Reviving Biblical Christianity (The Way) Part 2

[bdavidc]

Unlike people here, I don't claim to be righteous. When I speak of the righteous I'm speaking of the meek of the earth. I am just an unprofitable servant.

Let’s use your own words so there is no confusion. In post #1,904 you said you had walked in holiness in the kingdom realm “without sin for extended periods of time.” In post #1,914 you said, “I don't expect many to understand the higher walk in holiness,” and then complained about people “condemning the righteous.”

You plainly claimed extended periods of sinlessness and spoke of this “higher walk in holiness” as something others do not understand. And that is exactly why your claims are being tested by Scripture.

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).

Your own posts are right there. You cannot deny what you actually wrote.

 

[ProDeo]

I agree with you. That is exactly the issue I am trying to get at. You cannot separate justification from the cross as though Christ’s death were somehow secondary to His life. Scripture says plainly, “being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him” (Romans 5:9).

And you are right about the Old Testament saints. Romans 4 uses Abraham and David specifically to show that God “justifieth the ungodly” through faith and “imputeth righteousness without works” (Romans 4:5-6). Their works were evidence of faith, but their works were never the basis of their justification.

I also agree that nobody should treat grace lightly or presume upon God’s mercy. But the answer to that problem is not to blur justification by faith with justification by works. Paul leaves no room for that: “if by grace, then is it no more of works” (Romans 11:6).

That is why Epi’s statement that justification comes from Christ’s life “not His death” is so serious. Scripture does not give us that option. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22), and without the cross there is no resurrection life for us to walk in.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

And / And situation, both are true, meaning :

Through the blood of Christ justification is made possible by faith.

 

[ProDeo]

I am talking to you as one who has walked in holiness in the kingdom realm without sin for extended periods of time ...and you are trying to correct me on the finer points of bible exegesis? I speak in understatements here even as people attack me with rebelliously inflated egos.

1Cor 1:31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

 

[bdavidc]

People don't seem to realize that they are lending you credit the more they relentlessly criticize. By being so determined, they're silently acknowledging you as a threat. That and so many notifications going to your thread reminding me of your content.

That's why they say there's no such thing as bad press.

That's just one reason why there's wisdom in a one-time sharp rebuke or correction versus doing so repeatedly.

TitusTwoWife, this is where I strongly disagree with you.

Yes, there comes a point when you stop arguing with the false teacher personally. But Scripture does not say, “Then leave him alone and let him keep teaching everybody else.”

Paul says false teachers are “teaching things which they ought not” and that “their mouths must be stopped” (Titus 1:11). Titus 3:10 says, “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.” Romans 16:17 says to “mark them” and “avoid them.”

On an internet forum, the modern word for removing someone’s ability to keep publicly spreading destructive doctrine is ban. The Bible does not use the word “ban” because internet forums did not exist. That does not make the principle unclear.

If a man keeps teaching another gospel after repeated correction, and the people responsible for a Christian forum have the authority to stop it, then ban him.

Do not tell the people exposing the false teaching to be quiet while allowing the false teacher to keep the microphone.

That is backwards.

If this is going to be called a Christian forum, then protect the truth of the gospel and protect the people reading it. “If any man preach any other gospel unto you...let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:9).

 

[Hepzibah]

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).

I will answer this one, but note, I am not about to enter debate with you as 1) I do not wish to argue 2) I am unwell atm.

Some use this verse – if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves 1 John 8, to justify their position but they are taking it out of context as John 1 was written to counteract heresy. The Latin version says “Epistle to the Pathians” adopted by Ancient Fathers, defended by Grotius, not in Greek. Whoton conjectures on the Greek superscription (to virgins) because the letter was addressed to 'uncorrupted Christians' therefore holy ones. John was warning those who were in danger of hearing Zorostrian principles and therefore Gnosticism which taught that man could be righteous in spirit and still sin in the flesh, which is nowadays recognised as imputed righteousness which has been refuted by holiness preacher George Fox of the early Quakers.

The basis of this error that a man can sin and still be in Christ, was made popular and was spread through the church by Augustine, when he changed his doctrine in dispute with Pelagius and the early Christians, to an unheard of rendition that made Romans 7 to be the normal experience of a believer. 1 John 1:6,7 say that if we say we have fellowship with Him ans walk in darkness, we lie and do not the truth, but if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from ALL sin. He continues, If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness. 8,9.

We can see that John is comparing walking in the light to walking in darkness that is to say walking in the flesh compared to walking in the Spirit. He is describing two opposing states which corresponds perfectly with the teaching of the Apostle Paul when he talks about carnal or fleshy believers against those walking in the Spirit or Spirit filled.

The benefits of walking in the Spirit are:

1)we have fellowship with one another
2)by confessing our sin we are forgiven
3)we will then be cleansed by the blood of Jesus from all unrighteousness.

However if we walk in the flesh and sin we are deceived and are blind to our need to come to Christ for His cleansing from ALL sin as are those today who are misled by Gnosticism by preachers of positional righteousness. John corrects that fallacy by saying Little children let no man deceive you, he that doeth righteousness is righteous even as He is righteous 3:7. This is the test, we must not be in just a position of righteousness and depend on coming to Christ in the past for forgiveness, but must be in the present reality, must be like Christ and walking in perfect obedience through the power of the Holy Spirit.

But whoso keepeth His word, in Him verily is the love of God perfected 2:5
My little children, these things I write unto you that ye sin not 2:1
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin 3:9.

 

[TitusTwoWife]

TitusTwoWife, this is where I strongly disagree with you.

Yes, there comes a point when you stop arguing with the false teacher personally. But Scripture does not say, “Then leave him alone and let him keep teaching everybody else.”

Paul says false teachers are “teaching things which they ought not” and that “their mouths must be stopped” (Titus 1:11). Titus 3:10 says, “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.” Romans 16:17 says to “mark them” and “avoid them.”

On an internet forum, the modern word for removing someone’s ability to keep publicly spreading destructive doctrine is ban. The Bible does not use the word “ban” because internet forums did not exist. That does not make the principle unclear.

If a man keeps teaching another gospel after repeated correction, and the people responsible for a Christian forum have the authority to stop it, then ban him.

Do not tell the people exposing the false teaching to be quiet while allowing the false teacher to keep the microphone.

That is backwards.

If this is going to be called a Christian forum, then protect the truth of the gospel and protect the people reading it. “If any man preach any other gospel unto you...let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:9).

We can't ban everyone accused of false teaching here. No one would be left. This forum was designed to be a place of free discussion provided certain doctrines are upheld.

You are free to do what you're doing as long as its on topic and he is free to discuss things pertaining to doctrine too.

I would never suggest heated debate and discussion be disallowed. I doubt the wisdom of repeated rebukes and quarrelsomeness but thats only my personal appeal, not me wearing my staff hat.

 

[Episkopos]

We can't ban everyone accused of false teaching here. No one would be left. This forum was designed to be a place of free discussion provided certain doctrines are upheld.

You are free to do what you're doing as long as its on topic and he is free to discuss things pertaining to doctrine too.

I would never suggest heated debate and discussion be disallowed. I doubt the wisdom of repeated rebukes and quarrelsomeness but thats only my personal appeal, not me wearing my staff hat.

When a religious ego gets so inflated that they have to be confirmed in every opinion or else a tantrum ensues...maybe such a person isn't mature enough to have an adult conversation.

Just say no to drugs...

 

[Episkopos]

We see how an imbalanced doctrine gets hold of imbalanced people in a powerful way. Schizophrenics often spew the modern evangelical doctrines because the doctrines themselves are already schizophrenic. With the dumbing down of society comes the instability of modern evangelicalism....promising money, riches, and glory.

But people don't notice the correlation between such things. The DEI movement in society is just a reflection of the rebellion against the kingdom of God being a meritocracy. In a meritocracy what is worthy of elevation gets elevated. In the modern church and the society that springs from it...people want an egalitarian outcome regardless of whether one is approved by God or not. So God has left us to a reprobate mind that divides the church into myriads of denominations based on our religious appetites. But no one is hungry for the truth.

 

[Grailhunter]

For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26:28

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, Ephesians 1:7

Whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. Roman 3:25

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. Romans 5:9

Knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. 1st Peter 1:18-19

How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Hebrews 9:14

So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Hebrews 13:12

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 1st John 1:7

And from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood Revelation 1:5

I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Revelation 7:14

 

[Episkopos]

TitusTwoWife, this is where I strongly disagree with you.

Yes, there comes a point when you stop arguing with the false teacher personally. But Scripture does not say, “Then leave him alone and let him keep teaching everybody else.”

Paul says false teachers are “teaching things which they ought not” and that “their mouths must be stopped” (Titus 1:11). Titus 3:10 says, “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.” Romans 16:17 says to “mark them” and “avoid them.”

On an internet forum, the modern word for removing someone’s ability to keep publicly spreading destructive doctrine is ban. The Bible does not use the word “ban” because internet forums did not exist. That does not make the principle unclear.

If a man keeps teaching another gospel after repeated correction, and the people responsible for a Christian forum have the authority to stop it, then ban him.

Do not tell the people exposing the false teaching to be quiet while allowing the false teacher to keep the microphone.

That is backwards.

If this is going to be called a Christian forum, then protect the truth of the gospel and protect the people reading it. “If any man preach any other gospel unto you...let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:9).

An imbalanced doctrine from an imbalanced mind....and back to more imbalanced reasoning. There is a perfect symmetry here...but God is not in it.

 

[Episkopos]

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

And / And situation, both are true, meaning :

Through the blood of Christ justification is made possible by faith.

Yes. By grace through faith. The justification of an eternal life...by a resurrection life that is IN Him.

But nobody understands the significance of this here...and how far and how deep that goes.

People here read the verses and claim them from a carnal religious desire to make them to be speaking of a sinful human that is interested in justifying himself....like any Pharisee would.

So faith is reduced to a dogmatic belief. Blood is reduced to a dead corpse. And justification is seen as something that can be imputed to oneself. Why? Because ...♪ the bible tells me so ♪.

 

[bdavidc]

We can't ban everyone accused of false teaching here. No one would be left. This forum was designed to be a place of free discussion provided certain doctrines are upheld.

You are free to do what you're doing as long as its on topic and he is free to discuss things pertaining to doctrine too.

I would never suggest heated debate and discussion be disallowed. I doubt the wisdom of repeated rebukes and quarrelsomeness but thats only my personal appeal, not me wearing my staff hat.

I agree that you cannot ban everyone who is merely accused of false teaching. That is not what I am arguing.

There is a huge difference between disagreement over secondary doctrine and a man repeatedly teaching something that corrupts the gospel after the error has been plainly shown from Scripture. Paul did not say tolerate that indefinitely in the name of discussion. He said, “whose mouths must be stopped” because they were “teaching things which they ought not” (Titus 1:11).

And I agree that Scripture warns against being quarrelsome. “The servant of the Lord must not strive” (2 Timothy 2:24). But the same Bible tells Titus to “rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13), and Jude says we are to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 3).

So I am not arguing that everybody who disagrees with me should be banned. I am saying that if a forum has certain doctrines that must be upheld, especially the gospel itself, then at some point those standards have to mean something.

Free discussion is one thing. Giving persistent false teaching an unlimited platform is another.

So my question is simple: how far does someone have to go before the forum finally says, “That crosses the line,” and bans them?

And why do you believe God will not hold those responsible who knowingly give a man a Christian platform to keep teaching people a false gospel? Where would I find that in the Bible?

James 3:1 warns that teachers “shall receive the greater condemnation.” If the gospel itself is being corrupted, at what point does protecting “free discussion” become allowing error to keep spreading?

Just curious.

 

[MostlyConfused]

TitusTwoWife, this is where I strongly disagree with you.

Yes, there comes a point when you stop arguing with the false teacher personally. But Scripture does not say, “Then leave him alone and let him keep teaching everybody else.”

Paul says false teachers are “teaching things which they ought not” and that “their mouths must be stopped” (Titus 1:11). Titus 3:10 says, “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.” Romans 16:17 says to “mark them” and “avoid them.”

On an internet forum, the modern word for removing someone’s ability to keep publicly spreading destructive doctrine is ban. The Bible does not use the word “ban” because internet forums did not exist. That does not make the principle unclear.

If a man keeps teaching another gospel after repeated correction, and the people responsible for a Christian forum have the authority to stop it, then ban him.

Do not tell the people exposing the false teaching to be quiet while allowing the false teacher to keep the microphone.

That is backwards.

If this is going to be called a Christian forum, then protect the truth of the gospel and protect the people reading it. “If any man preach any other gospel unto you...let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:9).

That woman did NOT tell you to be quiet. She very gently and humbly brought up a consideration. You are severely out of control.

 

[marks]

People don't seem to realize that they are lending you credit the more they relentlessly criticize.

To anyone who is paying attention, they will see that the reality is not giving anyone more credit, but they are showing the Scriptures which show him false.

This isn't about personalities. It's about Biblical Truth. That is what is being stood for.

Much love!

 

[Hepzibah]

I agree that you cannot ban everyone who is merely accused of false teaching. That is not what I am arguing.

There is a huge difference between disagreement over secondary doctrine and a man repeatedly teaching something that corrupts the gospel after the error has been plainly shown from Scripture. Paul did not say tolerate that indefinitely in the name of discussion. He said, “whose mouths must be stopped” because they were “teaching things which they ought not” (Titus 1:11).

And I agree that Scripture warns against being quarrelsome. “The servant of the Lord must not strive” (2 Timothy 2:24). But the same Bible tells Titus to “rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13), and Jude says we are to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 3).

So I am not arguing that everybody who disagrees with me should be banned. I am saying that if a forum has certain doctrines that must be upheld, especially the gospel itself, then at some point those standards have to mean something.

Free discussion is one thing. Giving persistent false teaching an unlimited platform is another.

So my question is simple: how far does someone have to go before the forum finally says, “That crosses the line,” and bans them?

And why do you believe God will not hold those responsible who knowingly give a man a Christian platform to keep teaching people a false gospel? Where would I find that in the Bible?

James 3:1 warns that teachers “shall receive the greater condemnation.” If the gospel itself is being corrupted, at what point does protecting “free discussion” become allowing error to keep spreading?

Just curious.

You are missing something important here.

You are up against a brick wall because you are arguing against Progressive Theology which has quite a few followers here. You need to do your homework.

I am not a Progressive by the way.

 

[marks]

I rarely go to other threads, and never to argue with a person's position.

The OP is just a troll and looks to create trouble. He follows AI and is very unlearned and unstable.

Yeah, more to argue against the person . . . This was just yesterday.

 

[Episkopos]

To anyone who is paying attention, they will see that the reality is not giving anyone more credit, but they are showing the Scriptures which show him false.

This isn't about personalities. It's about Biblical Truth. That is what is being stood for.

Much love!

Unbalanced people flock together. And I wish you well in your delusion...but please somewhere else. Again...I suggest the happy thread for the dissenters here.

Maybe someone could start a thread to find out...how happy do people get when they visit the happy thread? There's something at the depth that most here can comprehend. Otherwise what I teach is so far over the head of novices that they rail against basic things from the mouth of Jesus.

 

[Episkopos]

You are missing something important here.

You are up against a brick wall because you are arguing against Progressive Theology which has quite a few followers here. You need to do your homework.

I am not a Progressive by the way.

How do you define progressive? I think opinions are such that people put whatever label they want based on their own opinion. People compare themselves with others. Flesh trying to judge other flesh. So if I am merciful... to a religious bigot that is progressive. This kind of labeling masks the bigotry in the the self-righteous ones.

What I see as Progressive or as extreme left wing ideology is the Gay agenda within evangelicalism...universalism which justifies all sinners...or else allowing women to teach men. Of course there are now gay women bishops....so there's that. Then there are the right wing Nazi type extremists that consign anyone not with them to hell. But to me it's all the same thing ...with a dogmatic ideology based on death and not life. It's all dead religion. So, people can label one form or other of a dead religion....a right wing dead religion or a left wing dead religion...to me, it's all just dead. What I am suggesting is that I'm seeing what God is seeing...and vice versa.

 

[Hepzibah]

How do you define progressive? I think opinions are such that people put whatever label they want based on their own opinion. People compare themselves with others. Flesh trying to judge other flesh. So if I am merciful... to a religious bigot that is progressive. This kind of labeling masks the bigotry in the the self-righteous ones.

What I see as Progressive or as extreme left wing ideology is the Gay agenda within evangelicalism...universalism which justifies all sinners...or else allowing women to teach. Of course there are now gay women bishops....so there's that. Then there are the right wing Nazi type extremists that consign anyone not with them to hell. But to me it's all the same thing ...with a dogmatic ideology based on death and not life. It's all dead religion. So, people can label one form or other of a dead religion....a right wing dead religion or a left wing dead religion...to me, it's all just dead. What I am suggesting is that I'm seeing what God is seeing...and vice versa.

"Progressive Christianity—is a contemporary religious movement that reinterprets traditional doctrines through modern science, historical-critical biblical scholarship, and an emphasis on social justice, inclusivity, and continuous questioning over rigid dogma,"

 

[Episkopos]

You are missing something important here.

You are up against a brick wall because you are arguing against Progressive Theology which has quite a few followers here. You need to do your homework.

I am not a Progressive by the way.

You in fact show yourself to be such. A progressive believes that a woman can teach men. Do you teach men? Again, people will declare themselves to be innocent of exactly what they are guilty of.