A discussion on TOTAL DEPRAVITY

[JLB]

That is 3 important verses.

You neither addressed my post, nor answered my question, nor did you post any scripture.

You posted a scripture reference, but no scripture.




JLB

 

[Iconoclast]

You neither addressed my post, nor answered my question, nor did you post any scripture.

You posted a scripture reference, but no scripture.




JLB

Look it up,stop being lazy and spoiled.Do you have a bible? I am not dealing with your nonsense.
You should know those verses by memory anyhow. You are not a novice who has never looked in a bible.
You suggest not reading the writings of men, and yet those men use these verses all the time.
If you want to go your own way, make up your own definitions and terms, by all means have at it. You are not going to suck me into your little worldview, like some kind of spiritual unibomber.

 

[Iconoclast]

You have answered nothing.

You mentioned something about some Pope.

Catholicism doesn’t teach the doctrine of Christ. They teach their own man made religion.



Why would God need to reform the doctrine of Christ?





JLB

I think you cannot define..."the doctrine of Christ"

 

[atpollard]

Did Judas Iscariot come to Him?

Irrelevant, but no.
(I could elaborate but you have not listened to anything so far, so there seems little point.)

 

[atpollard]

We don’t need to watch videos.

["We likes our ignorance. It makes us special."]

 

[atpollard]

You have answered nothing.

Reread it.
I did answer it. (You refused to hear any voice but your own.)

 

[atpollard]

I have never been involved in the RCC, have you?

See, if you read what people write you can find the answers that they posted.
The question was "What needed to be Reformed?"

Now, can you figure out what the answer MEANS?
[I can tell it TO you, but I can't understand it FOR you.]

 

[atpollard]

but most believe that our Father needed to punish his Son in order for sinners to be forgiven. That's what you believe.

I believe in the Christus Victor theory of Atonement rather than Penal Substitutionary Atonement, so ... no, that is NOT what I believe.

Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free.​

​

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death, God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of imputed righteousness is postulated.​

​

​

 

[atpollard]

Do you understand this scripture or do you need to have it interpreted (filtered) by someone else?


For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:16


What does whoever believes mean to you?

Yes, I understand what it means, but understanding the meaning of a verse requires accepting the message of the entire CONTEXT that verse is found in. God did not send us "Fortune Cookies", God sent us Books.

Do you understand what this means:

[NKJV]​

Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”​

Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”​

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”​

Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”​

Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.​

“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”​

 

[Fastfredy0]

Do you understand the words of this scripture?

Yes, not infallibly of course, but I have a difficult time understanding you. I just can't follow what you're saying. I give up.

Example:

You can’t teach Heresy and have Christ. Do you understand that if you don’t remain in the doctrine of Christ you no longer have Christ?

A heresy is defined as: An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma or 2) A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine

So, you are saying anyone that does not follow R.C. doctrine PERFECTLY is going to Hell. RIDICULOUS. Your salvific message results in everyone (except you I assume) going to hell. I know you write stuff indicating you believe in doing works for salvation (instead of a result of salvation) and this is another example (assuming you actually mean what you say) of irrational writtings. There are possibly 100s (1000s?) of doctrines. No one is infallible. Everyone speaks contrary to God's word to some extent. This is an impossible WORK you propose to achieve salvation: that one never speak a heresy. You could study forever and not get it ALL RIGHT.
Nevertheless, I'm guessing what you say and what you mean to say are different commodities. Anyways, no sense for us to continue as we do not have a common means of communication. Hey, maybe it's me.

 

[atpollard]

Hey, maybe it's me.

Probably not.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Probably not.

Well, could be both of us with an issue theoretically. Twilight Zone?

 

[JLB]

I think you cannot define..."the doctrine of Christ"

The teaching of Christ in the New Testament.






JLB

 

[JLB]

Look it up,stop being lazy and spoiled.Do you have a bible? I am not dealing with your nonsense.
You should know those verses by memory anyhow. You are not a novice who has never looked in a bible.
You suggest not reading the writings of men, and yet those men use these verses all the time.
If you want to go your own way, make up your own definitions and terms, by all means have at it. You are not going to suck me into your little worldview, like some kind of spiritual unibomber.

Let me know when you are able to address my post and the scriptures I have given.


I won’t hold my breath, because so called “reformed” people don’t go by scripture, nor do they follow the teachings of Christ… so all they ever do is attack people who believe the Bible or post links from their teachers whom they follow.

 

[JLB]

A heresy is defined as: An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma or 2) A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine

So, you are saying anyone that does not follow R.C. doctrine PERFECTLY is going to Hell. RIDICULOUS. Your salvific message results in everyone (except you I assume) going to hell. I know you write stuff indicating you believe in doing works for salvation (instead of a result of salvation) and this is another example (assuming you actually mean what you say) of irrational writtings. There are possibly 100s (1000s?) of doctrines. No one is infallible. Everyone speaks contrary to God's word to some extent. This is an impossible WORK you propose to achieve salvation: that one never speak a heresy. You could study forever and not get it ALL RIGHT.
Nevertheless, I'm guessing what you say and what you mean to say are different commodities. Anyways, no sense for us to continue as we do not have a common means of communication. Hey, maybe it's me.

A Heresy is a teaching that produces a sect, or a division in the body of Christ.

Today they are called denominations.


The KJV translates Strong's G139 in the following manner: sect (5x), heresy (4x).

1. act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city
2. choosing, choice
3. that which is chosen
4. a body of men following their own tenets (sect or party)
   1. of the Sadducees
   2. of the Pharisees
   3. of the Christians
5. dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims

Heresies are one of the works of the flesh.



Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21


Those who practice promoting heresies, false teachings that are against the teaching of Christ; teachings that divide His people, will not inherit the kingdom of God.


Do I need to explain the meaning of this phrase: will not inherit the kingdom of God?


Those who do not inherit the kingdom of God are sent to the everlasting fires of hell along with the devil and his angels.


Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: Matthew 25:34

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: Matthew 25:41





JLB

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Why would God need to Reform the doctrine of Christ?

Asked and answered … next question.

I'm not saying you have not answered JLB's question, but would you mind quoting and linking to wherever you'd say you've answered it? Thanks!

 

[Fastfredy0]

Galatians 5:19-21


Those who practice promoting heresies, false teachings that are against the teaching of Christ; teachings that divide His people, will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Hey, you made a good, interesting point.

What constitutes a heresy in the context of Gal. 5:19-21 in regards to "heresy" Iconoclast atpollard Free
Hmmm, I don't know save in a general sense.
Hypothetical: 1000 people get together to discuss the biblical teaching of the color of Christ's eyes. 900 say brown and 100 say blue.
If we find out the Christ had blue eyes, do the 900 not inherit the kingdom of God?

... maybe the heresy must be grander
Hypothetical: 1000 people get together to discuss the biblical teaching salvation by Faith Alone. 900 say NO and 100 say Yes.
Is the group that taught wrongly go to Hell?

... maybe the heresy must be yet more grand
Hypothetical: 1000 people get together to discuss the biblical teaching that Christ is God. 900 say YES and 100 say No.
Is the group that taught wrongly go to Hell?

... maybe the heresy must be yet much more grand
Hypothetical: 1000 people get together to discuss the biblical teaching that you must know of Christ in order to go to heaven (excludes "age of accountability). 100 say YES and 900 say No.
Is the group that taught wrongly go to Hell? ... there of people represent the forum board who do not believe this to be true; that you can go to heaven without knowledge of Christ ... do those forum reps go to hell....

Interesting question: What constitutes a heresy in the context of Gal. 5:19-21 in regards to "heresy"

 

[atpollard]

I'm not saying you have not answered JLB's question, but would you mind quoting and linking to wherever you'd say you've answered it? Thanks!

Press the little “up arrow” next to the quoted post and you can follow the conversation chain back as far as you would like. Personally, I do not recommend the effort in this case.

JLB is arguing (dishonestly) that the Protestant Reformation was an attempt to reform the teaching of Jesus Christ and thus, demanding to know why the teaching of Christ needs Reforming. I offered a real explanation of the need to reform the RCC, to which he snipped out a response akin to “what do I care about the RCC?”.

You can trace the chain back and read it for yourself.

 

[Iconoclast]

The teaching of Christ in the New Testament.






JLB

That teaching is also known as Calvinism

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Press the little “up arrow” next to the quoted post and you can follow the conversation chain back as far as you would like. Personally, I do not recommend the effort in this case.

JLB is arguing (dishonestly) that the Protestant Reformation was an attempt to reform the teaching of Jesus Christ and thus, demanding to know why the teaching of Christ needs Reforming. I offered a real explanation of the need to reform the RCC, to which he snipped out a response akin to “what do I care about the RCC?”.

You can trace the chain back and read it for yourself.

IOW, you never answered the question JLB asked you. Got it.