theology
Discord ID: 469830219889377283
959 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 4/4
You've never sinned and not cared? Are you a real person?
If it's ultimately that great attitude that determines heaven and hell, then it's the works of the law, and Jesus died for nothing.
Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Let's take this one point at a time. You mentioned someone who sins, knows it, but doesn't care. Such a person is suggesting by his attitude that he is not saved. A true believer would care that he had sinned. He would be mournful for his sins. He would feel guilty and alienated from God. Yes, he might go for a long time without repenting. This might be for a few reasons: a) his sin hasn't yet been brought fully to his understanding, b) he might love his sin so much that he doesn't want to let it go (believers often have a particular besetting sin), c) he might ask for forgiveness every time he commits a specific sin, but still nurses the underlying sinful desire
But someone who knows full well that he has sinned and is not bothered by it is suggesting that he is no saved. Spiritual life in the soul will always bring guilt for sin committed. That is a fruit of the Spirit indwelling the believer
So every time someone sins, which is generally a failure of the will, you suggest he's not saved.
I don't see "guilt" in the fruit of the Spirit. love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance:
Someone who is in a sinful rage and dies in that moment is very different. It is not required of the believer that he has asked forgiveness of every single sin before he can enter Heaven. That is Roman Catholicism.
I didn't say anything like that. What I said was that someone who lives a life of sin and doesn't care is probably not saved. Someone who is saved, sins and is mournful about it shows signs that they are saved
Believers can backslide, and they can excuse certain sins in their lives. But a) they're not indifferent about it, they know they're sinning and b) they will be brought to repentance eventually
You're saying this ... there are "mortal sins"
a) no self-deception is allowed
b) repentance is mandatory before death
Salvation by continual repentance is what you end up with when you head down the "lordship salvation" road.
The Bible teaches, and Calvinism teaches, that sinners are made progressively more holy on this side of eternity. Some more than others and none perfectly. But the carnal nature is gradually destroyed and the spiritual nature is gradually made stronger. They are conformed more and more to the image of Christ. But they are not made perfect in holiness until they are translated into Heaven at death
This is the "gospel" of muslims and mormons.
I have said nothing about mortal sins. And I specifically said that a believer does NOT need to repent of every single sin before he can enter Heaven
What i did say was that throughout life the believer will always be repenting because he is always sinning. The believer still has the carnal, sinful nature within him. By nature he sins every moment. He can do nothing without corrupting it with his sin so he must always be asking forgiveness
You said "certain sins". By implication, other sins are excluded.
My deal is done - a good and perfect gift by faith, and nothing can change it:
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
It would be great for my life below to match to the calling wherewith I'm called, but being perfect is a long way off.
What I meant by "certain sins" was that believers often, in their own mind, excuse certain sins which they dismiss as "small" and basically ok. This is obviously wrong. All sins are worthy of death. But we're talking about sinners. We do not think perfectly. And we're very good at deceiving ourselves, or allowing Satan to deceive us into thinking certain sins are ok.
Justification is perfect. Faith can be weak or strong in different believers, but true faith is by justification and justification is the same in all believers as one is either justified or not. But sanctification is a different thing from justification. It is never perfect in this life because the believer will always have his carnal nature. Believers have two natures: the carnal and the spiritual. Until he dies and goes to Heaven, when he is made perfect in holiness.
You can't just attach a whole theology to a word when that word has a perfectly good meaning already.
This is Calvinism
Justification and Sanctification are theological words and have to be understood in their theological contexts
I defy you to find the words "true faith" in a real Bible.
I have already given you a passage from Scripture which talks about good and bad fruits
Christ was talking about the Pharisees who had the externals of faith but were not true believers and that was shown by their fruits
He was warning about false prophets.
Exactly
They have plenty of wonderful works.
And miracles
And they call him "Lord Lord"
Indeed but they were not true believers
And that is what Christ is saying: they're fruits were not the fruit of the Spirit
They did not have true faith
But they did have lordship salvation.
No they didn't
They had faith in their works.
Look, Lordship salvation is a term that people started using in the 20th century. So just ignore that. The doctrine is that Christ is one's Lord and Saviour
Not just a Saviour but also Lord
He's Lord no matter what you say or do. He's YOUR Lord, no matter what you think.
You don't make him anything.
I am talking in the context of being a believer
Yes, Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords that's not what we're talking about
We are talking about the life of the believer
I'm talking about who he is.
Well that's not what we've been talking about
That's why we're still talking - because we lost each other on basic terms.
I'm happy to accept any term in the context it is used in the Authorised Version.
Lordship Salvation is a term which refers to a specific controversy which happened in North American evangelical churches
So let's not use it here as it's a distraction
Basically the issue at stake was whether when someone comes to saving faith Christ was only his saviour or also his lord in the sense that the believer was brought into conformity to the moral law, which is the old calvinist view as shown in the Westminster Standards. Some were denying that
We are brought into conformity with the law.
We are sanctified.
Of course Christ is Lord of lords but that wasn't the issue being debated
Yes that's what I've been saying!
But when Mr Lordship arrives, he says that he demands that you make a false promise to do works of the law, or you go to hell.
I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Either you believe in sanctification or you don't
I believe in 100% sanctification. 5% won't do, neither will 99.5%
We don't have 100% until we're in Heaven
I have 100% in heaven already. That's salvation.
Yes but you're not in Heaven you're on Earth
Yes, but I have it now in heaven, and I got it without an ounce of good works.
A believer has salvation which cannot be taken away from him. But he is not perfectly holy this side of eternity
Well I don't like this talk of "having it already in Heaven". We have salvation in Christ if He dwells within us by His Spirit. But we, our souls, will not be made perfect in holiness until we are in Heaven
We still have the carnal nature within us
The "reserved in heaven" of 1 Peter 1:4 says you should like this talk of having it already in heaven more.
Yeah ok, having an inheritance in Heaven. Yes I follow you now. Salvation has a slightly different connotation. We have an inheritance waiting for us in Heaven, but salvation is a lived experience now. Our souls are saved. We are regenerated. We do not go to Heaven and get clothed with salvation. We already have salvation. A perfect salvation because justification is perfect
But we are not perfectly holy.
In the sense of our own works. We are counted holy in Christ because his perfect righteousness is imputed to us
But in ourselves, and in our own actions, we are not perfectly holy. All we do is corrupted by our remaining sin
Yes, and his righteousness is imputed to us *if* we believe:
Romans 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
The trouble is that the lordship view says it is imputed if we make a false promise to care more about what we should be doing. That's not faith, but works, which will not save.
Well I wouldn't accept that characteristic of the Lordship position. My understanding is that what they are saying is that true faith is not merely believing a set of facts or mentally agreeing with a set of propositions. It is truly submitting to Christ, trusting in Him, following Him and striving to obey His commandments: "If ye love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15
It was a reaction to easy-believism which basically said if you agree with certain Biblical truths you're saved even if you continued living your life as you always did, committing sin, etc.
Is getting saved hard?
Christ did the hard part, you know.
If it's submitting, following, striving, obeying then it's not faith.
It's very hard. Indeed it impossible for man to save himself but with God all things are possible. But even "the righteous are scarecly saved". 1 Peter 4:18
Well, the righteous will scarecely be saved from the judgement of God
But the Spirit enables the sinner to submit, strive, obey. It's all from the power of the Spirit indwelling the believer
They are part of his household.
That's why they get it first.
It's all from the power of God in the soul of the believer. It's not by his own strength.
And some of the righteous are living wickedly.
Yes they do I don't deny that.
But if someone who claims to be saved was living a wicked life and they showed no signs of guilt about it I would question whether they are saved
Be the guy in James 2 then, go wild.
What do you mean?
"Show me your faith without works."
You can question, but asking questions does not make a thing so, or not so.
You understand that question is facetious? The whole point of the question is that one can't show faith without works. James is arguing that true faith always produces fruit.
There is no such concept as "true faith".
There is faith.
There is "dead faith"
There is no "true faith".
True faith is an expression that is used because it's useful
When faith is dead, what is it that is dead?
Covenant of works does not appear in the Bible but is very useful theological shorthand
The word Trinity does not appear in the Bible either
"Covenant of works" is nonsense.
I thought you were a Calvinist?
I was ๐
What church are you a member of?
'cmon, call me an Arminian.
Ditsem! @Malcolm the Seceder, you just advanced to level 18!
Do you want to visit?
No I want to know from what context you are arguing. You accused MacArthur of not following Calvinism and I was responding to that. I assumed you considered yourself a Calvinist
There's a spectrum of Calvinism. TULIP pretends to answer great philosophical questions about salvation, but it does not claim to be the gospel. That's old-school calvinism. It's broadly compatible with salvation by grace through faith without works.
However, when you follow it to the hard conclusions and you stick to them doggedly, you are preaching salvation by faith with works.
(And for a bonus, you don't need the gospel, since it's God's secret election that ultimately saves, but that's off the point.)
TULIP was a response to specific complaints raised by the Remonstrants against the teaching of the Reformed churches. Those five points were never meant to encompass all Biblical teaching. There's a lot more to being Reformed than just the five points which is why, for example, MacArthur isn't Reformed. But those five points do accurately summarise the Biblical teaching on salvation by grace alone.
Which is why churches which use the Canons of Dordt as part of their offical subscription also subscribe other catechisms. Because on their own the Canons don't sufficiently summarise the Reformed faith
The British Presbyterian Churches subscribe the Westminster Standards which encompass the teaching of the Canons
Said Paul,
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
But if he was a TULIP'er, he would have acknowledged that the gospel is completely ineffectual and the real power is God's secret election, and only the elect can believe. He didn't.
Election refers to WHO God saves, not the HOW
But the gospel is to all.
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
There's a lot of whosoever.
But not all who hear will be saved
And not everyone hears the Gospel either
Revelation 22:17 ... And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
The offer is to all.
They don't hear, because TULIP teaches that the gospel is ineffective to save.
You need something extra, that magic um.
They don't hear because they live in places of the world where the Gospel hasn't been preached
Anyway time to go home from work.
Thanks for the chat.
Go and tell them.
They're in the township ๐
"Whether or not Wilson wants to identify with the name federal vision, in the end, means little. The name is of minor importance. What is important is the content of his teaching. And that hasnโt changed. It is still false doctrine. Sure, there may be differences between Wilson and other men of the federal vision on certain points. But in the fundamentals they continue to promote false doctrine."
https://rfpa.org/blogs/news/doug-wilson-federal-vision-no-mas
Federal Vision ๐คฆ๐ปโโ๏ธ
We don't know what Christ looked like which is why images purporting to be of him are a breach of the Second Commandment.
We do know that Christ who is the glory of God did not shame his head with long hair
@Daniel van Straaten Exactly.
@Derde That would be my thought. Did he have a crew cut though? Who knows? We certainly don't.
It's worth pointing out that what is considered an acceptable length of hair for a man has changed over the generations. In our day and age very short hair is considered manly hair. However, if one were to look at the portraits of men in the 16th and 17th centuries one might find something different.
Bunch of queers
But I also see no evidence that *short* hair was ever considered the norm for women, but *longer* hair for men than today.
Well I'd like to see what happened if you went up to King William of Orange and called him that
Could he not read?
He was too busy overthrowing the Papist tyranny in Britain and installing hundreds of years of Protestant rule.
I guess
I'll bet he didn't anticipate his portrait showing up his small sins hundreds of years later.
Or armchair theologians
Most are. Few have dusty feet.
Anyway, we shouldn't be making pictures of Christ. Not helpful.
About social justice, I found this helpful. "While there are no natural positive rights, legally speaking, as far as what can be compelled by force, the moral law does require positive duties (read the moral law questions in WLC), that man, in order to act righteously, must perform. These duties mean others have their due, or positive rights, before God. If we fail to "endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own" when it is in our means to do so, it is sufficient cause alone for our condemnation according to divine justice. But these are not rights that can be protected or remedied by legal justice--not in a natural society. Legal justice may only compel negative duties in defense of our corresponding negative rights (natural rights), or positive duties contractually agreed to--which is really still a function of protecting our negative rights."
.
@Willem Petzer ken jy die? Blykbaar Du Toit se suster.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1731486393838692/permalink/2167025210284806/
Linki Brand op dopperdagboek FB group: "C. Landman het 'n interessante vergelyking tussen haar en Abraham Kuyper se argumente gemaak in 'n artikel genaamd "Abraham Kuyper en Marie du Toit oor vrouestemreg" - verskeie plekke aanlyn beskikbaar. 'n Aanhaling hieruit: "Du Toit (1921:20) deel egter nie Kuyper se vrees dat vrouens deur stemreg die openbare lewe sal oorheers nie. Sy betreur, inteendeel, die feit dat vrouens onverskillig teenoor die politiek staan en hoegenaamd nie lojaal teenoor mekaar is nie. Sy wyt dit aan die feit dat vrouens 'n slegte selfbeeld het, nie glo dat daar iets groots uit hulleself na vore kan kom nie en bedreig voel as ander vrouens wel tot iets groots kom. Du Toit self (1921:118) glo dat 'n sintese van vrouens se private en openbare rolle 'n gelukkige ontwikkeling sal wees en haal daarvoor Jan Smuts aan wat sou gesรช het dat vrouens se insig in sosiale kwessies openbaar gemaak moet word deur vrouens aan die politiek te laat deelneem en veral deur hulle insigte by (sosiale) wetgewing te laat geld."
"Kuyper (1914:23) skets drie situasies wat hy as die oorsake van vrouens se sug na stemreg sien:
* die valse indiwidualisine van die Franse Rewolusie;
* die opdringerigheid van die Anglosaksiese suffragette', en
* die toenemende aantal vrouens wat ongetroud bly."
@Daniel van Straaten nee, sal graag meer wil weet...
Lyk my sy het vir vrou stem regte geveg, het nie getrou nie en is dood van TB op 51 jaar. Ek weet nie meer iets oor dit nie.
Christ was an Israelite
What the actual fuck ๐
Thoughts on Renaldos attempt to justify fornication as not a sin?
"talks about how Sex Before Marriage isn't a sin" He did not say it is not sin, the book say so
@Daniel van Straaten so you think he is going to oppose the book he read?
I would not be surprised if he doesn't knowing human nature.
Liberalism, the justification and tolerance of sins...
๐ @Daniel van Straaten ek dink jy sal hierdie sermon geniet
@Willem Petzer ken jy Philip Venter? Hier is hy. "Laat ek myself weer ongewild maak. Ons mense glo dat ons huidige ellendige situasie slegs gaan verander wanneer herlewing kom. Ek glo dit ook. Maar hierdie herlewing gaan nie net oor 'n bekering en 'n terugkeer na God toe nie. Dit gaan ook oor 'n terugkeer na die waarheid. In Openbaring 2:5 word die gemeente gewaarsku om terug te keer na "Die dinge wat julle aan die begin gedoen het". Hierdie dinge sluit nie Japie se IV en Angus, die NAR, voorspoedteologie en baie ander misleiding in nie. "Anders gaan Ek julle kandelaar van julle wegvat", is die waarskuwing. Hoe ernstig moet ons dit opneem?
Hoor my vandag. As dit nie gebeur nie, sal ons as Christenfundeerde Afrikaners nie oorleef nie."
In Dopperdagboek FB groep lees ek die. "Linki Brand: Dit is jammer dat Douw hierdie forum gekies het om iets soos diรฉ te deel - en dan ook sy verdere kommentaar is ontstellend en onnodig (of eerder: dit help die die punt die, dit is aggressief en bombasties). Maar ek dink mens kan wel hieruit aflei dat daar 'n behoefte tussen Doppers is om wel ook oor hierdie punt te praat / nie alleen daarmee te worstel nie. Ons leef in 'n tyd wat dinge net eenvoudig nie meer so swart en wit soos in die verlede verklaar kan word nie (selfs nie uit die Bybel nie - ek bevraagteken nie die Bybelteks self nie, ek bevraagteken net die interpretasie daarvan). Die eerste reaksie nadat jou kernwaarhede of sogenaamde beginsels aangetas word is vrees, ontkenning en verwerping. Wat die gay-kwessie so moeilik maak is dat dit met seks en liefde te doen het (ja liefde!). Hoe kan jy iemand wie hulle pasmaat - iemand vir wie hul liefhet met hulle hele hart en siel - gevind het, veroordeel en vergelyk met 'n alkoholis wat hulle moet weerhou van drank. Dis walglik, onmenslik. Dit is natuurlik reg dat jy as gelowige eerste in die Bybel die antwoord gaan soek, maar soek verder! Soek meer! Hou op veroordeel en probeer verstaan. Probeer verstaan! Ek weet van soveel gay mense wat God gesmeek het om hulle heteroseksueel te maak en dan uiteindelik aanvaar het dit is nie wat God vir hulle wil he nie (hulle moes letterlik kies tussen selfmoord aan die een kant of selfaanvaarding aan die anderkant). En gay mense wat oortuig is dat dit juis God is wat hulle maat vir hulle gestuur het - en dankbaar daarvan wil getuig en 'n belofte voor God maak om vir altyd getrou aan hierdie spesifieke maat te bly. My punt is net dit: hou op om te skrik vir iets wat nie soos jy is nie, probeer dit in liefde verstaan en hou aan soek en bid vir wysheid en begrip. Want liefde oorwin alles."
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1731486393838692/permalink/2014353302218665/?__tn__=-R
@Daniel van Straaten ek stem 110% saam
Maar seker nie met Linki Brand nie. Sy het nie 'n duidelike standpunt oor gay sex as sonde nie.
@Daniel van Straaten stem nie rerig met die hele gay-kwessie nie, amper almal wat ek ken wat gay was, nou heeltamel omgedrrai en verbeter het.
en hulle is kyk nie terug nie
My tannie swot teologie๐ ek dink sy is al kla actually
ng kerk
in Skellembosch?
.
@Daniel van Straaten ek dink unisa. Sy is al in ha 40's
Toe ek in stellies gekuier het in my jonger dae het ek altyd gese ek swot teologie๐ amal vra mos altyd wat jy swot.
Is da vroue pastore al?
lank al in NK kerk
Toe ek in die NG was jare terug was dit nogie gewees nie. Snaaks hoe die ng so verander het en amal verwelkom nou. In my tyd was dit n hele ander storie
Ng ja
selfs in doppers is daar mense wat vrou pastore will he
Ja ek dit ook tee gekom toe ek die NG probeer het saam 'n vriend in my jonger jare, pastoor en sy vrou was ook 'n pastoor.. Hulle nie gelike nie, hulle was nogal oop en nie baie skaam oor hulle soft porn video's wat so openlik op beskou was in die sitkamer waar ons die jeug wat daar by hulle huis was dit tee gekom het... So ja sรช nie dit is die NG in algemeen nie, maar daai was my experience nou toe ek so terug dink na die eerste vrou pastoor wat ek tee gekom het.
FALEM EM INGLรS, PORRA!
Yeah I'm sure if you throw in something in English to participate, you will find responses in English ๐
I remember when this channel was always in English...
@Malcolm the Seceder cause you been participating lol
@Sheamus No because English is the best. But as with the church, declension set in. But I am here to bring about a Reformation
๐
@Daniel van Straaten Didn't put you down as a belieber
@Malcolm the Seceder we are helping. they will only speak afrikaans in heaven one day
That toothbrush though
959 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 4/4