For a doctrine to be true, it must be in the Bible. Philosophy and human invention is all you have. Yes, it is "fruitless activity" to say that Penal Substitution is Biblical. Don't check it out... the truth will hurt your pride!
Grace is NOT unmerited favor!
- Thread starter CharismaticLady
- 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!
- Status
For a doctrine to be true, it must be in the Bible. Philosophy and human invention is all you have. Yes, it is "fruitless activity" to say that Penal Substitution is Biblical. Don't check it out... the truth will hurt your pride!
Anthony D'Arienzo
Well-Known Member
millions see and know it is in the bible.Sorry God has not allowed you to.understand the relevant scriptures to what is the core of the gospel soteriology.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Your attitude reeks of it. We all have this problem, and the sooner you admit it, the sooner you will be able to rest in God's patience and love.
We have to carry around these burdensome bodies until the Coming of the Lord. These are tattered old houses, ready to fall down. But Christ has paid the down payment on our inheritance. That deposit is as good as gold, and there are no contingencies that can disqualify us--not even the fact we still have a sin nature.
Every time you speak there is a tone of pride, or anger, or jealousy, or covetousness. We can't dispose of it, although we can let Christ's love overwhelm it. As we activate Christ's love in our lives, our imperfections pale in comparison.
But don't live a lie. Admit your sinfulness. Paul did, and all the Prophets did. They saw themselves as utterly inept at obtaining salvation, but extremely grateful that its been offered and extended to us.
That is one way of looking at it, but it is much more than that.
Condemning sin in the flesh means He destroyed sin’s control over us by giving himself as a sacrifice for our sins. "Flesh" here means nature - our drives. Even with the Spirit we now don't have the same sinful nature we had before receiving the Spirit. No, we have been given a new nature entirely; this is called being born again. We have escaped the lusts of the world through the power of Grace, the Divine nature. 2 Peter 1:2-4 This new nature, our saved, immortal spirit, has nothing to do with the destruction of our body of flesh and bone that must also put on immortality, as some believe. That is why Paul followed Romans 8:9 by Romans 8:10. He did not want us making that mistake - but many do. The problem is the confusion about the 2nd definition of "flesh" - inner nature, as opposed to outer body.
1 John 3:5-9 means Jesus took away even our desire to sin, and brought us into a very personal and intimate relationship with Him. He who sins has never had this kind of relationship with Jesus. (They may know all about Jesus, but that is far from abiding in Jesus, which is where many in the Church are today, and for centuries. And much of that is from the perverted definition of grace.)
Good morning!
P. S. I still don't understand in scripture where you get the idea of your present and future sins being automatically forgiven as you commit them?That just boggles the mind where that false doctrine even originated. 2 Peter 1:9 say only our past sins were forgiven. (Our new divine nature doesn't commit present and future sins)
This discussion is layered and complex.
Grace that God gives us, brings us from being sanctified to be like Jesus in being Holy and pure through cleansing, which is unmerited, yet without faith would never exist. So you could say grace is merited because of faith, yet faith is also a gift.
For me the subtlety is in taking the next step. Those who have disdain for grace, claim they can stay forgiven sinners, wallowing in sin, and there is no need for change, whereas grace is provided so we can learn how to walk like Jesus, listen and let the fruit of the Spirit work through our lives to bring us to the place of promise and maturity in Him. Amen.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I agree, but there is another important element here. And it the oft-overlooked fact that the unbeliever is indeed able to do good. The Calvinist notion of the Total Depravity of Man goes too far, I think, in denying the human will any role in doing anything of value to God.
Luther held to this notion in his book "The Bondage of the Will." I like both Luther and Calvin, and yet cannot go as far as this, which in philosophy may be viewed as a form of "fatalism," and leads to "determinism."
It is often assumed that the unsaved cannot do anything good due to the Christian theology that men cannot, apart from Christ, be saved. But this doesn't really follow. The unsaved can certainly opt to obey God and do good works without being saved. And they may certainly choose *for* Salvation!
There are two issues here.
Some believe even after being cleansed of sin and purified we are innately sinners because we have bodies.
They would hold there is no such thing as a pure holy believer.
So saying someone is a sinner, in this view, is stating their mortal reality until they die.
Now to others being in sin, is knowingly committing a sinful act and refusing to repent of it. To say a believer is in sin, or sins daily in this view is important, because without the sinful action example this is slander and sinful itself, bearing false witness of a brother or sister in Christ. It gets this serious because we are commanded to confront our fellow believers with sinful actions, and if they do not repent to deal with them as if they are unbelievers.
So in this way of belief, this is not a nice and simple thing to say, it needs backing up, or stopping. And if such behaviour of accusation of sin without foundation continues, the individual must be treated as an unbeliever. I have done this with some who behave like this, because their view of sin is simply wrong and denies the gospel of grace, love and forgiveness. Even worse those talking like this are happy to sin against me, slander, lie, accuse me of things I have never done, and behave as if this is not a problem. Now for a sinner I expect nothing else, but a follower of Jesus, never unless they have fallen away and are leaving the faith.
Prove you're a Christian! I don't believe you are. You show all the evidence to the contrary! You fight for sin and oppose holiness.
You stand in judgment of people you do not even know! Your pride is in your spiritual failure, not walking in the victory of the Cross! God said not to do certain things. We are promised that He is able to keep us from falling. He has equipped the believer to be part of a Church without spot or blemish. I believe it!
Last edited:
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I completely agree with you except the tone you exhibit appears to be a bit "uninitiated" or "unenlightened." Most Christians I know instinctively know what kind of "sinfulness" we are talking about when we speak in *theological terms.*
If this is just an accusation that you're doing something wrong, when it isn't true, this is slander. But when the specific subject is theological, and concerns whether we have a "sin nature," then obviously we're not dealing with *slander!*
To ask for proof that one has a "sin nature" is on its face ludicrous. The Bible plainly states that all of humanity had a guilt of sin, and therefore required redemption. This doesn't change just because we're legally saved!
So to state that you're a sinner in the context of an argument over "sin nature" has nothing whatsoever to do with slander. That would indicate you have no sense of the context in this kind of conversation.
Millions more are Muslim and don't believe it! Is "popularity" your gauge of truth?
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
To say we're saved from sin is to say we're *legally saved,* and have been given, in a sense, power over sin. This means that the righteousness we exhibit overcomes the condemnation of death. It reflects the righteousness of Christ who himself overcame death.
We identify with Christ, but we do not *become Christ.* We partake of his righteousness, but we are not yet perfect. We have not yet been delivered from these "bodies of death."
Some think that because we've entered into the righteousness of Christ that we are no longer stained with sin, and have complete authority, to the point of perfection, over our sinful bodies. We may have sinful bodies, but we can 100% shut it down in our choice for the righteousness of Christ.
But the Scriptures never say this. The implication is that sin is dealt with both legally and practically. But in a real sense, as we continue to live in our bodies of sin, there will continue to be the sin nature with its invariable commission of acts of sin, including attitudes of sin.
The way we "overcome" sin is not by obliterating it in reality, but rather, by *superseding* it in the practical sense of letting our righteousness overwhelm the tendencies towards sin. I may, for example, feel a sense of covetousness or jealousy, but as I exhibit Christ's love, the jealousy and covetousness is overwhelmed, and is held at bay, as it were.
This does not require that sin be exterminated in our lives for our salvation. Rather, it means that legally our pardon has been paid for, and the practical display of Christ's righteousness is sufficient to show that we've been saved.
We identify with Christ, but we do not *become Christ.* We partake of his righteousness, but we are not yet perfect. We have not yet been delivered from these "bodies of death."
Some think that because we've entered into the righteousness of Christ that we are no longer stained with sin, and have complete authority, to the point of perfection, over our sinful bodies. We may have sinful bodies, but we can 100% shut it down in our choice for the righteousness of Christ.
But the Scriptures never say this. The implication is that sin is dealt with both legally and practically. But in a real sense, as we continue to live in our bodies of sin, there will continue to be the sin nature with its invariable commission of acts of sin, including attitudes of sin.
The way we "overcome" sin is not by obliterating it in reality, but rather, by *superseding* it in the practical sense of letting our righteousness overwhelm the tendencies towards sin. I may, for example, feel a sense of covetousness or jealousy, but as I exhibit Christ's love, the jealousy and covetousness is overwhelmed, and is held at bay, as it were.
This does not require that sin be exterminated in our lives for our salvation. Rather, it means that legally our pardon has been paid for, and the practical display of Christ's righteousness is sufficient to show that we've been saved.
Don't you just love it when a Gnostic reveals their reliance on "gnosis" as the bar of someone's Christian faith!
There is a difference of opinion about how you define "sin nature".
I would define by definition if we have no communion with God we are in sin ie separate from God.
Separateness from God always leads to sin, because God Himself is the source of good and morality, so to stand against Him leads to sin and death, the absence of God.
Some believe the sin nature is innate in the flesh or mortal state of mankind. Some have said sexual desire is the sin nature, because we can never remove this, we are innately as humans sinful.
Now you maybe unaware of such differences, but they are here among people discussing such a subject. I do not believe in the sin nature as an innate part of existence, but as an innate part of not walking in the Spirit, communion with God. Man who is made in Gods image, with love in their hearts, knows the potential for life, but in sinning drifts further and further away from life and reality until finally they die. We are salt, because as being part of the Kingdom we remind the world love works, it heals, it overcomes it is life and it has real value.
There are many who believe like I do. So I have a great sense of context of the conversation, but you appear to be unaware of other views than your own about the "sin nature". And in this context I am not denying sinners sin nature, rather I am proposing in Christ we have a real solution by abiding in the Christ and the Spirit. God bless you
Anthony D'Arienzo
Well-Known Member
listen...start a thread about your denial of psa. Do not derail this one.
You think you have a biblical case, show it. We know you cannot.
it seems you don't understand what Grace is or you seek like the many to redefine what you think it ought to mean:
Grace (OED) this def. goes back to the 1300's
I. Pleasing quality, gracefulness.
1. The quality of producing favourable impressions; attractiveness, charm. Now usually with more restricted application: The attractiveness or charm belonging to elegance of proportions, or (especially) ease and refinement of movement, action, or expression. †In 16–17th c. occas. Pleasantness of flavour.
this def. goes back to the 1200's
II. Favour.
6. a. Favour, favourable or benignant regard or its manifestation (now only on the part of a superior); favour or goodwill, in contradistinction to right or obligation, as the ground of a concession. Somewhat arch. †of grace: as a matter of favour and not of right. †in grace of: in favour of, for the benefit of. (Cf. sense 14.)
hence the definitions that the translators would use in the 1600's
also to say it's not unmerited then you're saying it is merited. which is to say earned, so ether you're lying to the unperceiving, or you don't know what you are talking about. so you're incorrect on two fronts. if you earn, you are do. if its unmerited then its favor and grace. if its merited then you are do compensation for what was earned, which has nothing to do with grace or favor.
and the OP is trying to redefine that simple concept.
grace and favor is unmerited that is why the scriptures say grace and favor.
the Life Adam and Eve received when God created them that they later lost, they had because of God's Grace and Favor. not merit. the Lord didn't come into the garden in the cool of the day to hang out with the trees and the animals, He came to be with His son.
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Last edited:
The only righteousness that he can do is as filthy rags.
However, it is their nature to disobey the Lord.
Only if they are drawn to Jesus by the Father.
See Ephesians 2:3...we were by nature children of wrath.
See 1 John 1:7.
In 1 John:7, he is merely saying, As a believer, if an when you do repent, (according to your mindset, that God is always knowing, you have available to you the blood of Christ, as a cleanser.
Yes, I know. It is obvious, before false teachers brain-washed their victims.
I like and use the one that goes back 2000 years to the Semitic writing style of the apostles. The style used here was a parallelism:
Acts 4:33
33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all.
A parallelism is one defining the other. In this case, grace is power, with "great" denoting it is a parallelism. And confirmed by other apostles in the OP.
Last edited:
The concept is indeed found in the holy scriptures.
No, I don't expect you to accept that...for the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of the Lord (1 Corinthians 2:14).
I do believe that the scripture teaches that the preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that perish (1 Corinthians 1:18); and that since, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God that by the foolishness of preaching those who believe might be saved (1 Corinthians 1:21).
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
