Charles Spurgeon's Sanity Litmus Test (are you insane?)

[GodsGrace]

Charles Stanley, Adrian Rodgers, and most other preachers NEVER preach any consequences for sin, except to say that "you'll get fewer jewels in your crown". The Bible says you obtain grace only if you "confess and forsake", but most preachers preach you can obtain it even if you "confess and partake".

Well P
Looks like some of us are trying really hard to hang on to scripture.
Although it's true that these grace preachers say that we are not to sin, they don't really make a point of it, do they???

Grace, grace, grace,
Love, love, love,
God is also
Just, just just.

But they'd like to forget that. So although I'm sure that those on this forum that say grace does not allow to sin, and I'm sure they're very sincere, are not doing any favor to those reading along who may be new Christians or who may not see that FINE RED LINE, which if it isn't visible, DOES lead to sin.

We're weak enough and fragile enough in our human nature without additional help from grace preachers.

I'm very sorry to have to use the word Grace with a negative connotation.

 

[Stranger]

Charles Stanley, Adrian Rodgers, and most other preachers NEVER preach any consequences for sin, except to say that "you'll get fewer jewels in your crown". The Bible says you obtain grace only if you "confess and forsake", but most preachers preach you can obtain it even if you "confess and partake".

I doubt these preachers you mention preach there is no consequences for sin in the believers life. You apparently differ with them as to what the consequences are.

You come under grace when you believe and are born-again. You obtained eternal life. Grace is the overall movement of God whereby He puts in place a plan of salvation requiring only my faith to enter into. Faith is my part, but even that is a gift of God. 'by grace through faith'. (Eph. 2:8)

The believer once saved is always walking under grace, for it is the grace of God that created such a salvation. Just as the believer entered into that salvation by faith, so he continues to walk by faith.

I can tell that when you teach or preach grace, you will never be accused as Paul was as having preached grace to the point where people believe you are giving a license to sin.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

What a great post!
I remember this now.
I agree with all you've said.

Just two points:

I agree with ongoing justification, which Protestants call Sanctification.
Some seem to believe that they are saved one time, as you've stated, and that's it. Nothing further required. I often explain sanctification but it's not accepted by some. They even will claim that obedience is not necessary, and DISLIKE the word obedience -- as if God did not demand it.

As I said, faith can equal obedience, and we cannot please God without faith.

The Protestant church has changed in the last 200 years or so and who knows where it will end. I see that the CC is also undergoing change. I truly believe we need to hang on to Jesus.

I agree. But the CC develops, she cannot change any doctrines. That's impossible. Development does not mean change. The canon of the Bible is an example of development.

Regarding the covering of sin...
I remember this saying: Man can forgive sin but only God can forget sin. Most Protestant churches teach that sin is confessed and then forgiven and then forgotten by God. I'd say we're the same in this respect.

God is always in a hurry to forgive us.

So what about the covering?
I also believe we are "covered" by Christ, in this way:

Our individual sins are forgiven and forgotten when we feel sorrow for them. But our sin nature is never completely gone although it's put under subjection by us with the help of the Holy Spirit. So when God, Father, sees us, He sees a sinful human and God cannot stand to be in the presence of sin. So Jesus covers our sinful nature (not our sins which have already been forgotten).

"Sin nature" and concupiscence is the same thing, which is the inclination to sin. Baptism removes Original Sin, but not concupiscence. That is why we have to persevere to the end. We have instant potatoes, instant coffee, instant soup, but we don't have instant justification. It's a process, not a one time event.

There is scripture for the above..
For instance Galatians 3:27, Romans 13:14

I also would include the Wedding Banquet,
Mathew 22:1-14 The guests had to be wearing the proper attire.
What IS the proper attire? We understand it to be Jesus.

I would agree with that. They washed their robes white in Revelation 7:14 and Revelation 22:14.
Rev. is mostly about the Great Wedding Feast that the paranoid profits of doom tend to miss.

 

[GodsGrace]

As I said, faith can equal obedience, and we cannot please God without faith.

I agree. But the CC develops, she cannot change any doctrines. That's impossible. Development does not mean change. The canon of the Bible is an example of development.

God is always in a hurry to forgive us.

"Sin nature" and concupiscence is the same thing, which is the inclination to sin. Baptism removes Original Sin, but not concupiscence. That is why we have to persevere to the end. We have instant potatoes, instant coffee, instant soup, but we don't have instant justification. It's a process, not a one time event.


I would agree with that. They washed their robes white in Revelation 7:14 and Revelation 22:14.
Rev. is mostly about the Great Wedding Feast that the paranoid profits of doom tend to miss.

I can't read Revelation. Don't know why. Maybe it's not concrete enough for my personality.

Anyway, did you ever read The Supper of the Lamb by Scott Hahn?
It's based on Revelation and how it resembles the Mass.
It's great.

Regarding O.S...
If we're born with original sin, that means God imputes to us the sin of another. Jesus said this was wrong.
John 9:2-3

We are effected by Adam's sin, but we are not held responsible for it.
We are all born with concupiscence or the sin nature. It's this sin nature that make us be lost at our birth.

Is O.S. Adam's disobedience of God -- the first sin,
or the sin nature?

I understand O.S. to be the first sin, the disobedience of Adam toward God.

 

[bbyrd009]

I understand O.S. to be the first sin, the disobedience of Adam toward God.

note that that propagated the Law of sin and death, however, that does all that you are crediting OS with doing.

 

[GodsGrace]

note that that propagated the Law of sin and death, however, that does all that you are crediting OS with doing.

I don't understand.
It propagated the law of sin and death. OK.
We are now born with the sin nature due to the disobedience. OK.
What am I crediting to O.S.?
The law of sin and death?
If yes, I agree.

 

[bbyrd009]

I don't understand.
It propagated the law of sin and death. OK.
We are now born with the sin nature due to the disobedience. OK.
What am I crediting to O.S.?
The law of sin and death?
If yes, I agree.

only they are not the same thing, and the law exists regardless of the doctrine

 

[GodsGrace]

only they are not the same thing, and the law exists regardless of the doctrine

If you're saying that sin and the sin nature are not the same thing...
I agree.

 

[Helen]

If you're saying that sin and the sin nature are not the same thing...
I agree.

I agree too.

I saw somewhere (forgotten which thread, so can't quote it...sorry) ..that you don't believe that Jesus was born 'man' as He had no sin nature...which obviously came upon all mankind from the Fall.
I thought that was why the Great Creator became our Saviour...why come, if He didn't also have the nature of Adam to be tested there would be no contest!

So, as you believe that, what would you say is the great victory of Jesus and the cross?

How was that any 'overcoming' for Him if He had no area in Him which could be tempted to sin?

Doesn't how you believe it take away from Jesus , and the glory and sacrifice of the victory?

How could there be any victory without any ' test' ?

I find that all very interesting. Thanks.

 

[GodsGrace]

Dear friend,

Do some research. There is no such quote from Marcellus. You should refer to reliable websites or history books to form your beliefs.

Your faith thru grace alone statement is not true. Please provide evidence that "all churches were once in solidarity of thought" on that subject.

Scripture makes clear what the antichrist is. Your theory does not match scripture.

The reformation divided The Church. It was the beginning of the end for unity in the church.

The teaching that the Papacy is the antichrist is a 500 year tradition of men.

You are the one who suggested the individual man, woman or child is the church. Not me.

I will pray for you.

IHS...Mary

I have a really difficult time with the reformation.
It was necessary because the CC had gone so astray.
Payment for confession, indulgences, etc.
Other stuff, we won't get into even more serious.
Only because MAN is sinful -- not the church. (small c)

On the other hand, it divided the church, as you said, caused wars, caused more "bad" things to happen, killings, burnings, etc.
And look where we are today.

I think we have to hold on to the fact that God is in charge and ALLOWS all things to happen and, in the end, it will be HIS will that is victorious.

 

[GodsGrace]

I agree too.

I saw somewhere (forgotten which thread, so can't quote it...sorry) ..that you don't believe that Jesus was born 'man' as He had no sin nature...which obviously came upon all mankind from the Fall.
I thought that was why the Great Creator became our Saviour...why come, if He didn't also have the nature of Adam to be tested there would be no contest!

So, as you believe that, what would you say is the great victory of Jesus and the cross?

How was that any 'overcoming' for Him if He had no area in Him which could be tempted to sin?

Doesn't how you believe it take away from Jesus , and the glory and sacrifice of the victory?

How could there be any victory without any ' test' ?

I find that all very interesting. Thanks.

I never said Jesus was not born man.
What was he born? He was a human baby.
Jesus was fully man and fully God. This is what Christianity teaches.

Jesus was the only "man" ever born without sin, and thusly, without the sin nature.
1 Corinthians 15:47
The first man was earthly, the second man was from heaven.
Even though Jesus was born here on earth as a baby is born, He was from HEAVEN. There is no sin nor sin nature in heaven.
Paul also said of Jesus that in Him there is no sin. If there is a sin nature, there has to necessarily also be sin because the sin nature brings to sin.
2 Corinthians 5:21

Jesus did not come here to be tested. He was "tested" in the sense that He understood all the same experiences that we have.
However, He was not tested in the sense that you mean it.

Do you realize you're saying that God had a sin nature??
Jesus was also fully God.

Jesus did not overcome sin.
Jesus overcame SIN.
Jesus overcame that which none of US could overcome. SIN. Not one sin, but our very being is sin. God cannot stand to be in the presence of sin, how could He possibly have the sin nature?

If you understand the Trinity, you'll understand that Jesus was a man and also the 2nd person of the Trinity. You cannot separate Him from His being.

So what are the victories of Jesus?
Enough that He has the full glory bestowed on Him by the Father and that we also owe to him.

1. Jesus came to tear the veil, to open up heaven for us and to release those that were waiting in Abraham's Bossom. Luke 16.
Luke 24:45

2. Jesus came to offer us eternal LIFE. In Him is the spark of life, if we also have that spark of life, we will be resurrected in our bodies and live forever. Immediately after death, our spirit goes to be with the Lord.
Some would call this being born again. Same difference.
1 John 5:11-12

3. Jesus came to win and be victorious over SIN. How did He do that?
By liberating us from the slavery to satan. Satan had man in his grips and now we can be free of him by walking with God. We have been made truly free if we serve God. Those that serve the enemy have no freedom at all.

If a man is dishonored, the man dishonoring him can ask for forgiveness.

What happens if GOD is dishonored? (by our sins).
Only God can atone for that dishonor and sin.
It will not be sufficient for God that a mere man ask forgiveness.
Jesus was not a mere man...He was both man and God, in the flesh.

 

[Angelina]

ooohh boy!

 

[bbyrd009]

If you're saying that sin and the sin nature are not the same thing...
I agree.

well, more like the functions of the doctrine as practiced are occluded from us, even if they have been documented by theologians. It just forces a different beginning premise than the Law of sin and death, that more or less demands any stranger be perceived as either competition or the enemy, so that we may qualify whom to love.

 

[bbyrd009]

On the other hand, it divided the church, as you said, caused wars, caused more "bad" things to happen, killings, burnings, etc.
And look where we are today.

now imo this is what the church is good for, a barometer of where we are at collectively.

 

[bbyrd009]

If you understand the Trinity, you'll understand that Jesus was a man and also the 2nd person of the Trinity. You cannot separate Him from His being.

if you understand doctrines of men, you will file this one with the doctrine of OS, as being another "church" doctrine that the Church simply has no need of, while the church cannot function without. God is the head of Christ

 

[bbyrd009]

Jesus did not overcome sin.
Jesus overcame SIN.
Jesus overcame that which none of US could overcome. SIN. Not one sin, but our very being is sin.

we are assured that He was tempted just as we are tho

 

[bbyrd009]

It will not be sufficient for God that a mere man ask forgiveness.

i was raised with this, but i would even disagree with it now. Different thread though. My argument would be that it is not sufficient for men, yes, but Scripture demonstrates in several places that this concept of God not being able to even look upon sin is tripe, this is more church yack stemming from OS imo.

 

[GodsGrace]

i was raised with this, but i would even disagree with it now. Different thread though. My argument would be that it is not sufficient for men, yes, but Scripture demonstrates in several places that this concept of God not being able to even look upon sin is tripe, this is more church yack stemming from OS imo.

So God likes sin?
And stop talking about OS.

 

[bbyrd009]

So God likes sin?
And stop talking about OS.

OS is intrinsic to that concept imo, but ok.

not saying that God likes sin, no, but rather that "Who told you that you were naked?" describes God's position there sufficiently. Sin separates us from God, but it does not separate God from us.

 

[GodsGrace]

OS is intrinsic to that concept imo, but ok.

not saying that God likes sin, no, but rather that "Who told you that you were naked?" describes God's position there sufficiently. Sin separates us from God, but it does not separate God from us.

So, we're made in the image of God.
There's a little pc of God in every man.
God loves His creation. He's sorry not all choose Him.
So, in the end we ARE separated...

Re OS. I don't believe in OS.
Does God impute Adam's sin to all mankind
or just the effects of it???