Finneyists among us

[zone]

Yeah... you know a lot about secret clubs (wink wink)

DEMONS, STRONGHOLDS, DEFENSE MECHANISMS:

Reference to a thread on ChristianChat.com: http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/29681-defense-mechanisms.html

In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses) is a defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means. Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly subconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt).
​

Rationalization (making excuses) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

View attachment 63034

anyways, DA - if you have a point to make by mixing of human philosophy or psychology (per the thread) with your point...why not make your point, then punctuate it with your other thing (Rationalization (making excuses))?

anyway....who is doing that?

you asked for dialogue on Finney's concept of grace....i thunked i wuz startin'.

course there's a 'Pastor' or somebody lurking around waiting to meddle, so..............for that reason, at least for now

i'm out

 

[Digital_Angel_316]

Half a BILLION Views (some sensitive language - definitely "sensitive" content)

 

[Stephen63]

Yeah... you know a lot about secret clubs (wink wink)

anyways, DA - if you have a point to make by mixing of human philosophy or psychology (per the thread) with your point...why not make your point, then punctuate it with your other thing (Rationalization (making excuses))?

anyway....who is doing that?

you asked for dialogue on Finney's concept of grace....i thunked i wuz startin'.

course there's a 'Pastor' or somebody lurking around waiting to meddle, so..............for that reason, at least for now

i'm out

What? Did I hit a nerve? It's NEVER that easy with you. I know better than that.

 

[Digital_Angel_316]

...................... PEACE, OUT Y'all ......................

 

[Delija]

Fighting Evil Thoughts: Humility & Prayer

"Evil thoughts afflict the proud soul, and until she humbles herself she knows no rest from them. When wrong thoughts besiege you, call like Adam upon God, saying, ‘O Lord, my Maker and Creator, Thou seest how my soul is vexed with bad thoughts… Have mercy on me.’ And when you stand before the face of the Master, steadfastly remember that He will give ear to all your supplications if they be for your good.

A cloud blows over and hides the sun, making everything dark. In the same way, one prideful thought causes the soul to lose grace, and she is left in darkness. But, equally, a single impulse of humility – and grace returns. This I have experienced and proved in myself.

“It is very difficult to recognize pride in oneself. But here are some signs to tell you: if the enemy (devils) assail you, or wrong thoughts torment you, it means that humility is lacking in you, and so even if you do not realize the presence of pride in you – humble yourself.

-St. Silouan the Athonite-

 

[Rockbysea]

fallen man John Doe walks through red light district.
he is approached by working girls. tempted by them to sin.
he may or may not be interested.
he may be tempted and sin.
he may in fact be repulsed by the suggestion, yet have compassion on them.
that is fallen John Doe.

Sinless Perfect Jesus walks through red light district.
He is approached by working girls. tempted by them to sin.
is there a remote possibility Jesus Christ would be interested?

both men were tempted.
one man was also God.

the very suggestion, for example, that Jesus was tempted by/into homosexual desires (how something like this is possible if we believe Christ was without sin i don't know) is required for Him to understand the fallen human condition - being tempted in all points as we are - yet without sin just amazes me.

being tempted does not, for Jesus, imply in any way the leaning toward or remote inclination to sin.

it means He knows what it is to be tempted (i.e.) BY sinful people or satan to lust - not what it is like to lust.

the implication that God has experienced sin (been tempted BY SIN) is unspeakable.

i won't be discussing this beyond this post - each fallen human can ponder for themselves where the dividing line between a biological sexual impulse, and lust is.

• Fallen man John Doe walks through a red light district and may be tempted and possibly jump in bed with the hookers.
• Fallen man who calls himself a Christian, believes that he can perpetually sin because his sinful works are continually covered by the blood of Christ thus never receiving the Holy Spirit as he thinks he has, will walk through a red light district and may be tempted and possibly jump in bed with the hookers convinced that his sin will be hidden in the righteousness of Christ.
• Jesus Christ, Son of God, God in the flesh will walk through a red light district and may be tempted but will not jump in bed with the hookers.
• Fallen man who truly repents, receives the Holy Spirit and has the living God within his flesh, thus becomes one of the very few elect of God walks through a red light district and may be tempted but will not jump in bed with the hookers.

  “the implication that God has experienced sin (been tempted BY SIN) is unspeakable.”

  Being tempted by sin is not experiencing sin. You must sin to experience sin.

 

[Skinski7]

I do have an uncritical approach to Reformed Theologians, and I don't really care about your perspective. I care about the doctrine you teach. I do not base my beliefs on Reformed theology, even though I recognize that its tenets have heavily influenced by beliefs. I base my beliefs on the witness of the holy spirit vis-a-vis the word; the same thing the reformers did.

It is the spirit that gave me witness when I first read your comments that something was seriously wrong. The reason I say that yours and Finney's beliefs are in many respects identical is because when I first read some of Finney's doctrines, I said to myself, 'That's skinski'. IMO you are really desperate or in denial to say otherwise.



I don't argue from a position of reformed theology; you do. I base my arguments on what the word says as witnessed by the spirit. You apparently are helpless in that regard because you have only been able to argue from the perspective of your contrived theological framework that requires reams of text to make the simplest point. Your are completely lost without the laundry list of talking points and dubious theological connections built upon fallacies that you have devised. I don't need a framework; I have the spirit of truth residing within me who witnesses to the truth in the word.

As this thread progresses, we will see if your claim that your and his beliefs aren't virtually identical.

What you call a "laundry list of talking points" is simply me approach of carefully substantiating everything I say.
My doctrine can be basically summed up within the framework that it is the pure in heart who will see God as opposed to those who are defiled in heart. The means for a human being to obtain heart purity is via submission to the work of God in us which means we are no longer in rebellion. Hence the repentance process is the dynamic which produces the shift from rebellion to obedience. It is in the obedient that heart purity is wrought by the grace of God.

Now the notion of Christian's being "Romans Wretches who do what they don't want to do and thus continue to serve sin" is simply the antithesis of the above bolded paragraph. The teaching that Christian's are saved yet still in bondage is a contradiction.

I don't view the death of Christ in the way that Finney did for he perceived it as relating more to God's Moral Government rather than the means to set the captives free. Thus under Moral Government theology the death of Christ being, viewed as a satisfaction, is deemed influential on inducing service to God as a response to the death of Christ. The proponents of Moral Government seldom speak of the death of Christ within the ransom context.

I have thought a lot on this subject because upon reading Finney his work did not sit right with me because he upheld the U and P of Tulip as well as a slightly twisted version of the I (he terms it effectual as opposed to irresistible, yet in the context he speaks often as if it is really irresistible). Finney contradicts himself quite often. Due to a contradictory theology I believe he was led to focus much more on carnal "method" (ie. altar calls and approach) as opposed to spiritual "method" (involving the breaking of the rebellious spirit in repentance).

Evil desire comes from an evil nature. Amoral nature and moral law are the inventions of fallen man. GOD slices much more finely than that.

Where did Eve's "evil desire" come from then? Genesis 3:6 depicts this evil desire as existing prior to her sinning.

Eve went through the process James describes in Jam 1:14-15. She was drawn away by the lusts of the flesh and enticed. She "yielded" to those desires instead of ruling over those desires in obedience to God.

Nowhere does the Bible teach that some "sin nature" resulting from the sin of Adam and Eve is passed down from parent to child. Death was passed down due to all sinning. Romans 5:12 does not say sin was passed down due to Adam sinning.

The origin of hereditary sin being expounded in detail has its roots with Augustine. It simply was not taught before that. Some of the Latin Father's (eg. Tertullian) spoke of a "Vice of Origin" but not in the sense of a hereditary sin nature like Augustine taught. Others like Tatian and Origin clearly began incorporating pagan philosophy into Christian thought.

This is why I encourage people to read the Ante-Nicene Father's for themselves as opposed to reading what other people say about the Ante-Nicene Father's. In reading this information one can so clearly see how Christian Orthodoxy began to change within a couple of generations of the Apostles. By the time Augustine came on the scene and the Catholic Church Hierarchy had been developed it was ripe to adopt the dualist notions he inherited from his philosophical past.

The Catholic Church then continued to add sacraments and dogma over the years until the Reformation occurred. Instead of going back to the Patristic Era of the Church the Reformers went right back to Augustine and refined many of his arguments.

Martin Luther in particular grabbed onto Augustine's notions of both inability (bondage of the will) and predestination. It was within this framework that Martin Luther invented this notion of the "Blessed Exchange" as he called it where he taught that the literal track record of Jesus Christ was credited to the believer cloaking the believers actual present state of unrighteousness. This doctrine had NEVER been taught before as far as I can tell. I cannot find anything close to it in earlier church literature.

Thus under this "Blessed Exchange" the premise of the death of Christ cloaking ongoing iniquity was born. Prior to that the Catholic Church had taught a form of infused righteousness which was still limited by the sin nature. So while the Catholic Church had kept the focus on "sacraments" and upholding the "authority" of the "one universal church" it was Martin Luther who really shifted the focus to "trust in dogma." Both systems negated the actual inward transformation wrought by the Spirit of God made effectual by the preaching of repentance and faith which produced a submissive will to God.

Catholics trusted in their church system. Protestants trusted in the legal exchange taught in their dogma. Both denied the manifestation of genuine heart purity in salvation.

Likewise Finney focuses on Holy Living apart from heart purity being wrought because he viewed the "end result" of Perseverance of the Saints within the context of the "Eternal Now" view of God. That is why he would argue in his lectures that David was justified whilst engaged in adultery and murder. So Finney would teach the sin/repent/sin/repent/sin/repent methodology of all the other systems because he did not understand the means of coming clean with God once and for all whereby the heart set on rebellion in a sinner is destroyed once and for all.


There is a an entire system of error deceiving the world today and while many people can perceive aspects or various layers of the deception they do not perceive the entire system in error and thus their underlying construct is still skewed by some leaven. This is why it is so key not depend on theologians at all and seek God as a child in simplicity.

The simplicity of the doctrine according to godliness which produces genuine heart purity in those abiding in Christ very easily undermines the system of error in existence today.

Think carefully about it.

 

[zone]

Jesus Christ, Son of God, God in the flesh will walk through a red light district and may be tempted but will not jump in bed with the hookers.

disgraceful.
goodbye.

 

[Skinski7]

You make some good points. The problem with Cobus' belief though (as I understand it) is that he believes the flesh becomes new, and is unable to sin.

Cobus errs in not understanding repentance. Being imputed righteous by God is not premised upon a perfect knowledge of righteousness, rather it is premised on a heart being in submission to God. Cobus is caught in a rut of "waiting on God" to make Him perfect while he still sins. That is why I have seen him claim he is a child of the devil and not a saint. The danger of his position if that it puts him in the mindset of "waiting upon God to change him" while he perceives that "he is still sinning."

Repentance involves the death of the old man and the destruction of the body of sin once and for all. Rom 6:6 was a colourful way of Paul explaining the repentance experience whereby the root of rebellion is broken once and for all. All that God wants in His children is a broken and contrite spirit whereby they abide in the guiding of His will. That is it, not perfection in everything, just an upright heart. The body of death in Romans 7:24 is a connotation to the Roman practice of chaining the corpse of the deceased to a murderer or enemy combatent until they died. The condemned would be dragging this rotting corpse around with them. Paul used this language to describe the "proclivity to sin" in that it held sinners in extreme bondage. Only the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ (Rom 8:2) could break this bondage. The law could not break it because the law did not address the inward man.

Cobus seems to believe that 1Joh 3:9-10 precludes the "ability" to rebel against God when that is not what it means. Thus Cobus is stuck in a situation where he is waiting on something that will never happen. When 1Joh 3:9-10 speaks of "cannot sin" it is not with the context of "inability" but rather in the context of "cannot sin and abide in Christ at the same time." Thus to rebel against God would be to cast the implanted seed out for one would be rejecting it instead of receiving it. This is the only reasonable understanding of this passage in my due to all the warnings about remaining "steadfast in the faith" even to "babes in Christ who are born again" (see 1Pet ch. 1&2). The new birth is not something that occurs some time down the road, it happens at the BEGINNING of the walk. We then "grow" in grace and knowledge whilst the heart is already in an upright state.

If I walk next to a busy highway I "cannot" jump in front of a truck. Why? because I perceive how destructive and foolish it would be. Likewise when we are in Christ we cannot sin because we perceive how destructive and foolish it would be. Can a husband who truly loves his wife commit adultery on her? Of course not. Yet that does not preclude the actually "capacity" to do so. Can a child of God commit adultery with the world? Of course not yet they still have the capacity to do so.

Cannot sin means we cannot serve two masters.

 

[Stephen63]

disgraceful.
goodbye.

Thought you were already gone? I knew you didn't leave!

 

[Rockbysea]

disgraceful.
goodbye.

You’re saying that Jesus was never tempted by sexual desire and the only example you gave was a red light district. You knew you couldn’t make the same claim using an example of Jesus sitting down in His early 20s in the presence a beautiful woman so you deliberately used the basest example you could come up with. Of course Jesus wouldn’t be tempted to lie with a disease-infested hooker that’s if he would even walk through a red light district. But you deliberately gave that basest of examples to back up a false teaching that contradicts the scripture. You’re the one who’s disgraceful for using deceptive tactics to teach the lie that Christ was not tempted in all points thus unable to sympathize with His true followers. Just like this disgraceful teaching that one can perpetually sin thus repeatedly show contempt for the suffering of Christ and still be saved: Disgraceful teachings can only be deployed by deceptive tactics.

 

[Delija]

Skinsi explain me this:In reading this information one can so clearly see how Christian Orthodoxy began to change within a couple of generations of the Apostles.
What are u talking about ?

 

[zone]

You’re saying that Jesus was never tempted by sexual desire and the only example you gave was a red light district. You knew you couldn’t make the same claim using an example of Jesus sitting down in His early 20s in the presence a beautiful woman

the point of the red light district was apparently lost on you.

Jesus would see all of humanity as on skid row - in the red light district. He came to die for that purpose.
He LOVED...even the prostitutes....your version however is beneath any more comment.

no matter how "beautiful" the woman...she would have been a sinner - not pure - not holy.
a sinner. and there is NEVER a suggestion God needs or desires SEX.

you have no evidence He sat around in His 20s with a nice unmarried pretty girl and was sexually attracted.
even suggesting Emmanuel would be sexually attracted to a sinner is unspeakable.

but you clearly don't understand this. that's alright.

Matthew 5
27"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

ever read it?

 

[zone]

Thought you were already gone? I knew you didn't leave!

you might need professional help with this issue stephen.
really. get a grip. please stop following me around with these weird remarks. - it's creepy.

i insist.
you'll be reported for it from now on.

 

[Rockbysea]

the point of the red light district was apparently lost on you.

Jesus would see all of humanity as on skid row - in the red light district. He came to die for that purpose.
He LOVED...even the prostitutes....your version however is beneath any more comment.

no matter how "beautiful" the woman...she would have been a sinner - not pure - not holy.
a sinner. and there is NEVER a suggestion God needs or desires SEX.

you have no evidence He sat around in His 20s with a nice unmarried pretty girl and was sexually attracted.
even suggesting Emmanuel would be sexually attracted to a sinner is unspeakable.

but you clearly don't understand this. that's alright.

Matthew 5
27"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

ever read it?

You’re simply pulling at straws to back up your claim that contradicts what’s written in the scriptures even to the point where you have to use deceit by saying temptation is equivalent to sin. To be tempted by a woman is not the same thing as looking at a woman with lust for her. Being tempted by a woman is not committing adultery just like being tempted to sin is not committing sin otherwise Christ too would have committed all sins because He was tempted in all points.

The scripture plainly says Jesus was tempted in all the points (all points include sexual temptation) as man is tempted and thus He is able to sympathize with His followers when they are tempted. I don’t need to see more “evidence” than what’s in the scriptures.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Nowhere does the Bible teach that some "sin nature" resulting from the sin of Adam and Eve is passed down from parent to child. Death was passed down due to all sinning. Romans 5:12 does not say sin was passed down due to Adam sinning.

The origin of hereditary sin being expounded in detail has its roots with Augustine. It simply was not taught before that. Some of the Latin Father's (eg. Tertullian) spoke of a "Vice of Origin" but not in the sense of a hereditary sin nature like Augustine taught. Others like Tatian and Origin clearly began incorporating pagan philosophy into Christian thought.

This is why I encourage people to read the Ante-Nicene Father's for themselves as opposed to reading what other people say about the Ante-Nicene Father's.

I don't care what the Ante-Nicene fathers or Augustine thought about hereditary sin. To me it is self-evident. Sin is not doing the will of GOD. Not sinning requires a perfect knowledge of the will of GOD. Adam was separated from GOD, and therefore could not know the will of GOD perfectly. Anything less than perfect obedience constitutes unrighteousness. Adam's children were made in his image, not GOD's image, so by nature it was impossible for them to know the will of GOD perfectly. Therefore, by nature they were unrighteous. Unrighteousness is sin. That doesn't mean they necessarily practiced sin, or were forced to commit sin, but their very nature was not righteous, and by reason of that they were disposed by nature to commit sin. The disposition to commit sin is the inherited sin nature which all men have inherited.

 

[Skinski7]

I don't care what the Ante-Nicene fathers or Augustine thought about hereditary sin. To me it is self-evident. Sin is not doing the will of GOD. Not sinning requires a perfect knowledge of the will of GOD. Adam was separated from GOD, and therefore could not know the will of GOD perfectly. Anything less than perfect obedience constitutes unrighteousness. Adam's children were made in his image, not GOD's image, so by nature it was impossible for them to know the will of GOD perfectly. Therefore, by nature they were unrighteous. Unrighteousness is sin. That doesn't mean they necessarily practiced sin, or were forced to commit sin, but their very nature was not righteous, and by reason of that they were disposed by nature to commit sin. The disposition to commit sin is the inherited sin nature which all men have inherited.

Right there, what I have highlighted in bold, is your undoing.

Due to you believing that "not acting within perfect knowledge" = "sin unto death" means that pretty much EVERYTHING becomes sin. Thus the only solution to such a hopeless state is a forensic imputation of a foreign righteousness which serves to CLOAK this present imperfect state.

God never commanded men to have a perfect knowledge. Jesus commanded perfection in a moral sense.

When Jesus stated...

Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The context was in amongst His teaching on inward righteousness being contrasted to a mere outward form of righteousness. Thus an individual who lusts in their heart is guilty before God even though they may not perform the outward physical act of adultery.

The word for perfect in Mat 5:48 means "complete" within a context of "moral character." It does not mean complete in "perfect knowledge."

G5046 - teleios
From G5056; complete (in various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character, etc.); neuter (as noun, with G3588) completeness: - of full age, man, perfect.

Consider the two main commands of God to men...

Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Deu 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Deu 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

The above is what God requires. He commands us to love Him with the maximum capacity we have and not with a capacity we do not have. None of us have "perfect knowledge" and due to this we will "miss the mark" which is why we are to "grow in the grace an knowledge of Jesus Christ."

Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Where does the Bible teach this...

Not sinning requires a perfect knowledge of the will of GOD.

I could agree with that is you are defining sin as "missing the mark" inclusive of erring in judgment etc. Yet the Bible is very clear in making a distinction between "sin unto death" and "sin not unto death."

1Jn 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
1Jn 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

Sin unto death is rebellion. Sin not unto death is missing the mark. Those whom are born of God do not sin unto death, if they do they are not born of God.





Look at how Jesus contrasted the deeds of those who were the children of the devil to those who were the children of Abraham...

Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

God justified Abraham because of his faith.

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

A state of having one's sins covered and iniquities forgiven.

Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Yet a state of having a spirit without guile and an upright heart. You cannot snip the "no guile" and "upright in heart" from Psalm 32 like all the theologians seem to do. They ignore that part because in their mind everything is positional apart from an actual total heart transformation (to them the heart transformation is an ongoing gradual things that comes later).

Psa 32:1 A Psalm of David, Maschil. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
Psa 32:2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.
...
Psa 32:11 Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, ye righteous: and shout for joy, all ye that are upright in heart.

A faith that walks in the steps of Abraham as opposed to doing the works of the devil.

Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Look at the scriptures above and how clearly it all connects together.

• Faithfulness.
• Upright Heart.
• Spirit without Guile.
• Walks in the Steps of Abraham.
• Loving God with ALL heart, mind and strength.
• Perfected Moral Character.
• Does the Will of God.
• Does Not "Sin unto death"

The above list all applies "in circumcision" and "out of circumcision" for it is not of works but of faith.

Does that make sense? It is very clear to me. Yet this concept is not being taught in the churches due to the "positional" or "abstract" justification taught which has been passed down from Martin Luther.

Martin Luther did not teach that those born of God have upright hearts but instead remain stained by an inward corruption. John Calvin taught the same thing.

The Westminster Confession of Faith does not teach that the heart of a believer is is upright. It teaches a cloak for the remaining inward corruption. It even goes further and teaches that this "remaining inward corruption" leads the believer to engages in vile sins and remaining justified at the same time. That is Satanic doctrine and not the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

Jesus came to save us from our sins. Jesus did not come to save us in our sins and leave us in a corrupted state. Temptation is not sin. Lack of knowledge (unless it is willful) is not sin. Rebellion to God is sin.

"Obedience unto Righteousness" is the OPPOSITE of "Sin Unto Death."

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?

Obedience from the heart sets one free from sin unto death because obedience is the OPPOSITE of rebellion.

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.

Reformed Theology does not teach that. They teach "trust in the finished work of Christ" in order to receive the INIQUITY CLOAKING PACKAGE of a POSITIONAL JUSTIFICATION and then you go through a process of rebelling less and less. That is why the church system, under this deception, is so full of sin.

They don't preach the genuine repentance message and thus the people never "obey from the heart" and are thus never "set free from the service of sin."

The Old Man is NEVER crucifies and the Body of Sin is NEVER destroyed. Thus people go through this life of sin/repent/sin/repent/sin/repent waiting for God to change their heart never understanding that the heart transformation takes place through the repentance experience whereby the rebellion to God ceases once and for all allowing the work of GOd within to be EFFECTUAL because it is not longer being resisted. A repentant sinner WORKS TOGETHER WITH GOD and His grace is not received in vain but works a total transformation of the heart.

HEART PURITY!

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Not sinning requires a perfect knowledge of the will of GOD.

Right there, what I have highlighted in bold, is your undoing.

I ignored the rest of your post because of your faulty understanding of what I meant. Possibly I didn't explain it clearly enough. My point was that in order to be perfectly righteous (with no sin) one must have a perfect knowledge of the will of GOD. Plug that back in and go from there.

 

[jag1977]

That picture looks a bit old to be so colorful

 

[Skinski7]

Reformed Theology sets itself up for a serial murderer to fall back into his old habits of murdering people and yet still remain in a justified state. The murderous acts will bring the displeasure of God and temporal judgments but will not effect the forensic cloak of having been cloaked in the "righteousness of Christ."

Reformed Theologians cannot escape this fallacy of their theology. Reformed Theology cannot teach that any sin (except unbelief) will keep someone out of the kingdom. An individual can still enter the kingdom whilst engaged in all manner of evil behaviour. The heart being made pure in salvation has absolutely nothing to do with their theology, instead it is a distant hope of something that will occur when they are glorified.

Reformed Theologians can only misdirect the exposure of this fallacy by creating strawmen and also by quote mining isolated and out of context proof texts from the Bible.

In truth a serial murderer who legitimately came to Christ through repentance and faith would have completely forsaken his old life. Repentance means "change of mind" and the serial murderer would have changed his mind about sin, righteousness and judgement. This change of mind is what produces obedience to the truth. He would have obeyed from his heart the form of doctrine delivered and thus been set free from the service of sin and now would be a servant of righteousness.

He would be in a yielded state to the grace of God which was teaching him to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly uprightly in the present age. He would know he would have to remain steadfast in the faith, walking according to the Spirit and not subjecting his temple to the vile allure of fleshly passions.

Sure there may be the physical stamp in his brain of various neurological pathways whereby he still has the "urge" to do evil but those "urges" have been crucified in Christ. Thus he would rule over them by the power of the Spirit for he has gone from darkness to light and been raised up with Christ.

Over a period of time his "physical nature" would be rewired as he partakes in the "divine nature." Thus thus the temptation would lessen over time. Reformed Theology on the other hand teaches that the actual "sinning" lessens over time. The truth is that pure hearts don't murder people.

Salvation is not a process of sinning less and less. Salvation is an actual state of having being saved from a state of where one could not stop their sinning. Thus having been saved from sin and been cleansed of sin one can fellowship in truth with God and grows in the grace and knowledge of His ways.

Saints are pure. Sinners are impure.

The professing believers that Jesus rejects at the judgement are workers of iniquity as opposed to being workers of righteousness.

Pro 11:18 The wicked worketh a deceitful work: but to him that soweth righteousness shall be a sure reward.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

There are MANY who will say "Lord, Lord" and yet be utterly SHOCKED that they are rejected for being workers of iniquity. These people bought into a deception which taught them that they could work iniquity and still enter the kingdom. "Ye can sin and not surely die" is the very first lie in the Bible.