elect, but won’t if they are not, which would prove they were NEVER saved to begin with!) At the core of this teaching is a Representation Theory. The idea here is that Adam’s guilt and sinful nature are transmitted to his offspring through natural reproduction.Wrong again, it is through a fallen spirit(dead spirit, serving the deceiver) (Concupiscence is the proof of this.) Thus, all men and women are BORN sinners, that is, with concupiscence – no exceptions (except for Jesus!). (How you build on sand!)Since man comes into the world in this Totally Depraved condition, he is now wholly incapable of obeying God! So under this teaching Christ now appears as the Believers Representative (rather than example!). Every iota of His life is NOT carried out for His servants to learn from and FOLLOW, instead, His human existence was simply accomplished in order to achieve what no man could (being born a SINNER) before He came: Righteousness! !!!!SEE THIS!!!!(Keep in mind there are more than plenty examples of persons who were FOUND righteous before the advent of Christ which is WHY this teaching is a fallacy when broken down!)!!!!DID YOU SEE THAT?!!! Who was righteous? Who do you say could break the seventh seal? Again, who was completely without sin? Need I go on?! To sum it all up, by the believer “trusting” that Jesus obeyed for them and was righteous so they don’t have to be,Again, who said anything about 'have to be', the believer wouldn't even let this thought enter into their mind. The Holy Spirit changes their nature. they are no longer obligated to do anything since it has already been done in advance! Thus, to be a DOER of the word is now to show contempt towards the finished work of Christ and to ultimately fall from grace (which of course they will have to say you were never a partaker of to begin with, or they have to admit salvation is conditional!)


Skinski said:
Every iota of His life is NOT carried out for His servants to learn from and FOLLOW(which is Skinski's claim for the reason Jesus came), instead, His human existence was simply accomplished in order to achieve what no man could (being born a SINNER) before He came: Righteousness! !!!!SEE THIS!!!!(Keep in mind there are more than plenty examples of persons who were FOUND righteous before the advent of Christ which is WHY this teaching is a fallacy when broken down!)!!!!DID YOU SEE THAT?!!

No wonder the blood(life) of Jesus seems to you to be of so little benefit.
He was just another righteous man,.......a REALLY good teacher - (You say)

 

[Skinski7]

Rick,


Why do you say things like that?

You know I have clearly stated that it is only through the shed blood of Jesus Christ that we can be cleansed of all sin. Yet you ignore this and write a post and imply that I believe that Jesus was a "good teacher only."

Why the twisting of my words? Why the deception? Do you do it on purpose or are you so deceived that your mind filters out what is laid out plainly before your eyes?

Is the concept that obedience to God is mandatory to the outcome of your salvation really that offensive to you?

You know very well the Bible speaks of righteous people before Jesus. I never said those people were perfect like Jesus but they were most definitely righteous. Why deny what the Bible plainly states?

Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Eze 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
Pro 29:2 When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.


Many of you people obviously do not esteem the plain teachings of the Bible but in its place esteem the doctrines of men.



Regarding Original Sin here is my documentary again. Fully annotated and documented.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVQ1t5i058Q[/video]

 

[Abiding]

for our debate does it really matter whether sin is in the heart and mind by practice
and habit or inbred from the fall? can it be bypassed? and still carry on the convo?
there seems much more to talk about such as the weakness of the flesh
and the mechanics of turning from sin in the many areas of our life.
or would that be too productive?

 

[RickShafer]

Skinski,
I didn't say it, you did.
You said (as the mistake we make concerning Jesus),........."instead, His human existence was simply accomplished in order to achieve what no man could (being born a SINNER) before He came: Righteousness!(Keep in mind there are more than plenty examples of persons who were FOUND righteous before the advent of Christ which is WHY this teaching is a fallacy when broken down!)"
I didn't say it, you did.
Truly there are different levels of righteousness. Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness.
By comparing the relative righteousness of these men to Jesus, you cheat Him and what He accomplished.
Don't you see how comparing 'relative' right standing to Jesus' perfect life cheapens it?
You have truly stated that you believe the substitutionary sacrifice is a heresy, and thus you concoct this argument of comparing relative right standing to His perfect life saying, "there are more than plenty of examples of persons who were found righteous before the advent of Christ".
But I tell you, without the perfect life and obedient death of the Savior, none of these believer's 'so called' righteousness would have amounted to a hill of beans.
Their faith in Him(one who would come) was why they were accounted as righteous.

 

[RickShafer]

for our debate does it really matter whether sin is in the heart and mind by practice
and habit or inbred from the fall? can it be bypassed? and still carry on the convo?
there seems much more to talk about such as the weakness of the flesh
and the mechanics of turning from sin in the many areas of our life.
or would that be too productive?

It goes to the foundation of his argument.
Namely that Jesus came as a teacher to be a perfect example.
This He did; but not only this, Jesus came to make those of us, ("whosoever will") justified by His blood-(the life is in the blood).

 

[Abiding]

Skinski,
I didn't say it, you did.
You said (as the mistake we make concerning Jesus),........."instead, His human existence was simply accomplished in order to achieve what no man could (being born a SINNER) before He came: Righteousness!(Keep in mind there are more than plenty examples of persons who were FOUND righteous before the advent of Christ which is WHY this teaching is a fallacy when broken down!)"
I didn't say it, you did.
Truly there are different levels of righteousness. Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness.
By comparing the relative righteousness of these men to Jesus, you cheat Him and what He accomplished.
Don't you see how comparing 'relative' right standing to Jesus' perfect life cheapens it?
You have truly stated that you believe the substitutionary sacrifice is a heresy, and thus you concoct this argument of comparing relative right standing to His perfect life saying, "there are more than plenty of examples of persons who were found righteous before the advent of Christ".
But I tell you, without the perfect life and obedient death of the Savior, none of these believer's 'so called' righteousness would have amounted to a hill of beans.
Their faith in Him(one who would come) was why they were accounted as righteous.

True that and as much as i am trying to honor him since in fact he is preaching to be righteousness
which im fine with.

The methods "seem" to be tearing down other necessary tenants of the gospel
both in reality and needed for practice and faith. Hmmm

Unintentional overshooting i hope.

 

[RickShafer]

I can only judge an argument by what it states.
I can't impute reasons for it into the mind of the one who writes it.

 

[Abiding]

Yes Rick your right.

Skinski, would you ever intentionally overshoot things to
hold up your base?

And while im at it. Do you think that in Gods forordained will
He may choose to let one of His children entrap themselves
in the slavery of sin to get them to call out to Him for help
to build their faith? And to teach them?

This was the pattern all through the OT.

I could fill pages with proof.

It seems you have no allowance for any purpose
for sin...but to just have it stop...period.

at least thats all i hear...stop or go to hell
isnt that right?

 

[Abiding]

Skinski...ill admit after reading much
Im on both sides and that doesnt mean im on the fence.

I wont shed the atoning work of the cross...or the narrow road.
I wont not teach the mechanics of grace...or the mortificatiion of sin.
I do think sometimes people by nature tend to go to extremes.
Maybe which is my wish there will be more threads combining the 2.
I do see your point tho.

Keep in mind there are more doctrines of demons than what
you think aids wilful sin.

 

[unclefester]

The statement that we "sin because we are sinners" is an allusion to "being born a sinner." Those who hold to such a doctrine are actually blaming God for their sin because they are basically saying that "the way I was made made me do it." Sin is a choice and not a disease.

People sin because they CHOOSE to sin. Jam 1:14-15 clearly teaches that sin is born when men yield to the temptations wrought by the lusts of the flesh. This is the same reason Eve sinned in the garden (Gen 3:6). Eve did not need to be a "sinner" in order to sin and neither do you.

Sin is a choice not a malady.

Exactly my point. We do not sin in ignorance ... but rather knowingly.

You make an allusion to Jam 2:10 in order to imply that all sins are the same. They are not for even Jesus Himself in Joh 19:11 mentioned that there are different degrees of sin and condemnation. Heb 10:26 is very clear in regards to willful sin bringing condemnation and in 1Joh 5:16-17 it speaks how all unrighteousness is sin yet there is a sin unto death. A sin unto death involves yielding to it (Rom 6:16) and thus is clearly "willful" in nature which harmonises with Heb 10:26 and even 1Joh 3:8 where it says that "he who commits sin is of the devil" where "commit" in the Greek is poieō which means to produce/ /execute/to do which relates to an active choice. This is further confirmed in Rom 5:13 where it is written that "sin is not counted when there is no law" which mirrors what Paul wrote in Rom 7:8-11 where he teaches that sin only kills spiritually when committed knowingly, hence "willful sin."

It appears you believe that all sins are the same therefore whether you are obeying God or not if you err in any fashion then you might as well have been blatantly sinning anyway. Thus under this mindset salvation is merely a provisional book keeping entry obtained by trusting in the "Finished Work of Christ" because you couldn't obey Him if you tried. I'm sorry but that is Satanic hogwash and is very dangerous.

I believe that sin is sin ... and that all of us have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. I have not now nor ever would I advocate that "we might as well blatantly sin away". Faith without works is dead. All of us know that .... or at least we should. Let me ask you ... what saved the thief on the cross ? Will all manner of sin be forgiven to those who seek it except for blasphemy against God's Holy Spirit ? Neither you or I have the knowledge nor the right and more importantly, the perfect love and understanding of God's grace thru Christ to condemn any man for the things he may or may not have done. It is ours to speak of God's mercy ... and to make known to all that there is therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ. Not there is therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ "providing that you never sin again ... unless you sin unaware."

 

[Skinski7]

I believe that sin is sin ... and that all of us have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. I have not now nor ever would I advocate that "we might as well blatantly sin away". Faith without works is dead. All of us know that .... or at least we should. Let me ask you ... what saved the thief on the cross ? Will all manner of sin be forgiven to those who seek it except for blasphemy against God's Holy Spirit ? Neither you or I have the knowledge nor the right and more importantly, the perfect love and understanding of God's grace thru Christ to condemn any man for the things he may or may not have done. It is ours to speak of God's mercy ... and to make known to all that there is therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ. Not there is therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ "providing that you never sin again ... unless you sin unaware."

Being in Christ is the opposite of willful sinning. One cannot be in willful sin and in Christ at the same time.

This is why Jesus taught you cannot serve two masters, you serve one and hate the other.

Any person who offers someone comfort in their sin by telling them that they are under no condemnation is speaking the words of the devil.

One cannot receive the implanted word and reject it at the same time.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Jesus was the only begotten Son of the Father. In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among men.

Jesus Christ was a teacher of righteousness who preached a pure message. He taught that sinners must repent and forsake their wicked ways and turn back to God.

here is your first error. Jesus said one must repent and have faith in him. he never said they had to turn from their wicked ways, then he would save them. a man who is dead to god can not stop sin, or turn from anything, he must be born again first. then, as new creatures in christ can he do the work of God.

Jesus taught that it was through abiding in Him that one can produce righteousness because He is the light that lighteth every man that comes into the word and it is only through Him that we can come to the Father.

agree here also

Jesus also offered Himself on behalf of sinners to God as a spotless lamb whereby through His shed blood past transgressions can be purged from the record of sinners.

again with the past sins.

why did you not answer before? if jesus just died for past sinwe have many issues, depending on what past sins you mean.

1. if just past sins before he died. then no one after he died could ever be saved.
2. if just past sin before salvation. then how did he do this when he died 2000 years before you even came to this point, and if he died for those sins only, what about the ones after. how can they be forgiven, when scripture makes it clear, without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness. Thus the first time someone sinned after they came to that point, they would be lost forever, because as scripture, there is no more sacrifice. thus, since without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness. all future sin would be unrepentable and unforgivable.

Jesus also lived and died as an example that we can share in His sufferings and die with Him. Jesus rose again on the third day proving that He had the power over death that we too may know that we may be raised up to eternal life in Him.

yes, As John said, I tell you these things so you can KNOW you HAVE eternal life.

Jesus came in the flesh and was tempted in all points as we are yet He never one time yielded to sin. Thus Jesus proved that sin can be overcome in the flesh when men are led by the Spirit.

yes to a point. But he did it so he could save us, and show us how to do it, But he did not remove our flesh. So we will still fail when the flesh is stronger than the spirit in our minds. Which leaves us with a problem in your gospel. Since we will sin, (And John said if we say we are without sin, we are liars) then where is the shed blood to allow us to be justified through redemption which is in Christ. I means since he only died for past sin.

We are to walk as He walked and yield to all His instructions. If we do that we will live, if we do it not we will perish.

so we are under law, and not under grace. Thanks for telling us this. Since if we must do this, we must be perfect. or we will perish, as you claimed. And rightly so, at least under law. For this is what the law teaches.

Jesus taught that FEW were going to be saved who professed His name but that a vast multitude who professed His name would be rejected. Jesus taught that the way to life is narrow and difficult and this is why we must make great effort to remain steadfast in the faith to the end. His burden is light and His commands are not grevious but we must pick up our cross, deny ourselves and follow Him.

Yep he did. And look at all the people teaching obedience and work to change your life before God will save you, or take your salvation away, and how few actually trust in Christ and him alone. Look at john 6. 5000 men, and probably another 5000 women and children were with Christ. He told them that he was going to give his flesh for the world, and that only through faith in him could one be assured of eternal life. When he was finished, How many were left at his side? maybe 12? As paul said, you have the WORDS of eternal life. where are we going to go?

In other words we have to lose our worldly lives that we may live spiritual lives.

yes I agree, if we want to live spiritual lives, we must fight the flesh, and look to the spirit. but this will not save us, and if your not saved, YOU CAN'T DO THIS, because you do not have the spirit to help.

[/quote]Jesus did not come to save people IN their sins. Jesus came to save people FROM their sin. [/quote]

I agree, he did not come to save people in sin, He came to save them from it. And what is the penalty of sin? Death, Thus he came to save us from death, from being condemned because of sin. For it is sin which separated us from God, and unless sin (the penalty of) is removed, we will all suffer eternal condemnation. After he did this, he gave us the ability to break the bonds of sin, live a more fulfilling life. and learn to love as God loves, and in doing so, learn to trust him in all areas of our lives.

Those who are truly in Christ are no longer under the dominion of sin, they have been set free from the corruption that is in the world through lust through the great and precious promises given to us and via the dynamic of us dying with Him in a genuine broken repentance whereby our old man is crucified with Him that we may walk in purity, having been raised up by the power of God, whereby we love God and our neighbour from the heart and thus we go and sin no more!

You better "go and sin no more" Because under your gospel. all sin you commit past salvation will unqualify you for the eternal kingdom. Because blood can not be applied to that sin, As you said, Christ just died for past sin.

 

[Skinski7]

Skinski,
I didn't say it, you did.
You said (as the mistake we make concerning Jesus),........."instead, His human existence was simply accomplished in order to achieve what no man could (being born a SINNER) before He came: Righteousness!(Keep in mind there are more than plenty examples of persons who were FOUND righteous before the advent of Christ which is WHY this teaching is a fallacy when broken down!)"
I didn't say it, you did.
Truly there are different levels of righteousness. Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness.
By comparing the relative righteousness of these men to Jesus, you cheat Him and what He accomplished.
Don't you see how comparing 'relative' right standing to Jesus' perfect life cheapens it?
You have truly stated that you believe the substitutionary sacrifice is a heresy, and thus you concoct this argument of comparing relative right standing to His perfect life saying, "there are more than plenty of examples of persons who were found righteous before the advent of Christ".
But I tell you, without the perfect life and obedient death of the Savior, none of these believer's 'so called' righteousness would have amounted to a hill of beans.
Their faith in Him(one who would come) was why they were accounted as righteous.

By saying that "no man could ever obey God" because "he as born a sinner" completely negates the responsibility of man for his sin. Can you not see this?

If you sin because you are a sinner and you were born that way then your sin is not your fault. A person who believes this simply CANNOT REPENT because in their mind it is impossible to be truly convicted of their rebellion because they don't take responsibility for their actions.

This is not hard to understand. This is why Original Sin is such a deadly doctrine for it redefines the nature of man and by necessity redefines the entire Gospel.

When sin is viewed as a substance of the flesh it cannot be forsaken, only decried.

This is why those under this delusion come to God still IN their sins with the old man intact. Original Sin completely negates the death of the old man in repentance.

Thus under this system a person supposedly "gets saves" while they still remain "in bondage" to sin because the old man with his passions and desires has not been crucified. Thus salvation, by necessity, is merely a forensic book keeping entry and this is why modern theology separates sanctification and justification.

Sanctification is thus redefined to the the gradual process of putting the old man to death over a period of time. Thus a professing Christian who is still in bondage to sin like a porn addict is offered comfort in his sin because, for it is taught, that God is still working on them but in the meantime they remain justified.

That is how the strong delusion works and the doctrine of Original Sin is the bedrock foundation it is established on.

This is why all the debates between Arminianism and Calvinism are a complete waste of time for they are both debating within the framework of the spirit of error. Both systems are firmly established on the bedrock of Original Sin.

Satan is a masterful deceiver and it is truly mind blowing when one begins to grasp the true scope of what is going on today. Satan has been able to pervert the very foundations of Christianity to such an extent that an entire false gospel has risen up, expounded by heaps and heaps of false teachers, a false gospel which is preached almost universally today.

Due to these fallacies being such strongholds in the minds of those who profess Jesus Christ is the very reason that people are so hostile to my message. What I am exposing goes to the very roots of what they believe.




I don't cheat Jesus of what He accomplished by pointing out those who are declared righteous in the Bible. So instead of you telling me that there are none righteous, you now accuse me of belittling Jesus because I proved right from the scriptures that there have been many righteous people.

Notice I never said that none of them ever fell short or never rebelled or didn't need Jesus. We all need Jesus Christ for He is the light of the world and there is no way to the Father except by Him. Any individual who has ever sinned needs the blood of Jesus Christ to reconcile them to God for their rebellion. A little baby is not under condemnation and thus still needs Jesus but does not need to be reconciled to God due to being in rebellion.

I have clearly illustrated as to why the Penal Substitution view of the atonement is heresy. I made some very specific points which not a single person was able to refute. People would perhaps quote a point but then talk about something else pretending that they addressed it.

Penal Substitution denies that God forgives sins. It teaches that sin is a literal transferable property and that God transferred it to an innocent (Christ) and then punished Him in the place of the sinner. It was through this that God's wrath was satisfied and thus with the sins paid for the sinner could now be excused. The sins were not forgiven they were just transferred and punished.

Penal Substitution logically concludes that salvation is purely forensic and that unconditional eternal security is true. Penal Substitution serves to redefine salvation as a mere book-keeping entry where the problem between God and man is rectified through a legal transaction as opposed to repentance and faith whereby the actual motivation for rebellion is dealt with once and for all. Due to the "penalty being paid" under Penal Substitution it cannot be "made due again" thus if it has been paid for on your behalf then there is no sin you can do which would forfeit your right standing before God which means you now have a license to sin. Many on these forums believe this very tenet and while they deny that they have a license to sin and will this say you "should" not sin, they simply cannot say you "cannot" sin, because in their minds salvation is merely forensic in nature and is totally disconnected from deeds.

Penal Substitution completely negates the release from the bondage of sin. Under Penal Substitution salvation is merely "being set free from condemnation" as opposed to "being set free from condemnation and bondage." Penal Substitution gives people a false assurance of salvation whilst they remain in bondage to their sins. That is why those beholden to this error take so much offense to the message of "go and sin no more" because in their minds "going and sinning no more" has NOTHING to do with salvation. To imply that "going and sinning no more" is related to "being saved" is basically a direct attack upon their assurance of salvation.

Penal Substitution was an invention of the Reformers. You will not find any reference whatsoever to Jesus being a substitute for the sinner in a penal sense in any of the early church writings. None! Some reformers try to impose Penal Substitution on some of the early church writings because the term "substitute" is used but if one examines what the text actually says there is no concept of a judicial acquittal based upon swapping places with Jesus and Jesus being punished by God in the sinners place. Penal Substitution was clearly developed around the 16th century and it was when a penal aspect was added to the Satisfaction View which Anslem put forth in the 11th century. History clearly bears this out and this one aspect should really cause people to question WHY they cling to Penal Substitution so desperately.

One reason I believe they hold to it so desperately is because it offers them comfort in their sins. Without Penal Substitution they are suddenly naked before God as they really truly are for they suddenly do not have the magic cloak of Jesus having obeyed for them. Suddenly "denying themselves, picking up their cross, following Jesus, and going and sinning no more" becomes much more real and Christianity is no longer some walk in the park but actually has a real cost to it.

 

[Skinski7]

Penal Substitution logically necessitates that Jesus died for only those who would be saved. Hence the atonement must be limited under this system. If Penal Substitution is true then Jesus could not have "paid the price" for all men because if He did then universal salvation would be true. For those who hold to Penal Substitution, to deny this would mean that they believe God pours out His wrath for the same sins twice, which in turn would deny their eternal security doctrine.

This whole thing just falls apart when examined closely. The problem is hardly anyone questions it, they just swallow it hook, line and sinker having no conception that this teaching was invented 400 years ago by a bunch of false teachers.

If Jesus was literally the substitute for the sinner in the sense that the sins of sinners were literally transferred to His account wherefore He was then punished for them, not only would Jesus have had to have had a sense of guilt and remorse (after-all they are His sins now) but He would still be in hell right now. This is the point that really used to raise my eyebrows years ago when I held to reformed theology. I used to ask that question but never receive a satisfactory answer but in the end I would just ignore this contradiction and cling to the doctrine anyway. Thank God I woke up to my error.

If the sins of all men were literally transferred to the account of Jesus then He would not have been without spot. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus offered Himself without spot to God. If Penal Substitution is true then Jesus was spotted with sin when He offered Himself.

This doctrine not only perverts the true Gospel but it is blasphemy and it maligns the character of God.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Penal Substitution logically necessitates that Jesus died for only those who would be saved.

No it does not. Scripture states he came to remove not only the sin of those who are his, but the sin of the whole world.

He states all sin will be forgiven men, He tells us that ONLY blasphemy of the spirit (rejecting what the HS came to say and teach concerning Jesus and the gospel) will not be forgiven men.

At the final judgment, No one is judged for sin, they are judged according to their works.

They are condemned, because they are not written in the book of life. Why? they rejected the words of the HS concerning Jesus and the gospel. and replaced it with another gospel. Like the pharisees, who rejected the signs Jesus did that was done by the power of the spirit, to prove he was the messiah, They rejected those things and replaced the HS with beelzebub or satan!

Hence the atonement must be limited under this system. If Penal Substitution is true then Jesus could not have "paid the price" for all men because if He did then universal salvation would be true. For those who hold to Penal Substitution, to deny this would mean that they believe God pours out His wrath for the same sins twice, which in turn would deny their eternal security doctrine.

Read above, No one will be condemned for personal sin. Jesus said himself, People are condemned for one thing and one thing only. They have not believed in the only name of the son of God.

Your doctrine is destroyed by the fact God said there can be NO FORGIVENESS with out the SHEDDING OF BLOOD. This, if Christ ONLY paid for previous or past sin. ALL FUTURE SIN WILL CONDEMN US, Because there is no more sacrifice. For those sins to be forgiven, Christ would have to return and die all over again for the sins he missed the first time.