Reviving Biblical Christianity (The Way) Part 2

[Dan Clarkston]

you chose not to comment on what he believes...you have other motives.

I'm not wading thru reformed friendly slop to try and find a good nugget or two.

poster such as yourself is not going to pay enough attention to something as nuanced as the truth

If only you had the whole Truth

Bits and pieces of Truth is not the Truth.

 

[Episkopos]

I'm not wading thru reformed friendly slop to try and find a good nugget or two.




If only you had the whole Truth

Bits and pieces of Truth is not the Truth.

What do you consider the truth? Life from heaven...resurrection life and power? A get out of hell card? An easy grace gospel that condones sin?

I don't think you are here because you want to go farther with God. No, you are here to perpetuate what you have learned from pulpiteers...the parts you like.

So the bits and pieces are your own...that you have not been able to put together into a cohesive whole until this very day. If I thought for one second you were a genuine seeker I would ask you to consider the chart I made that puts the Christian walk into a detailed map of progress in the faith. But I leave you to your puzzle ...the one you are holding upside down with half the pieces missing.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

I don't think you are here because you want to go farther with God.

Well I know better than to follow the false doctrines of so called reformed theology... too bad you don't.

 

[marks]

I may be slow, but I learned from your example!
Much love!

I think you learn from your mentor, actually.

 

[ProDeo]

Nice try to twist my words. The Pharisees accused the healed man....as you accuse me. You want to ban me just like the Pharisees sought to cast out the healed man.

That's not a correct summary IMO.

The analogy @marks used is not a forum ban, but as the haughty Pharisees falsely cast out the healed man speaking in the name of God, so did you in post #1904 in haughtiness throwing @bdavidc under the religious bus.

 

[Laurina]

I'm not wading thru reformed friendly slop to try and find a good nugget or two.

Like I said, you have other motives.
He stated what he believes, but you are NOT interested...then why are you on this thread??

Again, there are different depths to knowing God. I have been to basically all the depths in my 46 years with the Lord.

I'm going to try teaching deeper truth here at the risk of my pearls getting overcome and trampled by pig's feet in the mud...

Sow in righteousness, reap in mercy (Hos 10:12)
Sow to the Spirit, reap eternal life (Gal 6:8)

These are the two levels of knowing God.

Jesus said, I am the door...

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. John 10:9

A potential saint goes IN AND OUT of the Spirit...meaning in and out through the door....finding pasture on BOTH sides of the door. When the seeker is not inside the house of God, he should wait patiently at His door. Draw near to Me and I will draw near to you.

There is pasture in God's realm and in ours. Ps 23 says...He makes me to lie down in green pastures. The pastures here are plural.

So whether present or absent from the Lord we do all to be at least accepted of Him. We are to bear fruit where we are and seek God to be where He is. We collect the dew of the morning until He rains His righteousness on us. The dew springs UP from the earth and the rain falls down from heaven.

As we collect the dew of the morning we are washed clean by the washing of the word. So we set off on our day with a peace derived from being forgiven and cleansed from our sin....from there we experience a peace with God. That is until we get involved in the world whereby our feet get dirty. We lose that peace during the day unless we are careful to stay unspotted from the world. Like a man who looks in a mirror and remembers what he looks like and who he is...in the inner man.

So on this level our peace depends on US drawing near to God. We have perfect peace as long as our hearts are stayed on our God.

But as we go through the door who is Christ, there is no need to collect the dew since it's raining righteousness. The peace with God at that level is beyond human understanding.


Being sinless by being in Christ is an afterthought. You see it more in retrospect....because you are too busy beholding the glory of the Lord.

In my normal walk NOW, I have the peace of a seeker that collects the dew every morning. But when I first fell out of the Spirit, I let myself go. I was selfish. It was easy to be loved by God, but MUCH HARDER to show my love for God by waiting at His door in the obedience of a servant.

Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. Prov 8:34

We love Him because He first loved us. But getting that love out of us is not automatic.

I was talking to a woman yesterday who called me asking for advice. She had walked in the Spirit for a few years (10 tears ago) and had left the institution because she saw what the churches have become. But she remained alone. She let herself go. So she is now wanting to get close with God again. So she is like a novice believer...but at a secondary school level.. She needs to APPLY herself in seeking God daily and collecting the dew of the morning. She needs to come back to the door and wait there for Her Master. As a servant. So she is praying about it. We can think that God's love is the same as permissiveness. But a slave of Christ is also to be a slave of righteousness. When we are not in the Lord's presence we shouldn't just become master over our own lives.

Anyway...here are a few thoughts this morning as I collect the morning dew. Righteousness springs up out of the earth...and holiness rains down from heaven

“Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness; let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together. I, the Lord, have created it. Is 45:8

Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground: for it is time to seek the Lord, till he come and rain righteousness upon you. Hos 10:12

Peace.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

The analogy @marks used is not a forum ban, but as the haughty Pharisees falsely cast out the healed man speaking in the name of God, so did you in post #1906 in haughtiness throwing @bdavidc under the religious bus.

Well he is a religious bus driver ya know.

That's what carnal man made religion does is run over people

...then why are you on this thread??

Others need to be aware that so called reformed theology is doctrines of demons

 

[Grailhunter]

LOL This is hilarious. Ok, just because you seek approval from men doesn't mean you can do the very thing you accuse me of. Rescue mission? From the pot into the fire. It's laughable and self-important.

So in your view I have to be either a JW or a Calvinist ...your worldview has to be respected and adhered to... to give you a superior edge? You are a dogmatic religionist with a hammer that is just looking for nails to drive in based on your ideology. No light or life there.

A Theologian does not seek the approval of men because sooner or later the truth will step on someone's toes.
I am dogmatic? Not even a little, I question everything. Truth will prevail.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

I am dogmatic? Not even a little, I question everything. Truth will prevail.

Not accepting what God says leads to questions that separates one from the Lord which is what unbelief does.

Unbelief is choosing to not believe what the Lord says.

Man made carnal minded religion presents the wisdom of man as though it were the wisdom of the Lord, courtesy of demons. This is what so called reformed theology does.

 

[Episkopos]

That's not a correct summary IMO.

The analogy @marks used is not a forum ban, but as the haughty Pharisees falsely cast out the healed man speaking in the name of God, so did you in post #1904 in haughtiness throwing @bdavidc under the religious bus.

Have you read bdavidc's invective? Or are you only reading my responses? I was getting the license plate of the religious bus that ran me over. As usual you are not able to see what's taking place.

Carnal religiosity is all you people understand. I see deeper into what's going on...so I call it out.

My purpose is to save souls. But the pork and the canine elements here want to throw mud around or bite. I should answer any posts if it wasn't for the fact that some real seekers may read the thread.

Otherwise all they are seeing is how to expose the amazing depth of carnality in those who claim to be as righteous as God. Fully reprobate.

So excuse me if you and others here need to repent from your carnal ways. I'ts not my kingdom you have to fit into.

 

[Episkopos]

A Theologian does not seek the approval of men because sooner or later the truth will step on someone's toes.
I am dogmatic? Not even a little, I question everything. Truth will prevail.

The theologian...the one who decides if the witch is to burn? ;) As in.... "She IS a witch!"

You don't learn truth in a seminary or a bible school. They are there to find you a spouse...while pretending to sound spiritual. You know that.

But you are unable to challenge me on anything I have said, or recorded in my podcast...because you don't understand either righteousness or holiness.

All you have is a vain religion set up by men. No approval of God.

You don't even have to try proving me wrong....you won't listen to the OP anyway.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

My purpose is to save souls.

By teaching them the ways of reformed theology???

No approval of God.

Approval of God requires one to follow reformed theology in your view?

 

[bdavidc]

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.

What specifically am I missing?

I am not arguing against a label called “Progressive Theology.” I am testing particular claims by Scripture, especially claims concerning justification, the cross, and the gospel.

If you believe Progressive Theology explains what is happening here, please identify the relevant doctrine and show how it answers the Scriptures and arguments I presented. Telling me to do my homework does not tell me where my reasoning is wrong.

 

[Episkopos]

By teaching them the ways of reformed theology???




Approval of God requires one to follow reformed theology in your view?

What in your opinion is reformed theology? Walking in resurrection life in the kingdom realm without spot or wrinkle of sin? Or else God being merciful on more people than just the church? Which one or both are reformed? If you can locate people that believe such things...both things... please send me their way. Thanks in advance.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

What specifically am I missing?

I am not arguing against a label called “Progressive Theology.” I am testing particular claims by Scripture, especially claims concerning justification, the cross, and the gospel.

If you believe Progressive Theology explains what is happening here, please identify the relevant doctrine and show how it answers the Scriptures and arguments I presented. Telling me to do my homework does not tell me where my reasoning is wrong.

Progressive theology is definitely not biblical...

Progressive theology refers to a contemporary approach within Christianity that emphasizes social justice, acceptance of diversity, and a willingness to question traditional beliefs, often integrating insights from various theological movements like liberation and feminist theology. It seeks to reinterpret Christian teachings in light of modern values and concerns, particularly regarding compassion and environmental stewardship. (Progressive Christianity - Wikipedia)

What in your opinion is reformed theology? Walking in resurrection life in the kingdom realm without spot or wrinkle of sin? Or else God being merciful on more people than just the church? Which one or both are reformed? If you can locate people that believe such things...both things... please send me their way. Thanks in advance.

Adherents of reformed theology wouldn't know Truth if it slapped them in the face.

 

[Episkopos]

Progressive theology is definitely not biblical...

Progressive theology refers to a contemporary approach within Christianity that emphasizes social justice, acceptance of diversity, and a willingness to question traditional beliefs, often integrating insights from various theological movements like liberation and feminist theology. It seeks to reinterpret Christian teachings in light of modern values and concerns, particularly regarding compassion and environmental stewardship. (Progressive Christianity - Wikipedia)




Adherents of reformed theology wouldn't know Truth if it slapped them in the face.

Agreed. Luther was a false teacher.

 

[bdavidc]

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.

The problem with your argument is that you are bringing in Gnosticism, Augustine, Pelagius, George Fox, and church history when John himself tells us what he means. I am going to stay with Scripture.

John does not say, “If the Gnostics say they have no sin.” He includes himself and his Christian readers:

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

Notice what immediately follows:

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

Then John says again:

“If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (1 John 1:10).

John says “we” throughout the passage. He then addresses believers directly:

“My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1).

That directly contradicts your interpretation. John commands Christians not to sin, but he also recognizes that a Christian may sin and tells believers that when this happens, “we have an advocate with the Father.”

First John 3:9 does not contradict 1 John 1:8 or 2:1. In context, John is describing the character and continuing conduct of someone born of God. The ESV renders the point clearly: “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning.” John is condemning a life characterized by sin. He is not teaching that a Christian reaches a condition in which he can truthfully say, “I have no sin.”

First John 1:8 does not excuse sin, and I have never used it that way. Christians are commanded to pursue holiness and put sin to death. But Scripture does not permit us to turn that command into a claim of personal sinlessness.

There is a difference between not practicing sin and claiming to be without sin. John commands the first and warns against claiming the second.

 

[Hepzibah]

What specifically am I missing?

I am not arguing against a label called “Progressive Theology.” I am testing particular claims by Scripture, especially claims concerning justification, the cross, and the gospel.

If you believe Progressive Theology explains what is happening here, please identify the relevant doctrine and show how it answers the Scriptures and arguments I presented. Telling me to do my homework does not tell me where my reasoning is wrong.

The teaching presented here, that claims that moral non Christians will be accepted into the kingdom without Christ, and the fact that it is tolerated.

 

[ProDeo]

Have you read bdavidc's invective?

Of course I did.

He had it coming so to say.

So, it's not that.

It's what (and how) you wrote in post #1904, haughty religious testosterone, not even given credit to your Creator.

 

[bdavidc]

@bdavidc is a reformed/calvinist believer.

Just to set the record straight.

I don't know what Episkopos believes and must go by what I read in his posts.

I can say,,,that we should be very clear in our statements about what the NT teaches.

But Calvinists do the same...
they dislike admitting that they are reformed and dance around the bush with veiled statements.

This is most unprofitable in conversation and takes the attention away fromt he word of God and places it, instead, on wasting time trying to clarify what the person is stating.

@GodsGrace, no. You do not "set the record straight" by decreeing what theological label goes on me.

If you believe I have taught Calvinism, quote what I have taught. Then prove from Scripture that what I taught is incorrect. I have been very clear about what I believe. I am not hiding behind a doctrinal system or skirting any issues.

You said that labels are a waste of time and cause us to focus on something other than the word of God. Your post did both of those things. Focus on what I said, not where you want to place me in a box.