All teachers of truth are seen as dangerous false teachers by those who follow the status quo religiously.
Reviving Biblical Christianity (The Way) Part 2
- Thread starter Episkopos
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Unfortunately Epi, your scheme is based, founded, on self righteousness. That is its foundation. And it does show at times, I have to say.
This is what deceives the church people. God sees our true condition. The only ones who proclaim themselves as being innocent are the self-righteous. When Paul says...found to be sinners...he's talking about believers who want to be justified by Christ IN their sins. Is Jesus a minister of sin? Of course not. In Him is no sin. All who abide in Christ don't sin.
Stubborn sinning is what we see here among those who can't tolerate sound doctrine. I'm trying to save souls here, and people say I'm a false teacher...THAT is willful sin...coming from the carnal man in protection of their enslaved inner man....defending their own perceived saved status.
You have no idea of the depth of this...because you are among them.
Yes...but that outer man is still being trusted by most believers. If people admitted they were failures instead of justifying themselves, then they could be justified as the meek.
Yes, again. But only if we submit ourselves to Christ in the inner man MAKING NO provision for the flesh or self-interest (not to mention ceasing from self-righteousness based on bible verse preferences.)
Carnal people see the ones pointing out their obvious self-righteousness...as being self-righteous just like them. I know you can't see anyone being more than half-right just like you KNOW you are. But your self-righteousness gets in the way of a sound judgment.
A self-righteous person will say that God sees them as righteous because "the bible told me so".
So who told you that you were righteous?
We forgive others BECAUSE we have been forgiven. Otherwise be found as a hypocrite and in danger of once again being unforgiven. See the parable of the servant who was first forgiven his debt then refused to forgive another man his debt....Matt. 18
Episkopos..........unfortunately you're making a hash of so many things that are very simple. The carnal mind is enmity with God and cannot perceive the things of God.
It's too early in the day to think you are speaking from a drunken stupor. But all can see that your brain synapses are misfiring in a major way.
If we only forgive others BECAUSE we have been forgiven then the parable of the unforgiving servant you are using as proof says the exact opposite. ....you have to give the old brain a chance.
Actually the truth is opposite to everything you say. Jesus says we are forgiven only AS WE forgive others...and the parable you cited to twist the truth shows that.
The point is that we are forgiven FIRST and it is from that foundation we are forgiving others. Your brain synapses are firing far too much and therein lies the problem. Read that parable in Matt 18 again since you boast in your reading skills.
Amen. Is that called a false dichotomy or straw man...? Something like that whatever it's called....see it a lot around here. Serpentine for sure. And as Job 41 describes very well, it's scales are its pride shut up like a seal and it is king of children of pride.
Last edited:
That's not how righteousness works. It's about what you do. If you allow the flesh to lead the way...then you sin. If you humble yourself and keep the outer man ...limit his excesses through fear of God...then perhaps God can justify you.
Your new man is enslaved by the outer man...until you are freed at the cross...or gradually weaned from dependence on the ego driven religiosity that stems from the outer man.
MostlyConfused
Well-Known Member
I can't argue with any of that...what will I do if I can't argue with you...lol.
I do think holiness needs to be separated from learning righteousness as it has always been important to God (not mixing wool with linen in the holy of holies) to keep holy things holy.
There's a reason why it is said they tied a rope to the priest who went in there once a year and a reason in the story of Annais and saphira. The reason is to protect us.
Taken from
Guyon claimed that she went through a series of spiritual states by means of her ascetically driven mystical experiences. These are the same type of states that Catholic mystics have always promoted. The first, which she called “union of the powers,” lasted eight years. During this time, she felt drawn to God alone and drawn away from people. The second state, which she called “mystical death,” lasted seven years, during which she had a feeling of detachment from God and was plagued with deep mental depression and thoughts of hell and judgment. She frequently had dark, weird dreams, which she considered a form of revelation. In the third state, which she called “the apostolic state,” she claimed that she was absorbed into and united with God. During this time, she preached, but she did not preach the gospel; she preached mystical experiences.
Run.........
I agree about mixture......but it is our own righteousness that is not holy but common/profane (filthy rags)........and we are learning to submit to the righteousness of God (in us), instead of the old way of seeking to establish our own righteousness.
Yes, the priest had to be clothed in the right garments, not his own everyday garments......or it would lead to death, not life and blessing. There was a lot of preparation needed for him to go into the holy of holies once a year. (The bride or wedding guest is another analogy of the same.)
MostlyConfused
Well-Known Member
I appreciate your warning brother, but honestly I don't know enough about her to know if this is might just be someone else's impression. She might have been using what terminology she could to try and convey what she had experienced...? What she called "union of the powers" I thought was her coming to faith in Christ, being joined to Him, those were just her own words to try and describe it. "Mystical death".......sounds like what some call dark night of the soul where one feels abandoned by God but isn't......"apostolic state" might be what Paul called "you who are spiritual". I think we have to take into account the environment and era she was raised and immersed in.....she wasn't exposed to evangelical protestant way of talking/thinking. If there was an intention to try and turn her experience into a formula or method I believe that would be a mistake (dont' know if she tried to do that or not). Her victory as seen in the poem she wrote while in the dungeon sounded genuine to me, being a middle aged woman living in horrible conditions not conducive to survival.
I haven't felt drawn or had any desire to read anything more of her for the time being. I have Andrew Murray/William Law, Watchman Nee and a little book by Oswald Chambers. Their witness agrees with what the Lord has been showing me so far, and always I am looking to the Lord to try and separate any chaff from the wheat, especially as I'm getting older too.
MostlyConfused
Well-Known Member
Oh, I just realized something. When you read “righteous” you think in your head “self righteous?”
So then we don't establish a righteousness in us so that we can establish a righteousness in us. Makes perfect sense...if you remove any kind of critical thinking.
So then instead of sinning in OUR righteousness we get to sin in GOD'S righteousness? And that's OK because Jesus is sinning instead of us? And that is somehow an improvement that DOESN'T condemn us?
bdavidc
Well-Known Member
- Mar 31, 2025
- 1,391
- 1,505
- 113
- 67
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
Again, you are still trying to make Romans 5 say something Paul does not say. Paul writes, “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life” (Romans 5:9-10).
That is plain. Paul says we are justified by His blood, reconciled to God by His death, and saved by His life. You are taking the last statement and using it to redefine the first two. Paul does not say “justified by His life blood.” He says “justified by his blood,” then immediately connects reconciliation with “the death of his Son.”
You also keep saying Romans 5:10 is about the world being reconciled to God. That is not what the verse says. Paul says, “when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” The subject is “we,” the people he is addressing. You are inserting “the world” into Romans 5:10.
Yes, 2 Corinthians 5:19 says God was in Christ “reconciling the world unto himself.” I am not denying that. But even there Paul immediately says, “be ye reconciled to God” in verse 20. So you cannot turn the statement about the world into universal personal justification or salvation. The provision is there in Christ, but the saving benefit is received by those who are reconciled to God through faith.
Your argument from Hebrews does not prove your distinction either. Yes, Hebrews 9 is contrasting Christ’s sacrifice with the sacrifices under the law. But Hebrews does not say Christ’s shed blood concerns only some corporate category of holiness and not personal forgiveness or redemption. Hebrews 9:12 says Christ entered by His own blood, “having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Verse 14 says His blood purges the conscience from dead works. Verse 15 speaks of “the redemption of the transgressions.” Verse 26 says He appeared “to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Hebrews 10:18 then says, “Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.”
So this separation you are making between Christ’s blood for “holiness” and His life for “justification” is not coming from Hebrews. You are bringing that distinction to the text and then forcing the text to fit it.
You also said, “We will each be judged for justification based on what we did.” Paul directly answers that in Romans 4:5: “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Romans 3:28 says, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”
Yes, Scripture teaches judgment according to works. That does not mean works become the basis of justification before God. Those are not the same thing. Works reveal and demonstrate. They do not become the ground upon which God justifies the ungodly.
And “justification of life” in Romans 5:18 does not mean “justification by resurrection life.” The verse says, “by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” You are changing “of life” into “by life,” while ignoring that Paul has already said in verse 9 that we are “justified by his blood.”
The distinction between Christ’s death and resurrection is biblical. The conclusion you are drawing from that distinction is not. Christ’s resurrection life is essential, but Paul never uses it to cancel his own statement that we are justified by Christ’s blood and reconciled to God by His death.
And calling me unlearned, dishonest, carnal, or unqualified to comment on the Bible does not answer the text. I have given you the words of Paul. You keep replacing them with your own categories.
At this point, this is not just a minor disagreement over wording. You are teaching that Christ’s shed blood does not justify the believer, that justification is based on what a person does, and that Paul’s plain words must be redefined to fit your system. That is false teaching. A man who persists in teaching contrary to the plain words of Scripture is not qualified to present himself as a teacher of biblical truth on a Christian forum.
I do pray that you repent and read what the Bible actually says instead of forcing these passages into your own system. Let us stay with what is written. We are justified by His blood, reconciled by His death, and saved by His life. That is what Romans 5:9-10 says.
What you are missing in all this...besides missing all the nuances between righteousness and holiness...is the LIFE that Paul is speaking about. We are justified by entering into the resurrection life of Jesus. We cannot justify ourselves because Jesus died for the sins of the world not just for us. Jesus takes away the sin of the .......world. (not just church)
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. 1 Tim. 4:10
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. Heb 2:9
Had it said...and Jesus died for the sins of the church...that would make your argument make more sense. But who is the one applying a universal reconciliation to individuals? Religious claimers? No one can justify themselves before God. The very reason why Jesus is God's Lamb and not OUR Lamb is because God only decides who is righteous. So you have a whole religious movement based on ACCEPTING for themselves what is meant for all...and deciding for themselves that the reconciliation only applies to them? God will surely reject those people as Pharisees.
Similar threads
