Original Sin!

[jimmydiggs]

God's reasons for giving man the Law is 3 fold:

1. To help us understand what God expects from us.

2. To help us understand both the Character and Nature of God.

3. To help us discern the identity of the Messiah (who is Jesus).

When you study at each of the ten commandments, notice how the motivation behind each is SELFLESS. Love they Lord thy God, Do not exalt any other idols, do not take a life of another, honor thy parents, do not covet, do not commit adultery, the list goes on. The very nature of each is selfless, each one being in direct conflict with man's own selfish desires and ambitions, which Paul refers to as "the flesh".

The reason why God says that if we break one we break them all is because to break just one proves that their is selfishness in your heart. Unfortunately for mankind, there is no way that you and can fulfill in and of our own strength. This is why God has given to each believer the Holy Spirit, to lead us and guide into righteousness. If the Holy Spirit truly resides in us then we will manifest the evidences (fruits) of the Spirit being present: peace, love, joy, meekness, tenderness, patience, etc. While Romans 7 reveals to us the depravity of man's nature, Romans 8 reveals to us that we needn't fulfill the lusts of the flesh if we willingly embrace the Divine Nature, letting go of all the bad memories, emotions and desires which tempt the flesh to act our in selfishness.


My definition of sin, which equates with selfishness, has nothing to do with Finney. It was something the Lord Himself placed on my heart regarding the depravity of mankind and the nature of Grace to over come that depravity in our hearts.

Got any verse citations on that? It's nice to know your personal definition of sin. It makes communication easier. I want to know the biblical definition though.

 

[BananaPie]

Is there such a thing as original sin... ?

Well, what does the holy Bible say?

Suppose there were no such things as "original sin." If that were true, then what business would the Lord Jesus have had in quoting the prophet Isaiah regarding:

"The Spirit of Adonai YHWH is upon me; because YHWH hath anointed me to preach good news unto the poor; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to the bound"?
(Luke 4:8 quotes Isaiah 61:1)

If there were no such "original sin," then what does it mean: "liberty to the captives?" What does it mean "opening prison to the bound?"

Or were there "captives" and "brokenhearted" only in Isaiah's time and only in Jesus' time?

Furthermore, what was the reason for the worldwide flood during Noah's time?
"Then YHWH saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And YHWH was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart..." (Genesis 6:5-6)

Therefore, if there were no "original sin," then there would be no "captive," no "heartbroken," no "prisoner," no "wickedness," no "only evil continually," for all of these "original sin" concepts explained in the Holy Word of God would be mere ilusions, rhetorics of God and Isaiah and Jesus and Luke.

...and about Adam & Eve & Cain & Abel... ...and why do you suppose all banks across the world pretty much LOCK the vaults where the money, gold, & precious stones & metals are "safely" kept? ...just sayin'

 

[Scotth1960]

Is there such

a thing.. ?

Not according to Ezekiel chapter 18.

 

[zone]

God's reasons for giving man the Law is 3 fold:

1. To help us understand what God expects from us.

2. To help us understand both the Character and Nature of God.

3. To help us discern the identity of the Messiah (who is Jesus).

My definition of sin, which equates with selfishness, has nothing to do with Finney. It was something the Lord Himself placed on my heart regarding the depravity of mankind and the nature of Grace to over come that depravity in our hearts.

where's the part about all falling short it?

The Law was given a mirror - we are supposed to look into it and see our utter hopelessness without Christ. it is to be preached with the Gospel.
The Law can not save, it was a schoolmaster to lead to Jesus.

it was given as a Rule - a measure (according to God's standards) of what we are to strive for (right and wrong).

The Law was given finally to be fulfilled (every jot and tittle) by Jesus Christ, that His Righteousness under it may be reckoned to our account, while our sin was reckoned to Him.

there's a 3rd use of the Law, for Christians

 

[BananaPie]

When you find this guy, give him my phone number: 1-800-Banana-Pie.

 

[zone]

When you find this guy, give him my phone number: 1-800-Banana-Pie.

LOL BP.
he hangs out here and has a couple brothers.

 

[phil36]

Not according to Ezekiel chapter 18.

And why do you think EZ.18 shows that there is no original sin?

 

[Crossfire]

Got any verse citations on that? It's nice to know your personal definition of sin. It makes communication easier. I want to know the biblical definition though.

Working this weekend, long shifts, my time is limited

However, what was Satan's motivation to rebel? Why did Adam and Eve fall? Why did God flood the world? Why was Sodom destroyed? Why did the priests want Jesus crucified? I could go one for hours...

King Saul, Simon the Sorcerer, Annanias & Saphira, David & Bathsheba, Solomon and the Queen of Sheeba, the list could go on and on.

The root of all sin is selfishness. However if you must have a scripture look no further than 1 John 2: 15 -17

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world -- the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life -- is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever"

 

[tribesman]

sin is selfishness? i thought sin was Biblically defined as transgression of the Law

As you know, enthusiasm and synergism are antinomian by nature, having their own standards of sin and righteousness. Citing God's law won't move these people mindsets an inch. They're somehow above the law, that's how they "keep" it.

Selfishness is certainly still not a good trait, not something we can call the work of God's good pleasure in man. We are to look for the well being of others before ourselves.

Phil.2

[3] Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
[4] Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
[5] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

[13] For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Selfishness is much more than this however. The height of selfishness is to usurp one's own self thinking one can do (if even in the tiniest part) what only God alone can do. Synergism in all its forms is all about self, it is man-centered, self-centered and selfwilled, and therefore self-ish.

Col.2

[18] Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
[19] And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
[20] Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
[21] (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
[22] Which all are to perish with the using ) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
[23] Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

 

[Crossfire]

As you know, enthusiasm and synergism are antinomian by nature, having their own standards of sin and righteousness. Citing God's law won't move these people mindsets an inch. They're somehow above the law, that's how they "keep" it.

Selfishness is certainly still not a good trait, not something we can call the work of God's good pleasure in man. We are to look for the well being of others before ourselves.

Selfishness is much more than this however. The height of selfishness is to usurp one's own self thinking one can do (if even in the tiniest part) what only God alone can do. Synergism in all its forms is all about self, it is man-centered, self-centered and selfwilled, and therefore self-ish.

Me... Antinomian?

*shaking head while laughing very,very hard*

...........

*still laughing*

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

*yup, still laughing*

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

*yup... still....*

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

*trying to compose myself*

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

*nope, still laughing*

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

Ok, ok, I'll try to pull myself together...


How am I supposed to take you guys seriously when when you make wild and unfounded accusations like this one.

Tribesman, I was taking your posts into consideration however, after this one, it's clear that while you might be well spoken, your theological as well as historical credibility....

Let's just say that's it obvious that your opinions are clearly opinion and nothing more.


BTW - thanks for the laugh... no pun intended.

*still laughing*

 

[Crossfire]

Me... Antinomian?

*shaking head while laughing very,very hard*

...........

*still laughing*

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

*yup, still laughing*

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

*yup... still....*

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

*trying to compose myself*

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

*nope, still laughing*

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

Ok, ok, I'll try to pull myself together...


How am I supposed to take you guys seriously when when you make wild and unfounded accusations like this one.

Tribesman, I was taking your posts into consideration however, after this one, it's clear that while you might be well spoken, your theological as well as historical credibility....

Let's just say that's it obvious that your opinions are clearly opinion and nothing more.


BTW - thanks for the laugh... no pun intended.

*still laughing*

Tribesman,

I do apologize for my previous post. It was not my intent to ridicule you however, I can see how it could upset someone.

I should not have posted until until I was thinking more clearly but in all honesty I was laughing pretty hard and got caught up in the moment.

Again, you have my sincerest apologies concerning my actions however, I do stand by my initial statement.

 

[Laodicea]

original sin = selfishness

That is true, the middle letter of sin is 'I', the middle letter of pride is 'I'. Although Adam and Eve were first to sin on this earth Satan sinned before them.
Isaiah 14:12-14
(12) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
(13) For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
(14) I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

 

[tribesman]

Tribesman,

I do apologize for my previous post. It was not my intent to ridicule you however, I can see how it could upset someone.

I should not have posted until until I was thinking more clearly but in all honesty I was laughing pretty hard and got caught up in the moment.

Again, you have my sincerest apologies concerning my actions however, I do stand by my initial statement.

Good (and surprising) that you made this input. ( Maybe shows that sinless perfecionism isn't that easy to attain ) .

One should remember that, if anything, there are a lot of people who read the forum posts here to find answers to their serious questions. So to carefully weigh words and expressions is always to mind.

End of moral preaching. I will reply to the substantial part of your post to me soon.

 

[tribesman]

Me... Antinomian?

Oh, now you are replying to my posts. A post that was not even directly aimed at you. In other threads where I (and others) have made relevant remarks on your posts or have asked you highly relevant questions about your doctrine and beliefs, then these you have escaped. Then you have started several new threads about the very same thing that was already discussed in one or two threads, some of which you quitted, and also whining about "calvinists who want to pick a fight" and similar.

The statement in the post you quoted was a general one. I did not say that you are antinomian, I am yet not sure about that (as said; I have asked about your beliefs a few times, because they are partly still unclear to me). All I get is that you're a synergist. There could indeed have been a clearer remark about synergism and antinomianism in that cited post of mine. Most of synergism is actually more of legalism. However, I believe that most of synergism in the end amounts to the same thing as antinomianism in the sense that it does not fully recognize what the law of God actually says about sin and righteousness. It has, at least in some ways, a different concept of sin and righteousness than God's law, as I have examplified earlier in other posts. A few times I have said that sin can also be justified by perfectionists as well as by libertines, since both will not properly call sin by it's name. This would be the crucial end of the matter.

As for opinions. Well, here goes some of your projections. In another thread you wrote:

...Synergism has become distorted as well. All Syngergism really means is that before God can do a work in a man that man must humble himself, allowing the Holy Spirit to have His way in the life of a person. In laymans terms Synergism means Surrender, nothing more nothing less. The problem occurs when people try to add works into the equation. That's not Synergism, that's legalism.

Clearly, this is nothing but your own opinion. Not theologically or historically valid. Synergism in the theological sense means co-operation between two parties. The result or outcome of same depends upon man's work to positively "co-operate" with God. This work is not necessarily confined to works of the law, but means divinity and humanity working together, each contributing their part to accomplish salvation. This is what synergism means, per definition. Then we are having your posts saying that you "agree" with monergists, when in reality you don't. Do you see the beam in your own eye here?

It's also significant that if you think I am wrong on something, and you think you know what is right on that something, that you are not willing to correct the would-be wrong by showing me and others what is right, which is what would help those erring. As for me, I am open for correction if shown to be wrong, no problem at all, that's only good. I believe it is primarily better to try to help people than to throw pies or resort to argumentum ad hominem.

Finally, this has to be said. It's not me that suggests sinless perfectionism here. I hope you're not one of those who are ever looking for faults and sins in others but who at the same time is blind to find them with yourself.

 

[Crossfire]

Good (and surprising) that you made this input. ( Maybe shows that sinless perfecionism isn't that easy to attain ) .

One should remember that, if anything, there are a lot of people who read the forum posts here to find answers to their serious questions. So to carefully weigh words and expressions is always to mind.

End of moral preaching. I will reply to the substantial part of your post to me soon.

I don't advocate sinless perfection. Never have. Unfortunately that's one of the many lies that a certain Calvinist who seems to have your ear at times like to tell. How she can morally justify in her own behavior and proclaim herself to be a person of integrity and a teacher of truth is beyond me.

However. Seeing as you and this person were commenting on my comment concerning selfishness being the root of all sin, I assumed the comment was being indirectly pointed at me seeing as that's usually how this person operates. I tend to ignore her posts directed towards me seeing as I agree with you that we should hold ourselves to higher standard of moral conduct for the benefit of others. I personally believe that if two people can't discuss their differences in beliefs with letting their emotions get the best of them then they shouldn't converse at all.

Again I apologize for the is misunderstanding. However, the possibility of someone considering me of all people an Antinomian, I found it hilarious seeing as anyone who knows me knows that that nothing could be further from the truth.

Anyways, I look forward to hearing your answer. I can't think of a single Arminian, dead or alive, who's beliefs resemble Antinomianism in the slightest. Then again, I'm not aware of all Arminians either.

 

[Crossfire]

Oh, now you are replying to my posts. A post that was not even directly aimed at you. In other threads where I (and others) have made relevant remarks on your posts or have asked you highly relevant questions about your doctrine and beliefs, then these you have escaped. Then you have started several new threads about the very same thing that was already discussed in one or two threads, some of which you quitted, and also whining about "calvinists who want to pick a fight" and similar.

The statement in the post you quoted was a general one. I did not say that you are antinomian, I am yet not sure about that (as said; I have asked about your beliefs a few times, because they are partly still unclear to me). All I get is that you're a synergist. There could indeed have been a clearer remark about synergism and antinomianism in that cited post of mine. Most of synergism is actually more of legalism. However, I believe that most of synergism in the end amounts to the same thing as antinomianism in the sense that it does not fully recognize what the law of God actually says about sin and righteousness. It has, at least in some ways, a different concept of sin and righteousness than God's law, as I have examplified earlier in other posts. A few times I have said that sin can also be justified by perfectionists as well as by libertines, since both will not properly call sin by it's name. This would be the crucial end of the matter.

As for opinions. Well, here goes some of your projections. In another thread you wrote:



Clearly, this is nothing but your own opinion. Not theologically or historically valid. Synergism in the theological sense means co-operation between two parties. The result or outcome of same depends upon man's work to positively "co-operate" with God. This work is not necessarily confined to works of the law, but means divinity and humanity working together, each contributing their part to accomplish salvation. This is what synergism means, per definition. Then we are having your posts saying that you "agree" with monergists, when in reality you don't. Do you see the beam in your own eye here?

It's also significant that if you think I am wrong on something, and you think you know what is right on that something, that you are not willing to correct the would-be wrong by showing me and others what is right, which is what would help those erring. As for me, I am open for correction if shown to be wrong, no problem at all, that's only good. I believe it is primarily better to try to help people than to throw pies or resort to argumentum ad hominem.

Finally, this has to be said. It's not me that suggests sinless perfectionism here. I hope you're not one of those who are ever looking for faults and sins in others but who at the same time is blind to find them with yourself.

Your idea of synergism is completely foreign to me. Where you obtained this perspective is beyond me because I am very familiar with the Arminian confessions of faith and I yet to hear anything resembling your perspective. Most likely one of the more common misconceptions of Arminianism that Calvinist tend to spread in their conversations against Arminiainism although it could be possible that some Arminians do hold to such a view.

Anyways, I generally don't like to talk about the great Calvinist / Arminian debate because most Calvinists have no idea what Arminians actually believe. I am pretty familiar with Calvinism, the 5 basic points anyways. By no means am I an expert however, I know enough to know when it's being preached.

If you would like to get a geberally idea of understanding what most modern Arminians believe without a slant, check out the the Society of Evangelical Arminians websites. I don't agree with everything that is taught there but I do agree with their 5 basic tenants.

 

[tribesman]

I don't advocate sinless perfection. Never have. Unfortunately that's one of the many lies that a certain Calvinist who seems to have your ear at times like to tell. How she can morally justify in her own behavior and proclaim herself to be a person of integrity and a teacher of truth is beyond me.

Thank you for clearing that up! In fact I have asked you at least once specifically about this, but since you didn't reply and also posted your liking of posts arguably propagating kindred teachings, I interpreted it as you were positive for it. This gives then that I apologize to you for having implied that you believe such, when you don't.

Your idea of synergism is completely foreign to me. Where you obtained this perspective is beyond me because I am very familiar with the Arminian confessions of faith and I yet to hear anything resembling your perspective. Most likely one of the more common misconceptions of Arminianism that Calvinist tend to spread in their conversations against Arminiainism although it could be possible that some Arminians do hold to such a view.

Anyways, I generally don't like to talk about the great Calvinist / Arminian debate because most Calvinists have no idea what Arminians actually believe. I am pretty familiar with Calvinism, the 5 basic points anyways. By no means am I an expert however, I know enough to know when it's being preached.

If you would like to get a geberally idea of understanding what most modern Arminians believe without a slant, check out the the Society of Evangelical Arminians websites. I don't agree with everything that is taught there but I do agree with their 5 basic tenants.

And I have to say that I wonder where you obtained your perspective on same. Various forms of synergism and arminianism would reasonably be another topic. Somewhere a line has to be drawn that defines synergism concisely. What do all synergists have in common, objectively speaking? That at least some part of the ordo salutis is conditioned on the work of man, his faith, his perseverance, prevenient grace, foreknowledge etc. All accepted and academical definitions of the term would imply this. The very word itself would stem from the greek συνεργέω, sunergeo, meaning working together, assisting. Such a thing as a monergistic arminian would be an oxymoron.

 

[zone]

I don't advocate sinless perfection. Never have. Unfortunately that's one of the many lies that a certain Calvinist who seems to have your ear at times like to tell. How she can morally justify in her own behavior and proclaim herself to be a person of integrity and a teacher of truth is beyond me.

However. Seeing as you and this person were commenting on my comment concerning selfishness being the root of all sin, I assumed the comment was being indirectly pointed at me seeing as that's usually how this person operates. I tend to ignore her posts directed towards me seeing as I agree with you that we should hold ourselves to higher standard of moral conduct for the benefit of others. I personally believe that if two people can't discuss their differences in beliefs with letting their emotions get the best of them then they shouldn't converse at all.

Again I apologize for the is misunderstanding. However, the possibility of someone considering me of all people an Antinomian, I found it hilarious seeing as anyone who knows me knows that that nothing could be further from the truth.

Anyways, I look forward to hearing your answer. I can't think of a single Arminian, dead or alive, who's beliefs resemble Antinomianism in the slightest. Then again, I'm not aware of all Arminians either.

"the possibility of someone considering me of all people an Antinomian, I found it hilarious seeing as anyone who knows me knows that that nothing could be further from the truth. "

~

posting continuously on sin/accusing others of antinomiansim (which you do) doesn't make you sinless or holy.

using charismatic corruption of Romans 8 does not make you an elite Christian.

when pressed you claim don't advocate sinless perfection, while at the very same time you uphold constantly (merely reworking, then teaching) the theologies of Wesley and Finney.

if you insist Wesley's teachings are valid, then you agree with Wesley.

#1. No one said you couldn't judge one doctrines. Motives however are a different matter altogether seeing as you don't know them.

#2. By agreeing with the people [who have made the assumptions and accusations] you are basically endorsing their actions.

do you stand by your statement above?
if so, how are my efforts to have you fully disclose the foundation of your beliefs "immoral actions"?

take another look at your post about me: are you judging my "motives?

re: your agrement with Wesley:

what did Wesley say about sinlessness/perfection?

Wesleyan perfectionism, sometimes called entire sanctification, is a view held by John Wesley that taught that Christians could to some degree attain perfection in this life. Wesley described it as,
"...that habitual disposition of the soul which, in the sacred writings, is termed holiness; and which directly implies being cleansed from sin, 'from all filthiness both of flesh and spirit'; and, by consequence, being endued with those virtues which were in Christ Jesus; being so 'renewed in the image of our mind,' as to be 'perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect' (A Plain Account of Christian Perfectionism, p. 12).

Furthermore,
"In this is perfection, and glory, and happiness: the royal law of heaven and earth is this, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.' The one perfect good shall be your one ultimate end" (ibid.). Lastly, perfection is "deliverance from inward as well as from outward sin" (ibid., p. 26) and "a Christian is so far perfect as not to commit sin" (ibid., p. 25).

How one attains perfection

Wesley says that perfection is "spoken of as receivable by mere faith, and as hindered only by unbelief." Moreover, "this faith, and consequently the salvation which it brings, is spoken of as a given in an instant... It is supposed that instant may be now" (ibid., p. 34).

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Wesleyan_perfectionism

this is typical of your approach:

Unfortunately that's one of the many lies that a certain Calvinist who seems to have your ear at times like to tell. How she can morally justify in her own behavior and proclaim herself to be a person of integrity and a teacher of truth is beyond me.

i'm not a calvinist (as i have told many times, yet you persist in calling me a calvinist). being a "4 point calvinist" yourself (while also being wesleyan and arminian?) you ought to know that.

i'm not justifying anything you claim is "immoral": requesting you be precise about what you say today compared to what you said yesterday is not immoral....you've said so yourself:

#1. No one said you couldn't judge one doctrines. Motives however are a different matter altogether seeing as you don't know them.

#2. By agreeing with the people [who have made the assumptions and accusations] you are basically endorsing their actions.

by agreeing with at least one "new" member here who claims sinlessness (amens), do you agree with him?

i'm requesting you get honest about your beliefs and doctrines. your hit-and-run passive-aggressive approach is exactly as above: an accusation of lying about an ever- morphing perfectionist theology when its been posted by you repeatedly (at the very least) by proxy through your foundational theologies wesleyan/finneyean and charismatic doctrines.

you believe in and teach continuation of the foundational offices and gifts (apostle/prophet), and adhere to charismatic theology: so much of it in fact, you've claimed God has used you to rout out "The Spirit of Jezebel" taught by Frances Frangipane:

(from: The Dishonoring of God in Popular Spiritual Warfare Teaching
Refuting the Bad Theology Espoused by Spiritual Warfare Teachers

by Bob DeWaay):​

consider this statement by Francis Frangipane who claims to have sold hundreds of thousands of spiritual warfare books:

The church that successfully wars against Jezebel will be a church that inherits the glorious "morning star," which will be visible outward glory, a symbol of hidden, inward purity. It will be a church that exercises "authority over the nations," uniquely because it has conquered the Jezebel spirit which sought to strip God's servants of authority.14
​

He supposes that the Jezebel in Revelation 2:20 is a spirit being that is currently controlling much of society and the church. Jezebel's principle enemies are modern prophets who are "Elijah" coming in spirit before the coming of the Lord. He states, "Seeing Jezebel so blatantly manifest herself only confirms that the spirit of Elijah is also here bringing repentance and raising up warring prophets throughout our land!"15

In keeping with common dominionist spiritual warfare claims, this assumes that the church throughout history allowed itself and the rest of society to be ruled by Satan's agents, but that now new prophets with new revelations are going to bring us into world dominion.
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue48.htm

again, notice what "Jezebel" according to charismatics is "warring against": modern prophets and apostles who are being "raised up" in the latter days to run the church.

summary: according to crossfire, zone is jezebel because zone denies the continuation of the apostolic office and two-tiered christianity....

I tend to ignore her posts directed towards me seeing as I agree with you that we should hold ourselves to higher standard of moral conduct for the benefit of others.

could please correct clearly once and for all any misunderstanding i have in your belief system(s)?

 

[Crossfire]

"the possibility of someone considering me of all people an Antinomian, I found it hilarious seeing as anyone who knows me knows that that nothing could be further from the truth. "

~

posting continuously on sin/accusing others of antinomiansim (which you do) doesn't make you sinless or holy.

using charismatic corruption of Romans 8 does not make you an elite Christian.

when pressed you claim don't advocate sinless perfection, while at the very same time you uphold constantly (merely reworking, then teaching) the theologies of Wesley and Finney.

if you insist Wesley's teachings are valid, then you agree with Wesley.



do you stand by your statement above?
if so, how are my efforts to have you fully disclose the foundation of your beliefs "immoral actions"?

take another look at your post about me: are you judging my "motives?

re: your agrement with Wesley:

what did Wesley say about sinlessness/perfection?

Wesleyan perfectionism, sometimes called entire sanctification, is a view held by John Wesley that taught that Christians could to some degree attain perfection in this life. Wesley described it as,
"...that habitual disposition of the soul which, in the sacred writings, is termed holiness; and which directly implies being cleansed from sin, 'from all filthiness both of flesh and spirit'; and, by consequence, being endued with those virtues which were in Christ Jesus; being so 'renewed in the image of our mind,' as to be 'perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect' (A Plain Account of Christian Perfectionism, p. 12).

Furthermore,
"In this is perfection, and glory, and happiness: the royal law of heaven and earth is this, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.' The one perfect good shall be your one ultimate end" (ibid.). Lastly, perfection is "deliverance from inward as well as from outward sin" (ibid., p. 26) and "a Christian is so far perfect as not to commit sin" (ibid., p. 25).

How one attains perfection

Wesley says that perfection is "spoken of as receivable by mere faith, and as hindered only by unbelief." Moreover, "this faith, and consequently the salvation which it brings, is spoken of as a given in an instant... It is supposed that instant may be now" (ibid., p. 34).

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Wesleyan_perfectionism

this is typical of your approach:



i'm not a calvinist (as i have told many times, yet you persist in calling me a calvinist). being a "4 point calvinist" yourself (while also being wesleyan and arminian?) you ought to know that.

i'm not justifying anything you claim is "immoral": requesting you be precise about what you say today compared to what you said yesterday is not immoral....you've said so yourself:



by agreeing with at least one "new" member here who claims sinlessness (amens), do you agree with him?

i'm requesting you get honest about your beliefs and doctrines. your hit-and-run passive-aggressive approach is exactly as above: an accusation of lying about an ever- morphing perfectionist theology when its been posted by you repeatedly (at the very least) by proxy through your foundational theologies wesleyan/finneyean and charismatic doctrines.

you believe in and teach continuation of the foundational offices and gifts (apostle/prophet), and adhere to charismatic theology: so much of it in fact, you've claimed God has used you to rout out "The Spirit of Jezebel" taught by Frances Frangipane:

(from: The Dishonoring of God in Popular Spiritual Warfare Teaching
Refuting the Bad Theology Espoused by Spiritual Warfare Teachers

by Bob DeWaay):​

consider this statement by Francis Frangipane who claims to have sold hundreds of thousands of spiritual warfare books:

The church that successfully wars against Jezebel will be a church that inherits the glorious "morning star," which will be visible outward glory, a symbol of hidden, inward purity. It will be a church that exercises "authority over the nations," uniquely because it has conquered the Jezebel spirit which sought to strip God's servants of authority.14
​

He supposes that the Jezebel in Revelation 2:20 is a spirit being that is currently controlling much of society and the church. Jezebel's principle enemies are modern prophets who are "Elijah" coming in spirit before the coming of the Lord. He states, "Seeing Jezebel so blatantly manifest herself only confirms that the spirit of Elijah is also here bringing repentance and raising up warring prophets throughout our land!"15

In keeping with common dominionist spiritual warfare claims, this assumes that the church throughout history allowed itself and the rest of society to be ruled by Satan's agents, but that now new prophets with new revelations are going to bring us into world dominion.
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue48.htm

again, notice what "Jezebel" according to charismatics is "warring against": modern prophets and apostles who are being "raised up" in the latter days to run the church.

summary: according to crossfire, zone is jezebel because zone denies the continuation of the apostolic office and two-tiered christianity....



could please correct clearly once and for all any misunderstanding i have in your belief system(s)?

Consistantly?

Let me grab my time card.... let's see...

If you were to tally my time on this website it would add up to a few hours a few hours a week and they are several weeks when I don't log in at all.

If you would really like to know my opinion of you Zone, why don't just send me a private message and we can work out these issues, I will be more than happy forward all of my responses to one of the mods for accountability purposes if that would make you more comfortable.

Anyways... time to go. Take care everyone.

 

[zone]

Consistantly?

Let me grab my time card.... let's see...

If you were to tally my time on this website it would add up to a few hours a few hours a week and they are several weeks when I don't log in at all.

If you would really like to know my opinion of you Zone, why don't just send me a private message and we can work out these issues, I will be more than happy forward all of my responses to one of the mods for accountability purposes if that would make you more comfortable.

Anyways... time to go. Take care everyone.

um....again, you did not address any of the questions about the foundation of your beliefs so misrepresentation of them can be avoided.

i don't care about your opinion of me crossfire. i care about what we are saying about God's Word and about Christ - the core principles of the Christian faith.

mods? what do they have to do with clarifying your teachings/opinions?
by all means if they know, and that's your choice of communicating them, go for it. a little odd, but ok.