Reformed Theology - Penal Substitution and the Imputed Righteousness of Christ

[SarahM777]

My comments in Red


now who is talking out of both sides of his mouth?

2Co 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

Did you even read this within the context of the passage?

2 Corinthians 7

[SUP]8[/SUP]Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while—[SUP]9 [/SUP]yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us.[SUP]10 [/SUP]Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.[SUP]11 [/SUP]See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done. At every point you have proved yourselves to be innocent in this matter.[SUP]12 [/SUP]So even though I wrote to you, it was neither on account of the one who did the wrong nor on account of the injured party, but rather that before God you could see for yourselves how devoted to us you are.[SUP]13 [/SUP]By all this we are encouraged.

Paul is referring to the sorrow that was produced by his letter. Quit being so quick to point out others taking things out of context when you yourself do the very same thing.

 

[Ariel82]

what you don't answer skinski is WHY do people sell themselves into Satan's control by sinning?

and is there anyone beside Jesus who did NOT sin?

why were they not able to keep from sinning?

the state people are in before being saved is totally depraved.

it is only through the HOLY SPIRIT and His leading that anyone is able to do good works.

that is basic teachings of Christianity.

to teach that people are able to do good WITHOUT God is a lie.

 

[mark54]

Although I have repeatedly asked Skinski what he believes the following scripture means to him, he has thus far constantly refused to reply. If he does not know, he cannot understand the new covenant, and hence he writes what he does:

The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: [SUP]16 [/SUP]“This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”[SUP][b][/SUP]

[SUP]17 [/SUP]Then he adds:
“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”[SUP][c][/SUP]

 

[Ariel82]

mark i've seen him answer that one. the stress would be on their PAST sins and lawless acts.

 

[zone]

Reported again? I must get under your skin.

because you're an heretic, and a liar - about your own history and walk and conversion.
simple.

you're supposed to get under my skin - false teachers are to be POINTED OUT.
that's you.

but today i'll take the day and post all your own stuff.
then the Mods and Admin of this site can decide.

let's see if you're capable of answering a single critical question askd of you: do you claim to be without sin?

and followup question: have you confessed any sin since your saved date?

should be really straight forward:

you claim you're pure and without sin.
right?

1 John 1:8
New International Version (©1984)
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

English Standard Version (©2001)
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
If we say, "We have no sin," we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.


no need to confess your sins, right?
i assume you haven't confessed any sin since your saved date.
would that be correct?
it has to be for you to be consistent.

please answer.
briefly.

Ephesians 2:3 does not say BORN.

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Nature in the Greek is this...

Nature - G5449 -phusis
From G5453; growth (by germination or expansion), that is, (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension a genus or sort; figuratively native disposition, constitution or usage: - ([man-]) kind, nature ([-al]).

Paul also wrote this...

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Nature can go either way. A human being is not born wicked, that is a false teaching. Human beings are born in an ignorant state subject to the passions of the flesh but God imbues all people with the light of conscience.

Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

People SELL themselves into the bondage of sin when they CHOOSE to suppress the light and yield to unrighteousness.

Isa_52:3 For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.

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?

Thus the NATURE of Ephesians 2:3 is a nature which has developed over the continued action of practicing sin. Sinful action hard wires itself into the brain because sin brings pleasure and the neuro-transmitters fire off.

God designed us to become addicted to him as opposed to becoming addicted to sin. God wants us to be slaves of righteousness and not slaves of sin. We get to CHOOSE this day whom we will serve.

When we yield to God from the heart God empowers us and quickens our MORTAL BODY as we become ADDICTED to God.

Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

1Co 16:15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

Ordain/Addicted -G5021 -tassō
A prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); to arrange in an orderly manner, that is, assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot): - addict, appoint, determine, ordain, set.

Your fallacy is that you don't see NATURE as going both ways. In your mind human nature is ONLY EVIL. Yet Paul uses the SAME WORD to describe DOING THE RIGHT THING.

A Christian is to partake in the DIVINE NATURE having ESCAPED the corruption of lust. When one is in bondage to lust it renews the nature to evil.

2Pe 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Dig into these things.

nope.
unable to answer the single question i put to you:

do you claim to be without sin.

the CONDITION for walking in the light is confessing sin, and being cleansed (however infrequently we sin).

claiming sinlessness is heresy.

you are an heretic.

 

[zone]

This is what I see:

Skinski: repent (turn from the darkness).
Zone: grace (we are free in Christ).

I see two different people preaching what they have been delivered from.

I went to college and had my belief almost destroyed. So, I was shown that error. I now preach God is real to those I once was of. It seems we all preach to those we once were of.

please don't connect me with Skinski.
he's not a christian.

 

[mark54]

mark i've seen him answer that one. the stress would be on their PAST sins and lawless acts.

I have never seen him answer what is his understanding of the Holy Spirit writing God's laws on our hearts and minds, maybe he has, but he has not directly responded to me on that point,

 

[zone]

1Jn 2:9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. If you don't love then you are in darkness. Love fulfills the law. If you love you won't hate your brother and therefore you won't willfully sin against Him.
1Jn 2:10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.

lucky for you you only have 48 brothers (or however many your cult has) on planet earth.
that allows you to hate all those others you guys are working to undermine.

so that's technically not sin.

as for stumbling, if i lose contact with this kid who is despairing (extreme) as a DIRECT result of your posts, you are responsible.
and i turn you over to God.

 

[Ariel82]

oh come now Zone he has the lesser sin that isn't unto death kind, not that sin unto death kind.....

its everyone else who has that sin unto death kind and says its ok.. ...

cuz they can't have that lesser sin not unto death kind or be talking about that......

 

[mark54]

oh come now Zone he has the lesser sin that isn't unto death kind, not that sin unto death kind.....

its everyone else who has that sin unto death kind and says its ok.. ...

cuz they can't have that lesser sin not unto death kind or be talking about that......

Then he condemns himself according to his understanding of 1John3:9

 

[cfultz3]

please don't connect me with Skinski.
he's not a christian.

Sorry about that. I thought you wanted to know why I see things the way I do.

 

[SarahM777]

Skinski,

Do you do this?

1 John 5

[SUP]16[/SUP]If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death.I am not saying that you should pray about that. [SUP]17 [/SUP]All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.


In Jesus own words

Matthew 12

[SUP]30 [/SUP]“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. [SUP]31 [/SUP]And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. [SUP]32 [/SUP]Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Do you pray for the brothers and sisters who commit a sin? If not then how can you say you love the Lord?

1 John 4

[SUP]19 [/SUP]We love because he first loved us.[SUP]20 [/SUP]Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. [SUP]21 [/SUP]And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.

 

[zone]

HERE'S SOME GUILT BY ASSOCIATION: apparently it's NOT sin:

"Criticism of the Doctrines of Original Sin and Atonement:

The doctrine of Original Sin (or Total Depravity or Total Inability) is central to Christianity. On top of this doctrine a whole bunch of other doctrines were developed. Without Original Sin, humans are free from eternal sin and there would be no need for Jesus to be crucified in order to save them, and the doctrine of Atonement becomes unnecessary. Thus, without Original Sin, the whole system of Christian beliefs would fall apart.

The net is full with websites and articles that expose the absurdity of Original Sin and Atonement. Titles 1-7 in this selection discuss Original Sin, and titles 8-14 discuss Atonement.

1- The Great Myth, Original Sin. (from the MYSTICA.ORG)
2- Myth of Original Sin; by: Mike Desario (Standing the Gap)
3- Are Men Born Sinners; by: A. T. Overstreet.

1- The Great Myth, Original Sin. (from the MYSTICA.ORG)

the MYSTICA

There are over 890 articles presented. Initially this volume seemed small to other on-line encyclopedias, but the encyclopedia's objectives are not small, they still are universal. The first objective is to objectively describe past and present ideas, concepts, beliefs, and practices in the worlds of the occult, mysticism and paranormal. By doing this, the MYSTICA hopes to achieve its second objective, which is to educate. To many people the regions of the occult and mysticism are strange, and often even thought to be sinister. But when the truth about these phenomena is revealed they are usually seen and understood differently. Also the practitioners of such phenomena may be seen differently too. They usually appear to be ordinary people holding different ideas.


2- Myth of Original Sin; by: Mike Desario (Standing the Gap)



..............................................



3- Are Men Born Sinners; by: A. T. Overstreet.

Are Men Born Sinners?
by A. T. Overstreet
Chapter 10

JESUS WAS A MAN

If the doctrine of original sin is true, one of two things must be true: either Jesus was born a sinner, or he was not a man. Now, the Bible is clear on both points. Jesus was a man, and he was without sin. We know, therefore, that the doctrine of original sin cannot be true. It is a myth and a lie.

John denounced those who denied that Jesus came in the flesh as deceivers and antichrists. What does it mean to deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh? It means to deny that Jesus was a man, with a flesh and blood body like other men. Are there any people today who deny that Christ has come in the flesh? Yes, all those who believe in the doctrine of the sinfulness of human flesh must either believe that Christ, who came in human flesh, was born a sinner or they must deny that he came in the flesh.

from:

The COMPLETE WORKS of
CHARLES G. FINNEY

Charles G. Finney 1792-1875

The GOSPEL TRUTH of God's Character, Law, Government and Gospel < click

Overstreet: ""the one great problem of original sin is that it clashes with man's irresistible convictions of justice""

^ could it get any clearer?

idolatry.

................................

ANYBODY WANT TO EXAMINE CHARLES FINNEY'S TEACHINGS?
DeSario and the Gappers like him.

 

[Ariel82]

Jesus saves people FROM their sin. He does not save people IN ther sin. There is no salvation IN sin.

Saints are not sinners.

then why does the Bible says that Jesus died for us sinners?

I don't think we should remain sinners but we were saved when we were sinners. We were saved while we were in sin and God takes us OUT and cleanses us of our sins. Yes He saves us FROM our sins but we were IN our sin when He reached out and found us. when He caused us to have godly sorrow and repent. you think God only works after you repent, but we know that God is the one who caused the sorrow that lead to repentance in the first place. it was GOD who does this.

1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.


Saints are not sinners, but do saints sin? (those sins that do not lead unto death?)

 

[SarahM777]

3- Are Men Born Sinners; by: A. T. Overstreet.

Are Men Born Sinners?
by A. T. Overstreet
Chapter 10

JESUS WAS A MAN

If the doctrine of original sin is true, one of two things must be true: either Jesus was born a sinner, or he was not a man. Now, the Bible is clear on both points. Jesus was a man, and he was without sin. We know, therefore, that the doctrine of original sin cannot be true. It is a myth and a lie.

John denounced those who denied that Jesus came in the flesh as deceivers and antichrists. What does it mean to deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh? It means to deny that Jesus was a man, with a flesh and blood body like other men. Are there any people today who deny that Christ has come in the flesh? Yes, all those who believe in the doctrine of the sinfulness of human flesh must either believe that Christ, who came in human flesh, was born a sinner or they must deny that he came in the flesh.

from:

The COMPLETE WORKS of
CHARLES G. FINNEY

Charles G. Finney 1792-1875

The GOSPEL TRUTH of God's Character, Law, Government and Gospel < click

Overstreet: ""the one great problem of original sin is that it clashes with man's irresistible convictions of justice""

^ could it get any clearer?

idolatry.

................................

ANYBODY WANT TO EXAMINE CHARLES FINNEY'S TEACHINGS?
DeSario and the Gappers like him.

UMMM,

Doesn't that leave out Jesus virgin birth,in which Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not by a man?

 

[zone]

ANYBODY WANT TO EXAMINE CHARLES FINNEY'S TEACHINGS?
DeSario and the Gappers like him.

here's DeSario on Finney:

Let us Investigate the example of Charles Finney, an 1800’s famous Revival Evangelist who rejected the Doctrine of Original Sin, Preached Repentance and Obedience to the Faith. Thundered against unrighteousness and shocked the church system of his day to its core. Many today Still consider him a heretic for rejecting original sin, but Many others who despise the Cheap and easy Gospel of modern times refer to him with great regard and are Convinced he preached a holiness message based on Conditional Security. Yet such is NOT the Case.

Perseverance of the Saints < click


if you can handle it, read through this incoherent and self-serving diatribe.
this is how the Gappers do it.

they cobble together heresies from the heretics; then reject anything remotely close to The True Gospel.

they LIKE this about Finney:

"who rejected the Doctrine of Original Sin, Preached Repentance and Obedience to the Faith. Thundered against unrighteousness and shocked the church system of his day to its core. Many today Still consider him a heretic for rejecting original sin, but Many others who despise the Cheap and easy Gospel of modern times refer to him with great regard and are Convinced he preached a holiness message based on Conditional Security."

but can not stand anything remotely resembling Justification By Grace Through Faith in Christ alone; Imputed Righteousness, or ANY Biblical understanding of the Atonement.

so, they have to jettison even the heretic Finney....but only parts of him.

what's laughable is that DeSario has NO clue WHY Finney 'appeared' to be 'double-minded'!

 

[zone]

2- Myth of Original Sin; by: Mike Desario (Standing the Gap)

"Criticism of the Doctrines of Original Sin and Atonement:

The doctrine of Original Sin (or Total Depravity or Total Inability) is central to Christianity. On top of this doctrine a whole bunch of other doctrines were developed. Without Original Sin, humans are free from eternal sin and there would be no need for Jesus to be crucified in order to save them, and the doctrine of Atonement becomes unnecessary. Thus, without Original Sin, the whole system of Christian beliefs would fall apart.

The net is full with websites and articles that expose the absurdity of Original Sin and Atonement. Titles 1-7 in this selection discuss Original Sin, and titles 8-14 discuss Atonement.

1- The Great Myth, Original Sin. (from the MYSTICA.ORG)
2- Myth of Original Sin; by: Mike Desario (Standing the Gap)
3- Are Men Born Sinners; by: A. T. Overstreet.
4- Changing Conception of Original Sin; by: Shelton Smith, 1955.
5- Sources of Doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin; by: F. R. Tennant, 1903.

5- Sources of Doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin; by: F. R. Tennant, 1903.

Frederick Robert Tennant, (born Sept. 1, 1866, Burslem, Staffordshire, Eng.—died Sept. 9, 1957, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire), English philosophical theologian, a powerful apologist with a wide range of interests who essayed a harmony of science and religion within an empirical approach to theology.

Tennant studied science at Caius College, Cambridge, and was ordained while teaching science at Newcastle-under-Lyme High School (1891–94), becoming lecturer in theology and fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1913.

In four early books Tennant discussed the concepts of sin (1902, 1912), the fall (1903), and miracles (1925). In the first volume (1928) of his chief work, Philosophical Theology, Tennant shows himself temperamentally and philosophically unsympathetic to mysticism and argues that justification of the claims of religious experience to reveal God requires an independently established theism, derived by a “laborious ascent” from such knowledge about the self and the world as is supplied by epistemology, psychology, and the natural sciences. Volume II (1930) describes this ascent and gives Tennant’s version of the argument from design. His bold endeavour to combine scientific and theological thinking was, however, overtaken by developments within both empirical philosophy and theology, where, on different grounds, claims for the reasonableness of Christianity were soon to be condemned.

 

[zone]

UMMM,

Doesn't that leave out Jesus virgin birth,in which Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not by a man?

Overstreet's/DeSario's & Skinski's error (in this single case)

"John denounced those who denied that Jesus came in the flesh as deceivers and antichrists. What does it mean to deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh? It means to deny that Jesus was a man, with a flesh and blood body like other men. Are there any people today who deny that Christ has come in the flesh? Yes, all those who believe in the doctrine of the sinfulness of human flesh must either believe that Christ, who came in human flesh, was born a sinner or they must deny that he came in the flesh."

see.....for them it's about THE FLESH.
duh
that's what they can't get their heads around.

 

[zone]

Point 4.
Penal Substitution denies that God forgives sins. It teaches that sin is a literal transferable property and that God literall transferred sin 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. Thus the sins are not actually forgiven they were simply transferred to another and still punished.

This in and of itself paints God as unjust due to punishing an innocent in order to excuse the guilty.

would anyone other than the OP please defend this doctrine?

does orthodox Christian doctrine say God is unjust due to punishing an innocent in order to excuse the guilty?

please explain this.

 

[zone]

It is clearly evident that Jesus did not bear the literal penalty due the wicked.

did Jesus bear the penalty for the sins of mankind or not?