Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, you're right...I was thinking of a different poster.
Oh, thats quite alright, boo-boo's do happen. Lol
And thats what my/our lord Jesus Christ teaches us to do, "forgiveness".
One of the main reasons I like listening to Pastor Voddie Baucham, he pulls no punches, tells it from the good book with cross references and forgives those who do OUR Heavenly Father wrong with their false doctoren. Yes I always forgive. God Bless
Perhaps it's not a topic for this thread, but I'd be interested in hearing how you think reformed theology conflicts with your explanation. I also thought you explained it pretty well, and didn't see anything I'd call wrong, though you didn't use the specific wording that is common to reformed teaching.
Thank you so much for saying you thought I explained it well, and so glad you ask about how the reformed teach against it.
I said that in order to get saved, we have to confess and repent of our sins and crucify ourselves with Christ to sin...we tell Jesus we die to the sins of the world and will live to please him. We believe that his shed blood on the cross purifies us, and we call on him to help us, to save us, to give us his Spirit, as he makes his home in our heart. That is how we die and are born again. Then we live up to that new sinless life by working out our salvation, training ourselves, as we obey him. That is how he lives through us and how we live through him.
However, the reformed teaches that we cannot believe and obey anything to get saved, and God saves us in our unbelief and disobedience by regenerating us with the Holy Spirit and then this causes us to believe. They also teach that no one has to obey God after being saved.
They misunderstand many of the scriptures and preach against God and the way to be saved and to stay saved.
That may be. But the correct definition is still to be on the alert for injustice. I would call that a christian value.
Or perhaps christians don't care about justice???
I don't know a Christian who doesn't. The issue is that one person's definition of "justice" may be radically different than another's. Don't assume motive based on a different philosophy.
Thank you so much for saying you thought I explained it well, and so glad you ask about how the reformed teach against it.
I said that in order to get saved, we have to confess and repent of our sins and crucify ourselves with Christ to sin...we tell Jesus we die to the sins of the world and will live to please him. We believe that his shed blood on the cross purifies us, and we call on him to help us, to save us, to give us his Spirit, as he makes his home in our heart. That is how we die and are born again. Then we live up to that new sinless life by working out our salvation, training ourselves, as we obey him. That is how he lives through us and how we live through him.
However, the reformed teaches that we cannot believe and obey anything to get saved, and God saves us in our unbelief and disobedience by regenerating us with the Holy Spirit and then this causes us to believe. They also teach that no one has to obey God after being saved.
They misunderstand many of the scriptures and preach against God and the way to be saved and to stay saved.
Your presumptuous belief that you are your own Savior will not be looked upon favorably by our one and only Savior, Jesus Christ, IMO!
Thank you so much for saying you thought I explained it well, and so glad you ask about how the reformed teach against it.
I said that in order to get saved, we have to confess and repent of our sins and crucify ourselves with Christ to sin...we tell Jesus we die to the sins of the world and will live to please him. We believe that his shed blood on the cross purifies us, and we call on him to help us, to save us, to give us his Spirit, as he makes his home in our heart. That is how we die and are born again. Then we live up to that new sinless life by working out our salvation, training ourselves, as we obey him. That is how he lives through us and how we live through him.
However, the reformed teaches that we cannot believe and obey anything to get saved, and God saves us in our unbelief and disobedience by regenerating us with the Holy Spirit and then this causes us to believe. They also teach that no one has to obey God after being saved.
They misunderstand many of the scriptures and preach against God and the way to be saved and to stay saved.
Thanks for clarifying; I see the distinction you are making. It's a very delicate distinction and I think it's very easy to get confused, but the historical orthodox position seems to be that man can do literally nothing to earn salvation, even choose to have faith, without the grace of God through the work of the Holy Spirit. Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Wesleyan, and Reformed teaching for centuries all seems to agree on this, though they use different terminology. In contrast to the orthodox position that grace comes first, then faith, which leads to the further graces of salvation and sanctification, you seem to be saying that a human's choice to have faith comes first, and God's grace is bestowed in consequence. Am I understanding properly?
Also, re: the bolded, I've been doing an awful lot of research into Reformed theology in the last year, and have never encountered anyone teaching such a thing. In fact, it seems to be nearly the opposite: that a person who has received God's gift of salvation in fact cannot avoid growing in obedience and submission to God.
Thanks for clarifying; I see the distinction you are making. It's a very delicate distinction and I think it's very easy to get confused, but the historical orthodox position seems to be that man can do literally nothing to earn salvation, even choose to have faith, without the grace of God through the work of the Holy Spirit. Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Wesleyan, and Reformed teaching for centuries all seems to agree on this, though they use different terminology. In contrast to the orthodox position that grace comes first, then faith, which leads to the further graces of salvation and sanctification, you seem to be saying that a human's choice to have faith comes first, and God's grace is bestowed in consequence. Am I understanding properly?
Jesus tells us plainly what to do to be an heir, a child of God's.
Many denominations teach against what Jesus says to do.
I believe it comes from a misunderstanding from Paul teaching 'not of works'.
When Paul says not of works, he is speaking about the purification/ceremonial works of the law, he is not speaking about do nothing Jesus says to do, yet that is what the reformers teach.
I think I will start a thread on it and if I do I hope you will participate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaAma
Also, re: the bolded, I've been doing an awful lot of research into Reformed theology in the last year, and have never encountered anyone teaching such a thing. In fact, it seems to be nearly the opposite: that a person who has received God's gift of salvation in fact cannot avoid growing in obedience and submission to God.
Well the reformed denominations teach we do not have to obey, but that we will want to. Wisdom proves that wrong, however. The reformed denominations teach once saved always saved, and that goes against the many scriptures where Jesus warns us.
However, the reformed teaches that we cannot believe and obey anything to get saved, and God saves us in our unbelief and disobedience by regenerating us with the Holy Spirit and then this causes us to believe. They also teach that no one has to obey God after being saved.
I'm not sure that's a fair characterization at all. I never met a Christian of any stripe who did not think it important to avoid bringing any sort of shame on themselves, the faith, or their god, or who did not have an expectation of good, and presumably improved behavior as a result of believing.
In my experience it was down to how strict / impatient or relaxed / patient their approach to obedience was, and which kinds of (dis)obedience they considered important, and how they prioritized different issues.
For example while it's not so true in the past 50 to 75 years, there was a time when it was considered by evangelicals sinful to do things such as a woman wearing a dress with the skirt hem above her ankles, listening to the radio, or going to a movie theatre. Today, evangelicals routinely do all of those things without giving it a second thought. To whatever extent those things are spoken against today it is in terms of first principles, not the act themselves. Such as, you should not neglect Bible study or prayer to attend movies. You should not dress provocatively, rather than going around with a tape measure and some specific length rule. Even there -- what constitutes insufficient Bible study or insufficient prayer? What constitutes "provocative" or "immodest"?
All these things are highly subjective and change with time and place, even among those who believe substantially as you do. It also changes with what we are acclimated to. When all these prohibitions existed, seeing leg or going to quite realistic popular entertainments was a new and therefore scary thing. Today they are totally unremarkable. I do not think today seeing a woman's calf or an on-screen kiss excites "prurient interest", whatever that is exactly.
So ... if you were arriving here in 2023 via a time machine from 1923 you might think modern Christians quite depraved and worldly since evangelical Christian women regularly show, not just ankle, but knee and often then some, and Christians usually have what amount to wide-screen movie installations in their homes that they spend substantial time watching. But guess what ... in general they are not therefore libertines, unfaithful, or profligate.
To me, the bigger problem is that in both 1923 and 2023, most Christians don't know that much about the Bible, doctrine, theology or things of that nature in the first place. Their positions are not held as a result of thoughtful reflection but because basically their pastors tell them what to pearl-clutch over, or not.
I'm not sure that's a fair characterization at all. I never met a Christian of any stripe who did not think it important to avoid bringing any sort of shame on themselves, the faith, or their god, or who did not have an expectation of good, and presumably improved behavior as a result of believing.
In my experience it was down to how strict / impatient or relaxed / patient their approach to obedience was, and which kinds of (dis)obedience they considered important, and how they prioritized different issues.
For example while it's not so true in the past 50 to 75 years, there was a time when it was considered by evangelicals sinful to do things such as a woman wearing a dress with the skirt hem above her ankles, listening to the radio, or going to a movie theatre. Today, evangelicals routinely do all of those things without giving it a second thought. To whatever extent those things are spoken against today it is in terms of first principles, not the act themselves. Such as, you should not neglect Bible study or prayer to attend movies. You should not dress provocatively, rather than going around with a tape measure and some specific length rule. Even there -- what constitutes insufficient Bible study or insufficient prayer? What constitutes "provocative" or "immodest"?
All these things are highly subjective and change with time and place, even among those who believe substantially as you do. It also changes with what we are acclimated to. When all these prohibitions existed, seeing leg or going to quite realistic popular entertainments was a new and therefore scary thing. Today they are totally unremarkable. I do not think today seeing a woman's calf or an on-screen kiss excites "prurient interest", whatever that is exactly.
So ... if you were arriving here in 2023 via a time machine from 1923 you might think modern Christians quite depraved and worldly since evangelical Christian women regularly show, not just ankle, but knee and often then some, and Christians usually have what amount to wide-screen movie installations in their homes that they spend substantial time watching. But guess what ... in general they are not therefore libertines, unfaithful, or profligate.
To me, the bigger problem is that in both 1923 and 2023, most Christians don't know that much about the Bible, doctrine, theology or things of that nature in the first place. Their positions are not held as a result of thoughtful reflection but because basically their pastors tell them what to pearl-clutch over, or not.
I am speaking about the false faith alone doctrine, and it can even be found in the New Testament times.
There are many denominations with the false faith alone doctrine.
The faith alone believers say we are not to do anything to get saved and to stay saved except believe, and they also wrongly say that believing is not a work.
The Calvinists claim that faith is a work and therefore disqualifies a person from being saved by Christ alone.
The faith alone doctrine people and the Calvinists argue with each other on who disobeys God the most, for they seriously believe that to obey is to not obey.
All faith alone sects are in falseness.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
