A discussion on TOTAL DEPRAVITY

[Fastfredy0]

Re: The teaching of Christ in the New Testament

That teaching is also known as Calvinism

Might have gone a little to far with that definition brother. Maybe something a little more humble ... *giggle*

 

[atpollard]

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

The word just means “factions” or “groups” … when some depart from the teaching of scripture, it becomes NECESSESARY:

1 Corinthians 11:17-22 [NKJV]

17 Now in giving these instructions I do not praise [you], since you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. 20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. 21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of [others]; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise [you].​

Apostasy is worse than division.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

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

I apologize for misrepresenting your belief.

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.​

Except for the Bible, I've never studied church history. Christus Victor sounds like what I believe.

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.​

To me penal substitution is heresy, as putting an innocent to death in place of the guilty violates our Fathers' law.
I believe when Jesus abolished the commandments which condemn sinners, he did away with them by not enforcing them against people who conspired to kill him (sinned against him.) Jesus preached repentance for forgivness. His grace of withholding the curse of the law is temporary for the unrepentant,

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. Jn.5:45

as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; Rom.2:12

 

[atpollard]

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

So do you still beat your wife?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

JLB is arguing (dishonestly)

You did not tag JLB. That's a violation of the Terms Of Service:

1.2: Always tag a member that you mention in any thread.; (@ plus name)

 

[Paul E. Michael]

So do you still beat your wife?

To whom (if anyone) are you referring by your phrase, "your wife"?

 

[atpollard]

You did not tag JLB. That's a violation of the Terms Of Service:

Proverbs 6:16-19 [NKJV]
16 These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
17 A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19 A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.

I apologize for forgetting the minutiae of the TOS, but I cannot escape the feeling that you are not interacting with me in good faith. I shake off the dust of this conversation with you.

 

[Fastfredy0]

The word just means “factions” or “groups” … when some depart from the teaching of scripture, it becomes NECESSESARY:

Yeah, I get the definition in that general sense. We all depart from the teachings of scripture to some extent. Like there are, let's just say, 10,000 teachings. No one can get every detail correct. So, any incorrect detail would be a heresy of varying degree. Galatians 5:19-21 says those "disputes, dissensions, factions [that promote heresies], 21 envy, drunkenness, riotous behavior, and other things like these. I warn you beforehand, just as I did previously, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gee, we're having disputes now. Are we all going to hell? I can't exegete those verses to my satisfaction. Maybe it is a matter of habitually (practice such things) that is the dividing point?
Do I sound like a Pharisee? :nod

 

[atpollard]

To whom (if anyone) are you referring by your phrase, "your wife"?

So you are not answering my question as I did not answer the question of [he who shall not be named to honor the TOS]. Got it.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Re: So do you still beat your wife?

To whom (if anyone) are you referring by your phrase, "your wife"?

There's a saying.... have you stopped beating your wife.... it refers to a question that can't be answered. If you say "yes" it implies you were beating your wife and if you say "no" it implies you are still beating your wife.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I cannot escape the feeling that you are not interacting with me in good faith.

Right back at ya. You said you had already answered a question you were asked. So I asked you to quote/link to whatever you had written that you would call your "answer" to it, but since you never answered it, you obviously do not want to do that.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

So you are not answering my question

What question?

You asked me no question; rather, you wrote nonsense and stuck a question mark onto the end of it.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Post #707:

I shake off the dust of this conversation with you.

Post #709:

So you are not answering my question as I did not answer the question of [he who shall not be named to honor the TOS]. Got it.

Amazing resolve, atpollard! How's your dust-shaking going?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

My last response as you are not rational.

So you, like atpollard, haven't the backbone to commit to your statements of resolution.

Re: So do you still beat your wife?

There's a saying.... have you stopped beating your wife.... it refers to a question that can't be answered. If you say "yes" it implies you were beating your wife and if you say "no" it implies you are still beating your wife.

Since I'm not married, then to whom (if anyone) are you referring by your phrase, "your wife"? If you're not referring to anyone, then you're merely uttering nonsense when you say, "So do you still beat your wife?" rather than asking a question.

 

[GodsGrace]

So you are not answering my question as I did not answer the question of [he who shall not be named to honor the TOS]. Got it.

Actually A, the other member is just trying to clarify your question.
This entire conversation is a mess.
Where is the overseer, brightfame52 ??

I'm going to avoid this Forum,
But later.

 

[GodsGrace]

Re: So do you still beat your wife?

There's a saying.... have you stopped beating your wife.... it refers to a question that can't be answered. If you say "yes" it implies you were beating your wife and if you say "no" it implies you are still beating your wife.

Oh really FF....
Get serious.

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

Wow.
For somebody that is always accusing me of not using scripture, you sure are making it difficult for JLB .

Which proves my point that you dont really want to DISCUSS scripture.

 

[JLB]

So do you still beat your wife?

More ad hominem with no answer or scripture.

This is typical from the “reformed community”.




JLB

 

[JLB]

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"

Promoting a doctrine that transgresses the doctrine of Christ.

A doctrine that is against the teaching of Christ.


Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 2 John 9

• Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ

A doctrine that intends to divide the body of Christ.


Paul says it this way —


Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 1 Corinthians 1:10-13


Christians follow Christ; believe and practice His teachings.

Calvinist’s follow the teachings of Calvinism.


True teachers instruct people to follow Christ.





JLB

 

[JLB]

That teaching is also known as Calvinism

Please provide a scripture from the New Testament that says…

Calvinism is also known as the doctrine of Christ.


Those who transgress, who leave and do not remain in the doctrine of Christ, do not have Christ any longer.


Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 2 John 9


Paul says it this way —


Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 1 Timothy 4:1


Calvinism, OSAS teaches people they can live a life of sin, practicing the works of the flesh and never become lost. Ths is a doctrine of demons, and causes people to depart from the faith, thinking that once they are saved they are always saved; that they have been elected to eternal salvation.


Here is who scripture teaches us who will receive eternal salvation in the end —


And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, Hebrews 5:9







JLB