ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
If Scott was only saying that a reckoning must take place in the form of confession and repentance before redemption can occur, and afterwards the same must happen before reconciliation of fellowship can occur, I wouldn't have any problem with it. But Scott's teachings go far beyond that to the point of uprooting what I consider to be the fundamentals of the faith. I am willing to reevaluate my faith vis-a-vis the witness of truth, but so far I've been anything but impressed by the teachings of DeSario's disciples (skinski7 & Tommy4Christ [who was recently banned] @ christianchat are others). They state all kinds of fallacies as facts, which, to be honest, I really don't want to have to wade through.
You blow a lot of smoke but have very little substance to what you write.
Take this thread for example.
#9 I bring up the problem of "inability" as it relates to the Doctrine of Total Depravity and how this teaching supports the contention that a Christian convert remains in a double minded state still n bondage to sin. I also make the point (using the Scripture) that we are not born dead as the Totaly Depravity teaches.
#58 I make the point that both John Calvin and Martin Luther heavily relied on Augustine of Hippo in the formulation of their theology especially as it relates to the "inability" and "inborn sin."
#62 I reference a video by brother Mike where he is teaching that we cannot serve two masters.
#75 I state the fact that Penal Substitution is a "recently invented doctrine" and how under Reformed Theology justification is disconnected from the manifest character of an individual.
#76 You then respond to my post by indicating that:-
1. You find my ideas extremely disturbing.
2. You object to the concept that Christ's death did not satisfy the wrath of God.
3. You assert confusion over "saved FROM sin" and "saved IN sin" indicating in your mind there is no difference.
4. You claim that we are in "sinful bodies" and that due to this we won't actually be saved from sin until glorification (clearly you believe the problem of sin is rooted in being in a flesh body as opposed to CHOICE).
#77 I respond to you with concise references in regards to the development of the various doctrines of the atonement. Penal Substitution is of recent invention. I also make a concise and reasoned list of my chief objections to Penal Substitution.
#78 You respond by indicating that you:-
1. Are not interested in looking at history.
2. My posts are too long.
3. You claim I make connections which do not exist.
4. You claim there is no difference between ransom and wrath satisfaction.
5. You also claim that there doesn't seem to be any practical implications to what I am saying (in other words my writings are some abstract theological constructs which are not really relevant.
#80 I reemphasise the practical implications I have already clearly outlined in my previous posts, in particular that a genuine Christian cannot serve two masters. We cannot serve sin and righteousness at the same time and that these doctrines I am refuting teach that we can and do.
#81. You respond by claiming that:-
1. Vice and virtue are indeed transferable properties because the old has died and the new is Christ.
2. In regards to justice what is man to conform God to man's ideas (thus you resort to argumentum e silentio).
3. Jesus is legally liable for our sin.
#82 I cite specific verses which Reformed Theology and Penal Substitution flat out deny.
#83 You claim I am reading thing into Penal Substitution and thus I am viewing it how I choose to see it.
#84 I allude to the parable of the unforgiving servant and how forgiveness was granted without a payment being made. Thus forgiveness is conditional on repentance and faith NOT on a "sin debt" having to be paid. The death of Christ has to do with the REMISSION of sin in that the blood of Christ purges the conscience of sin.
#85 You respond by saying you are "getting a whiff" that I don't believe in a sinful nature which "causes" us to sin. (I respond to this in #89)
#86 I again address the problem of double mindedness as it relates to forensic justification which disconnects manifest deeds from faith.
#87 You claim that everything you mention is in the Bible and that because the blood cleanses it is the eternal evidence that the penalty has been paid.
#89 I examine the sinful nature with the Scripture. I address Rom 5:12 and how Augustine erred in understanding that verse due to his dependance on the Latin Vulgate which translates it wrong (this verse being the foundation upon which Augustine established his erroneous doctrine of sin being passed down in the male sperm). I also explain Eph 2:3 and examine Rom 7:9. I then explain that dualism (ie. the flesh in and of itself is sinful, the soul is not) was Gnostic heresy which was actually refuted by Christian's before Augustine.
#91 You then claim I make distinctions without difference. Yet like every single post you have so far made you do not explain WHY. You then make a double-tongued statement that sin is not ok but permissible.
and so on...
Not a single response of yours actually specifically addresses anything I write with any reasoning whatsoever.
All you do is say things like, "it is not so." "The Bible does not teach that." "You are wrong." "I don't need to examine that," etc.
Every single response is just a smoke blowing exercise.
Now your latest response is this...
They state all kinds of fallacies as facts, which, to be honest, I really don't want to have to wade through.
You just blow everything off and never address anything. I don't even know why you honestly post replies, to fill up space perhaps?
For the record I am not a disciple of Mike DeSario. Mike DeSario is a sound teacher who preaches repentance and faith proven by deeds. Thus he is a preacher of righteousness who contends earnestly that sinners forsake their sin and turn to God.
Mike's preaching definitely caused me to re-evaluate my doctrine and thus led me to a strong conviction of the Holy Spirit and thus to repentance. Yet I follow Christ, not Mike. God gives the increase and people like Mike water the plants.
Instead of making simplistic blanket statements why don't you SPECIFICALLY address the SUBSTANCE of what I post? Otherwise you are just proving yourself irrelevant in this context.
I am Skinski7 on christianchat.com by the way.
Wormwood said:
Also, I understand your frustration with Calvinism. I haven't looked at the link yet but I am very familiar with it and find doctrines such as limited atonement and double predestination as particularly distasteful and unbiblical. My point was, however, that the practical outworking of Calvinism is not antinomianism when it is properly understood. I think many misunderstand it and it leads to antinomianism, but that does not mean this is the direct result of that doctrine as ScottAU and many others suggest. Again, I'm not a Calvinist, but I do believe we ought to be fair and not paint people in a way that is inaccurate.
The issue is not as to whether Reformed Theology teaches full blown antinomianism or not. The issue is that conversion under Reformed Doctrine necessitates the serving of two masters. At the root of Reformed Theology is the complete denial of the teaching that the "eye must be single" and that fact that we "cannot" serve two masters,
Due to the doctrine of Total Depravity man is viewed as UNABLE to obey God thus they teach...
V.
This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;[11] and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.
[12]
Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 6
They attach "sin" to the "flesh." This is what Augustine did when he introduced dualism into Christianity. Augustine saw concupiscence (natural desire) as evidence that the "flesh itself" was sinful and thus the problem with mankind was not the choices he made but rather it was being in a flesh and blood body which had been corrupted by the sin of Adam. Thus actual sin is a SYMPTOM of a disease. This doctrine completely and utterly throws the concept of human responsibility out the window and denies that human beings can obey God (unless God offsets the inability with some kind of irresistible or prevenient grace).
Under this doctrine a human being must simply "recognise" their "wretched condition" and then "trust and wait" on God to change them. This is why the Gospel is presented as "confess, trust and receive" today instead of "repent and yield." In the book of Acts they preached repentance proven by deeds and faith in Jesus Christ, all for the remission of sin. There was no doctrinally induced double-mindedness like we have today. They didn't go around claiming they were PRESENTLY the "chief of sinners," "the Romans wretch" and that "if you claim you are not sinning then you are a liar." Those particular scriptures were not ripped out of their context and used to justify ongoing sinfulness until the corrupted philosophy of dualism infected Christian orthodoxy.
Under this heresy the blame for sin is on the "nature" and not the choice.
III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;
[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.
[7]
IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,
[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,
[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.
[10]
Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 6
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
They totally misunderstand the inherent passions of the flesh. Temptation IS NOT sin. The flesh "draws" people to sin due to the natural passions and desires. Those natural passions and desires are not sinful at all, they are to be ruled over responsibly. It is sinful when human beings let their natural passions rule over them and they suppress their knowledge of righteousness in order to satisfy carnal desire (which is to be carnally minded)`.
Evil is simply the misuse of the human will and is rooted in selfishness.
Under Reformed Theology the convert serves two masters for the rest of their life.
II. This sanctification is throughout, in
the whole man;[7] yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part;[8] whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.[9]
III. In which war,
although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail;[10] yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome;
[11] and so, the saints grow in grace,
[12] perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
[13]
It is for this very reason they have have to deny heart purity and have to deny all the warnings in Scripture about continuing in sin. To them being made pure is simply impossible because they view "sin" as some kind of "substance" inherent in the flesh itself. It is PURE GNOSTIC DUALISM posing as Christianity. This is why they have invented doctrines which teach a FORENSIC justification, for they have to have a methodology whereby God is reconciled to man's sinfulness (when in reality it is man that has to be reconciled to God, not God to man).
The Bible CLEARLY connects MANIFEST CONDUCT with being BORN AGAIN.
1Jn 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
1Jn 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
1Jn 3:7 Little children,
let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1Jn 3:9
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
1Jn 3:10
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
There are so many Bible teachers today who are deceiving people that they can be reckoned righteous by God (justified) while they DO wickedness. It is a lie strait from the pit of hell.
1Jn 3:7 Little children,
let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
Jesus taught that we would know the false prophets by the fruit they produce, that is their converts. Today we have a multitude of religious teachers whose converts are double-minded hypocrites who run around professing to be the Romans Wretch, the Chief of Sinners, and claim that if one claims to be pure and not sinning that they are liars.
Thus they deny...
1Jn 5:18 We know that
whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that
he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
1Pe 1:22 Seeing
ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
These wolves never preach on those Scriptures. They espouse "moral lessons" and cushion their listeners from the warnings in the Bible about continuing in sin.
Paul was so clear...
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that
to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
We either yield ourselves to sin or we yield ourselves to righteousness. NOT BOTH. Reformed Theology teaches that "although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail" which means they believe a Christian still serves BOTH. It could not be any clearer.
Ask any reformed teacher if there is any sin or sins that have to cease BEFORE God will grant forgiveness. They will all say NO, except for "unbelief" of course. I have spoken with 100's of pastors and I can hardly find any who will emphatically state that any sin MUST stop. They all believe you get saved IN sin and that the sin NEVER stops.
People really do need to wake up to what is going on because valuable souls are at stake here.
Mat 6:22 The light of the body is the eye:
if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
Mat 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.