Fallacies of the Present Day Church

[eternally-gratefull]

Lots of words said but not a single person can quote a single verse which states that God poured out His wrath on Jesus.

People tend to dance around the issues instead of directly addressing them.

If Jesus was literally PUNISHED by God and thus was the WRATH ABSORBING SUBSTITUTE for the sinner then it means that the atonement was either Limited in the sense that Jesus did not absorb the wrath for everyone OR universal salvation is true. Which do you all prefer?

Men ESTEEMED Jesus stricken by God from their point of view but nowhere does the Bible state that God punished Jesus. Sinful men punished Jesus for a crime He did not commit.

Jesus was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, and the chastisement of our peace was upon Him yet nowhere does the Bible state that God PUNISHED Jesus as a PENAL SUBSTITUTE. You all read that doctrine INTO the Scripture because you have most likely never questioned it due to having heard the lie over and over again.

The early Church did not teach Penal Substitution nor did the Catholics. It was invented by lawyers who added a judicial element to the Satisfaction View of Anselm. While Anselm taught that "justice was satisfied" the Reformers added that "wrath was satisfied."

Under Penal Substitution God DOES NOT FORGIVE SIN. God merely appropriates the sin to someone else and punishes them instead.

Penal Substitution is pure fallacy. It is an evil doctrine which is at complete odds with the Scriptures.

Even people like Adam Clarke could see right through it, here is what he wrote...

Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary - 2 Corinthians 5

Now while Adam Clarke views the second use of the word in 2Cor 5:21 as being more accurately rendered "sin offering." I can still reasonably see it being rendered as "sin" in the sense that Jesus was made a curse for us in in the sense that the sins of men are laid on Jesus (sin bearer) but most definitely not in the sense where Jesus became a sinner and was then punished by God. No way for that would be contradicting that He was without spot. 2Cor 5:21 is a semantic issue in translation and understanding.

Just as Rom 8:3 says this...

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The above verse does not literally mean that flesh is literally sinful (ie. sin being some sort of substance trapped in the flesh ala gnostic Original Sin), it simply means that Jesus was incarnated in the flesh (in which men sin) and that being in the same state he overcame sin and thus condemned it being a fellow man. After-all He was out example.

Anyway I am digressing here just to give a little more information for those interested.

My original statements stand true.

1. Jesus did not teach anywhere that He was going to be punished in the place of the sinner.
2. The parable of the unforgiving servant has the Master freely forgiving a debt WITHOUT the debt being paid by someone else. When the servant does not forgive his own servant the debt is reinstated. This parable totally contradicts Penal Substitution.
2. If Jesus was punished by God in the place of the sinner and thus absorbed the wrath of God then either He did not do this for everyone OR universal salvation is true.
3. If Penal Substitution is true then sin and virtue are transferable properties rather than being moral choices.
4. If Penal Substitution is true then God does not forgive sins but rather appropriates them to the innocent in order to excuse the guilty.
5. Penal Substitution is clearly an invention of the Reformers as they added a judicial element to the Satisfaction view which was developed by Anselm.
6. There is no scripture reference in the entire Bible which states that God PUNISHED Jesus as a substitute for the sinner.




Here are two more relevant passages for people to seriously consider.

Mar 10:33 Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:
Mar 10:34 And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.
Mar 10:35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.
Mar 10:36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?
Mar 10:37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.
Mar 10:38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
Mar 10:39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
Mar 10:40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.

Luk 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
Luk 22:43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
Luk 22:44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
Luk 22:45 And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow,

Actually you have all kinds of proof. Your just blind. God has used men to pour out his wrath many times. Look at revelation. where the time of Gods wrath is showed to us. How much of his wrath is men killing men. No to mention. Gods wrath is turning his back. God turned his back on Christ, if this is not wrath, I don;t know what else there could be, because this is the worst punishment any man could get.

You keep your law, I will keep grace. Your just like the pharisee, you reject Christ also. You reject his love, his kindness and his patience.

 

[Skinski7]

People tend to dance around the issues instead of directly addressing them. By denying Penal Substitution many respond by implying that I deny Jesus and the propitiatory offering He made on our behalf, without spot, whereby he bore our sins, was made a curse for us, and was an acceptable offering before God by whom our previous sins could be expiated.

I see the same methodology in many of the attacks on what I clearly say.

I say that we must strive and obey God and people respond with an accusation that I deny grace and am seeking to "merit" salvation by works.

I say that all willful sin must stop in repentance and people respond with "are you perfect" and "you are teaching that one must be perfect before Go will save them.

I say that the Penal Substitution view of the atonement is heresy and people claim that I am denying the the cross and that without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sin.

Pure foolishness!

Pro 29:20 Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

 

[marianna]

Yes I am honest in saying you are bendictive and a fault finder of those who do not comply with your doctrine. Thanks for accepting my honesty.

My doctrine?
You were teaching false doctrine, and have since revised your position to align with God's Word - His doctrine. That's good.

As for you agreeing and 'Amen'ing Skinski and calling him your brother (because your pride was hurt), that makes you a partaker of his evil doctrine (leaven).

I just wanted to point that out to you, so you could repent of it.

But do as you like.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

People tend to dance around the issues instead of directly addressing them. By denying Penal Substitution many respond by implying that I deny Jesus and the propitiatory offering He made on our behalf, without spot, whereby he bore our sins, was made a curse for us, and was an acceptable offering before God by whom our previous sins could be expiated.

There is your first major issue. Christ died 2000 years ago, Your previous sin were future to him. Thus if he did not die for ALL your sin, he did not die for your previous.

Your second issue has already been exposed. The penalty of sin is death, Without the shedding of blood, you can not be forgiven. If Christ just died for your previous sin, He better get back down to earth, so he can die for your post sin. Because it can not be forgiven without the shedding of blood.

The falacies in your false doctrine are so numerous and so easy to see, only a blind man would miss it. Unfortunately. to many of us are blinded by pride. we want to be holy, we want to stand in front of God and have him say you earned my love and my forgiveness. Unfortunately. this will not happen. because we have, are and will always deserve nothing but Gods wrath.

I see the same methodology in many of the attacks on what I clearly say.

I say that we must strive and obey God and people respond with an accusation that I deny grace and am seeking to "merit" salvation by works.

I say that all willful sin must stop in repentance and people respond with "are you perfect" and "you are teaching that one must be perfect before Go will save them.

And you just contradicted yourself.

in one hand, you say you claim yuo do not deny grace and are not seeking merit.

then in the second sentence, you claim we must merit salvation by making ourselves perfect before him.

I say that the Penal Substitution view of the atonement is heresy and people claim that I am denying the the cross and that without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sin.

Pure foolishness!

Pro 29:20 Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

There is no hope for you as long as you deny Christ, and puff up self, and admit you can;t even live up to the standard your demanding of everyone else. Your a hypocrite!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

My doctrine?
You were teaching false doctrine, and have since revised your position to align with God's Word - His doctrine. That's good.

As for you agreeing and 'Amen'ing Skinski and calling him your brother (because your pride was hurt), that makes you a partaker of his evil doctrine (leaven).

I just wanted to point that out to you, so you could repent of it.

But do as you like.

sometimes it helps to help a brother in private. He may not see what he is doing, and we know he does not believe ALL that he liked in a post.

Calling someone out in public can cause someone to put up defenses. And you have lost what you were trying to say in the first place.

Just saying

 

[marianna]

Particularly this ;
" because they believe in the myth of the magic cloak of Jesus and that God's wrath was satisfied and thus they remain uncondemnable."


If God's wrath towards our sin was NOT satisfied in Christ's sacrifice on our behalf, it is no wonder at all that they would look to their own vain efforts thru works.

and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless. - Matthew 22:12

 

[marianna]

sometimes it helps to help a brother in private. He may not see what he is doing, and we know he does not believe ALL that he liked in a post.

Calling someone out in public can cause someone to put up defenses. And you have lost what you were trying to say in the first place.

Just saying

anyone calling Skinski a brother is not my brother.
Skinski is antichrist.
That's easy enough.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

anyone calling Skinski a brother is not my brother.
Skinski is antichrist.
That's easy enough.

So you are unwilling to help a brother. Even though you KNOW he did not agree, nor teach everything skinski said. Wow. Sometimes we need to remove our pride. because if not, we sound just like the ones we are trying to help.

 

[cfultz3]

My doctrine?
You were teaching false doctrine, and have since revised your position to align with God's Word - His doctrine. That's good.

As for you agreeing and 'Amen'ing Skinski and calling him your brother (because your pride was hurt), that makes you a partaker of his evil doctrine (leaven).

I just wanted to point that out to you, so you could repent of it.

But do as you like.

Just out of curiousty, do you actully believe I would be as childish as to like what Skinski is saying just for the mere 'revenge of showing you my feelings was hurt?' I am 44 years old. If following God's Voice is considered a false doctrine, then I do not stand before you, but before God. If Christ is his foundation and upon that foundation he proclaims his testimony, then yes, he is my Brother. Although I do not agree with all he says, I do agree to a vast majority of it. Perhaps if one would speak out of Love and not a snarling smark, one could exhort and not condemn him. But then again, that would be in harmony with Scripture speaking.

Likewise

 

[Grandpa]

People tend to dance around the issues instead of directly addressing them. By denying Penal Substitution many respond by implying that I deny Jesus and the propitiatory offering He made on our behalf, without spot, whereby he bore our sins, was made a curse for us, and was an acceptable offering before God by whom our previous sins could be expiated.

I see the same methodology in many of the attacks on what I clearly say.

I say that we must strive and obey God and people respond with an accusation that I deny grace and am seeking to "merit" salvation by works.

I say that all willful sin must stop in repentance and people respond with "are you perfect" and "you are teaching that one must be perfect before Go will save them.

I say that the Penal Substitution view of the atonement is heresy and people claim that I am denying the the cross and that without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sin.

Pure foolishness!

Pro 29:20 Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

Lets directly address the issues.

Its God's work that saves.

That is why it is called salvation and not help.

If it were just help then you would have to remain in the state that God places you by your own work.

But since it is Salvation that means the same power that saved you (that you were unable to muster up on your own) is the same power that causes you to walk in His statutes.

Its just as much error to expect someone to clean themselves, to save themselves, as it is to attempt to follow the Law in the power of the flesh. Because that is what a person does when they say "Thanks God, I've got it from here".

All willfull sin does stop in repentance. But that is not done by an act of our will. It is caused by God saving us and giving us His Holy Spirit. Our heart is changed by God and this heart abhors sin. You know, the old man with his desires...

 

[marianna]

Just out of curiousty, do you actully believe I would be as childish as to like what Skinski is saying just for the mere 'revenge of showing you my feelings was hurt?'

Quote:
Originally Posted by cfultz3
Marianna,
Please see post 162 as my response also. Thank you.
Specifically the first statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skinski7
Marianna,
Your mind is made up and I am not interested in wrestling with you. I saw that in how you responded to my initial response to you. You basically ignore the issues I raise and selectively pick segments with which to attack. Thus discussion with you consists of endlessly chasing tangents.

You made a specific point of proving that's what you were doing. You requested I go back and see just what else (in post 162) you were saying Amen to your brother about. Not just his antichrist doctrine denying all the essentials of the Christian faith, but his distaste of being challenged on it.

It's okay though. It means not much to me

It's pretty clear, cfultz3.

I am 44 years old. If following God's Voice is considered a false doctrine, then I do not stand before you, but before God. If Christ is his foundation and upon that foundation he proclaims his testimony, then yes, he is my Brother. Although I do not agree with all he says, I do agree to a vast majority of it. Perhaps if one would speak out of Love and not a snarling smark, one could exhort and not condemn him. But then again, that would be in harmony with Scripture speaking.

Likewise

Well, if you agree with anything he says, since he is teaching another christ, and another gospel, I would point to Paul on that matter.

Christ is not his foundation. I wonder why you don't know that?
Oh well.

 

[marianna]

So you are unwilling to help a brother. Even though you KNOW he did not agree, nor teach everything skinski said. Wow. Sometimes we need to remove our pride. because if not, we sound just like the ones we are trying to help.

cfultz3"
"If Christ is his foundation and upon that foundation he proclaims his testimony, then yes, he is my Brother. Although I do not agree with all he says, I do agree to a vast majority of it."

Skinski is a false teacher and not a brother.
I'll leave the rest to you.

 

[cfultz3]

cfultz3"
"If Christ is his foundation and upon that foundation he proclaims his testimony, then yes, he is my Brother. Although I do not agree with all he says, I do agree to a vast majority of it."

Skinski is a false teacher and not a brother.
I'll leave the rest to you.

Are you led around by His Spirit? Does His Spirit speak to your spirit?

 

[marianna]

Are you led around by His Spirit? Does His Spirit speak to your spirit?

cfultz3, It is you who are clicking like on heretical posts.
For reasons of your own.

I know who I believe and where I stand.
Not some shifting foundation coming from Skinski, or you.

 

[cfultz3]

cfultz3, It is you who are clicking like on heretical posts.
For reasons of your own.

I know who I believe and where I stand.
Not some shifting foundation coming from Skinski, or you.

Please answer the question

 

[Skinski7]

There is your first major issue. Christ died 2000 years ago, Your previous sin were future to him. Thus if he did not die for ALL your sin, he did not die for your previous.

I prefer to engage discussion with you only on the exception due to how you usually twist what I say as well as imply some very nasty connotations.

Without realising it you are espousing the Eternal Now doctrine of Augustine and applying it to the forgiveness of sin.

You plainly state, "he did not die for your previous.[sins]" when the Bible EXPLICITLY contradicts your premise.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Peter even taught the same thing when he said,

2Pe 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

Nothing about future sins forgiven and/or purged in advance implied there. Only by using conjecture and thus employing the doctrine of Eternal Now can you support such a statement. You cannot do it from the Bible. In fact your rhetoric contradicts the Bible yet that does not matter to you, your doctrine must be upheld at all costs.

The truth is you don't really believe the Bible. You just deceive yourself into thinking that you do.

You lie against the truth and cannot be corrected with Scripture.

Jas 3:13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
Jas 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
Jas 3:15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
Jas 3:16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
Jas 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

Your second issue has already been exposed. The penalty of sin is death, Without the shedding of blood, you can not be forgiven. If Christ just died for your previous sin, He better get back down to earth, so he can die for your post sin. Because it can not be forgiven without the shedding of blood.

You have no comprehension of what you are saying. The Bible says this...

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Heb 10:26 clearly speaks of a "willful AFTER sin" and that sin is in the context of having been "sanctified by the blood" (Heb 10:29).

You actually allude to the truth in your comments because someone who willfully sins AFTER being sanctified by the blood is in effect recrucifying Jesus Christ. That is why the Bible also says this...

Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Willful sin is not a small issue for a truly born again believer. It is a serious thing indeed.

So not only do you have to explain away Rom 3:25 and 2Pet 1:9 for they speak of "previous sins." You also have to ignore the fact that the Bible does not have a single scripture to support the forgiveness of future sins anywhere.

Not only that you have to also ignore passages like Pro 28:13, Isa 55:7, Jer 26:13, Act 3:19 etc. which speak of forgveness coming AFTER the repentance and forsaking of sin. In your mind you are forgiven of sins already thus meaning that repentance is not even necessary, instead it must be some sort of hollow formality.

Jesus died for all sins but the blood is not applied to someone who is still in rebellion. Their future sins are not forgiven, in fact the blood only cleanses one of all unrighteousness when one is WALKING in the light. That is another verse you just have to explain away or ignore.

You are a deceitful worker of iniquity who is poor, blind and naked. You argue in favour of Satan's lie that "Ye Can Sin and Surely Not die" yet deny that is what you are doing because you will preface it by saying "one should not sin." So while one "shouldn't" sin they still "can sin" and not surely die.

You'll ignore Satan's lie and respond with "are you perfect" or "you are trying to save yourself" or "you deny grace" or some other rhetorical reply. You will never DIRECTLY address the specifics of what I bring up. It is always a veiled allusion to what I say mixed with strawmen and false implications.

It amazes me how you can say things like, "
And you just contradicted yourself.

in one hand, you say you claim yuo do not deny grace and are not seeking merit.

then in the second sentence, you claim we must merit salvation by making ourselves perfect before him."

Yet you cannot quote me making such a statement. Your deluded mind reads such foolishness into something I stated. So I claim that we merit our salvation by making ourselves perfect before him??? Find a quote where I say anything remotely close to that. Go on, I challenge you.

We are perfected through yielding to the leading of God's grace. We are purified through obedience to the truth through the Spirit is what the Bible teaches. Go on, prove your contentions by directly quoting me instead of making things up. It is this for this very reason I rarely respond with you because you might as well be writing my responses for me because you have no grasp of what I write. Your brain twists it into something else entirely. I suppose the Pharisees really did believe Jesus was a sinner and possessed by a devil.

It's a shame though really because I am sure you are probably sincere in your beliefs but you have fallen prey to the doctrines of men and thus have made your worship of God vain.

You can go on and on with these fictional accusations of "I am trying to earn my salvation" or "I have earned God's love" or "look at me God and how good I am" etc.

There is nothing conceited or prideful about repenting and forsaking all known rebellion to God and then choosing to yield to His instruction. Nineveh was not boasting in their flesh when they forsook their rebellion in repentance, they were simply doing the right thing, they forsook their evil ways.

There is nothing conceited or prideful about contending earnestly for repentance and faith either. Telling people that it is MANDATORY that they must obey God from the heart IS NOT a wicked thing. Telling people that faith is the active dynamic whereby we put to use the grace of God IS NOT trying to save oneself apart from the grace of God. You calling that which is good to be evil.

All these things are simply being a DOER of the word which Jesus commanded us to do.

God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness. It is through the precious promises that we escape the corruption that is in the world through lust that we may be partakers in the divine nature (2Pet 1:3-4).

You deny this and claim that one "cannot escape the corruption that is in the world through lust" and that one "cannot cease from sin."

You have a FORM OF GODLINESS but you DENY THE POWER THEREOF and it appears you are NEVER ABLE TO COME TO A KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH.

Paul wrote about you...

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
2Ti 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Peter gave some stong warnings also...

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

You speak evil of the doctrine that one can "cease from sin." MOST who profess Christ speak evil of the doctrine that one can "cease from sin."

1Pe 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
1Pe 4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

1Co 15:34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Rom 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Rom 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
Rom 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
Rom 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Abiding]

"The Reformers have been misquoted since Julius Cesar's time just goes to show Wikipedia is not a reliable source of scholarly documentation." William Shakespeare

BTW, I was raised Reformed Baptist, and I promise you I'm not a heretic unless you're a Catholic. :chuckles:

thats funny ill have to write that down

 

[Skinski7]

All willfull sin does stop in repentance. But that is not done by an act of our will. It is caused by God saving us and giving us His Holy Spirit. Our heart is changed by God and this heart abhors sin. You know, the old man with his desires...

Well that means the sin is not willful in the first place if men cannot stop it apart from an act of God's will.

This illustrates the danger of believing that sin is some sort of substance of the flesh one is born with. Under this teaching sin is redefined as necessitated by the flesh apart from the will thus the free-will agency of man is denied. Due to this, it is viewed, that sin cannot be forsaken in repentance and thus repentance is redefined to simply be the confession of a sinful state.

Thus under this mindset one must get saved FIRST before they can stop their rebellion to God. Thus one approaches God in rebellion and is saved in rebellion. Therefore the rebellion one is saved in cannot condemn one in the future hence unconditional eternal security.

Grandpa,, for you to say that "all willful sin stops in repentance" and then to say that this is a result "of the Holy Spirit being given" is teaching that one gets saved FIRST and then they repent. That is the Gospel in reverse.

Look at this scripture...

Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

Repentance -----------> Conversion -----------> Sins blotted out at the refreshing from the presence of the Lord.

You are teaching that the presence of the Lord comes first in order to make repentance possible.

Look at this scripture...

Act 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

You have that scripture reversed too.

Act 5:32 Obedience ---------------> Holy Spirit Granted
Grandpa Holy Spirit Granted ------------------> Obedience

Here is another Scripture you have reversed...

Jas 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

You deny the ability of man to "lay apart all filthiness" before the "implanted word saves the soul." I hope you can see the fallacy there, read the text for what it says.

Man has the full capability to stop sinning but he does not have the capability to save himself.

Look at this scripture...

2Co 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
2Co 7:11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

It is the godly sorrow which leads to the forsaking of willful rebellion in repentance, not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit brings conviction for sure but it does not offset some inability to forsake sin. The brokenness wrought by repentance allows the individual to forsake their rebellion and turn back to God.

Thus repentance puts someone in a position where God will then save them. It is not saving themselves. Forsaking rebellion does not mean one is righteous it simply means one has forsaken their rebellion. Righteousness is via faith, in that the light of God shines through the repentance sinner who is yielding presently to God by faith.

Hence Paul was crucified with Christ but he no longer lived for it was Christ that lived in Him. Thus Paul's righteousness was in Christ as holiness was manifested through Him as a willing vessel.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I prefer to engage discussion with you only on the exception due to how you usually twist what I say as well as imply some very nasty connotations.

Without realising it you are espousing the Eternal Now doctrine of Augustine and applying it to the forgiveness of sin.

You plainly state, "he did not die for your previous.[sins]" when the Bible EXPLICITLY contradicts your premise.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Peter even taught the same thing when he said,

2Pe 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

Nothing about future sins forgiven and/or purged in advance implied there. Only by using conjecture and thus employing the doctrine of Eternal Now can you support such a statement. You cannot do it from the Bible. In fact your rhetoric contradicts the Bible yet that does not matter to you, your doctrine must be upheld at all costs.

The truth is you don't really believe the Bible. You just deceive yourself into thinking that you do.

You lie against the truth and cannot be corrected with Scripture.

Jas 3:13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
Jas 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
Jas 3:15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
Jas 3:16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
Jas 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.



You have no comprehension of what you are saying. The Bible says this...

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Heb 10:26 clearly speaks of a "willful AFTER sin" and that sin is in the context of having been "sanctified by the blood" (Heb 10:29).

You actually allude to the truth in your comments because someone who willfully sins AFTER being sanctified by the blood is in effect recrucifying Jesus Christ. That is why the Bible also says this...

Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Willful sin is not a small issue for a truly born again believer. It is a serious thing indeed.

So not only do you have to explain away Rom 3:25 and 2Pet 1:9 for they speak of "previous sins." You also have to ignore the fact that the Bible does not have a single scripture to support the forgiveness of future sins anywhere.

Not only that you have to also ignore passages like Pro 28:13, Isa 55:7, Jer 26:13, Act 3:19 etc. which speak of forgveness coming AFTER the repentance and forsaking of sin. In your mind you are forgiven of sins already thus meaning that repentance is not even necessary, instead it must be some sort of hollow formality.

Jesus died for all sins but the blood is not applied to someone who is still in rebellion. Their future sins are not forgiven, in fact the blood only cleanses one of all unrighteousness when one is WALKING in the light. That is another verse you just have to explain away or ignore.

You are a deceitful worker of iniquity who is poor, blind and naked. You argue in favour of Satan's lie that "Ye Can Sin and Surely Not die" yet deny that is what you are doing because you will preface it by saying "one should not sin." So while one "shouldn't" sin they still "can sin" and not surely die.

You'll ignore Satan's lie and respond with "are you perfect" or "you are trying to save yourself" or "you deny grace" or some other rhetorical reply. You will never DIRECTLY address the specifics of what I bring up. It is always a veiled allusion to what I say mixed with strawmen and false implications.

It amazes me how you can say things like, "
And you just contradicted yourself.

in one hand, you say you claim yuo do not deny grace and are not seeking merit.

then in the second sentence, you claim we must merit salvation by making ourselves perfect before him."

Yet you cannot quote me making such a statement. Your deluded mind reads such foolishness into something I stated. So I claim that we merit our salvation by making ourselves perfect before him??? Find a quote where I say anything remotely close to that. Go on, I challenge you.

We are perfected through yielding to the leading of God's grace. We are purified through obedience to the truth through the Spirit is what the Bible teaches. Go on, prove your contentions by directly quoting me instead of making things up. It is this for this very reason I rarely respond with you because you might as well be writing my responses for me because you have no grasp of what I write. Your brain twists it into something else entirely. I suppose the Pharisees really did believe Jesus was a sinner and possessed by a devil.

It's a shame though really because I am sure you are probably sincere in your beliefs but you have fallen prey to the doctrines of men and thus have made your worship of God vain.

You can go on and on with these fictional accusations of "I am trying to earn my salvation" or "I have earned God's love" or "look at me God and how good I am" etc.

There is nothing conceited or prideful about repenting and forsaking all known rebellion to God and then choosing to yield to His instruction. Nineveh was not boasting in their flesh when they forsook their rebellion in repentance, they were simply doing the right thing, they forsook their evil ways.

There is nothing conceited or prideful about contending earnestly for repentance and faith either. Telling people that it is MANDATORY that they must obey God from the heart IS NOT a wicked thing. Telling people that faith is the active dynamic whereby we put to use the grace of God IS NOT trying to save oneself apart from the grace of God. You calling that which is good to be evil.

All these things are simply being a DOER of the word which Jesus commanded us to do.

God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness. It is through the precious promises that we escape the corruption that is in the world through lust that we may be partakers in the divine nature (2Pet 1:3-4).

You deny this and claim that one "cannot escape the corruption that is in the world through lust" and that one "cannot cease from sin."

You have a FORM OF GODLINESS but you DENY THE POWER THEREOF and it appears you are NEVER ABLE TO COME TO A KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH.

Paul wrote about you...

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
2Ti 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Peter gave some stong warnings also...

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

You speak evil of the doctrine that one can "cease from sin." MOST who profess Christ speak evil of the doctrine that one can "cease from sin."

1Pe 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
1Pe 4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

1Co 15:34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Rom 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Rom 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
Rom 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
Rom 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

why do you bother making such long posts. When all your doing is babbling? do you think they prove your point?

In romans Paul spoke of sin commited before the death of Christ. Not Skinski's previous sin.

As for the rest of this "babble" You did not explain how the blood of Christ is going to wash you from your so called "future sin" Thus nothing you said was applicable to what we are discussing.

Hebrews makes it clear. without the shedding of blood, THERE CAN BE NO Forgiveness. WHich leaves you in a dangerous position. You think Christ died for your past sin, And thats a start. But your stuck with your future sin on your own. Thus your doomed.

As for God saving us to do works. I agree, Paul said so in eph 2:10. Those who are saved WILL show fruits of repentance. And will not live like the world.

You know what saddens me more than the thought of you suffering eternal damnation if you do not repent? (Yes that does sadden me) Is the fact you deny the power of the HS to change a person from the inside out.

 

[unclefester]

I say that all willful sin must stop in repentance and people respond with "are you perfect" and "you are teaching that one must be perfect before Go will save them./QUOTE]

I'm sure it's been asked before but I'll ask again ; How does one sin unwillfully ? Are some sins "not your fault", as surely they must be if "you couldn't help it". Does "unwillfull" mean "we couldn't help it" ... or it was out of our control ? Did Christ die only for "unwillfull" sin ... or "willfull sin" as well ? Exactly what is the difference ? Am I to understand that you say we must obey all of God's commands after salvation (if we truly love Him) .... except for those times when we couldn't help it (or it was out of our control ... or unwillfull ... or not my fault ) ? Is unwillfull synonymous with "not my fault" ... and if it isn't, just exactly WHAT is it ? Is deliberate a better word ? "I didn't sin deliberately". Is that more accommodating ? If I didn't do it "deliberately", how can I be held accountable for it ? Not my fault. No siree. Nonsense ! All sin we commit is our fault. Every single bit of it. To say that we can "unwillfully sin" is to make excuses for ourselves .... and to view ourselves with more (self) righteous esteem than we could ever deserve. Sin is sin ... period. And we all fall short of the glory of God.