/christianity/ - Christian Theology

>>1900

https://carm.org/

Thoughts: You should at least have taken the trouble to copypaste the link in your no-effort OP.

CARM is big brain apologetics

CARM forums is wholesome Boomer Christian discussion, but not my thing

>>1908

Somewhat noticed that, otherwise its decent

>>1900

Reasonable, but alittle too much zionism heresy

>site comes off feeling jumbled and hard to find specific things

>>1908

Never noticed that CARM had forums. These guys are fantastic. They even have a section dedicated to trashing the Great Whore!

>>1900

On a closer look, I see that they think that Christianity = Protestantism and Protestantism = Baptist. I see people on the Internet claiming that it's a fundamental Protestant belief that the eucharist is just normal bread and wine without special qualities or spiritual effects, and it looks like CARM plays a part in this.

I believe I recall them saying that we aren't saved by turning from sin. So that means they actually believe faith alone. So they're OK in my book.

>>1953

Still doesn't invite you to keep sinning. It's always best to make an effort to resist temptation as much as you can. Christ said to the harlot "go and sin no more" for a reason. Not "keep sinning if you want, but just have faith that I will forgive you"

>>1961

Correct, that had never been a part of the doctrine of justification by faith alone

>>1930

>we are only to support it in so far as it is biblical.

So we shouldn't support it at all

>>1961

Free grace doesn't imply that it's ok to sin or an invitation to sin. It simply upholds faith alone. Jesus didn't tell her "Go and sin no more, but if you do happen to sin, you <were never saved/can't be saved/reprobate/going to hell/lost again/lost forever/insert works variation here>". Maybe Paul Washer would have said that to her, but not Jesus.

>>1979

too add on to what I said, go and sin no more is important if you don't want temporal judgment despite being saved from eternal judgement.

>>1979

>"Go and sin no more, but if you do happen to sin, you <were never saved/can't be saved/reprobate/going to hell/lost again/lost forever/insert works variation here>"

That is one spicy strawman

>>1953

>>1979

>>1980

The anti-repentance cheap grace stuff is at best braindead to the culture in which we live because it could be mildly acceptable in a more medieval context to preach the gospel without the law because it could be taken for granted that your audience already understood what God demands from them, already understood that they have failed God and fallen under condemnation. But to not mention a turning away from their transgressions in a modern context where we have seen fit to create terms such as "feminine penis" or "safe heroine use", a modern context where men essentially declare themselves gods against God, is completely unacceptable. To preach the gospel without the law today is basically just creating conceited false Christians.

>>1985

>anti-repentance

I'm pro-repentance. Repentance is a change of mind from unbelief to belief.

Acts 20:21 talks of "repentance towards God, and Faith in Jesus". Jesus is God. Repentance toward God IS faith in Christ. A change of mind from unbelief.

Turning from sins will never save you. Turning from sin is turning from transgression of the law as 1 John states. Thus to turn from sin is to follow the law. And no flesh shall be justified by the works of the law.

You call God a sinner by your definition. God repented. He repented in Jonah 3:10. In that same verse it says "And God saw their WORKS, that they turned from their evil ways."

It's an inescapable fact that turning from sins is NOT repentance, and does NOT save, and IS a work of the law, and that will never save you.

>cheap grace

Apparently you think paying for a priceless gift with filthy rags isn't cheap. Sad!

>>1988

Turning from sins (or at least wanting/trying to) is an essential part of repentance. This is not to be confused with the Catholic concept of penance where reciting a large number of Ave Marias etc. is necessary. The same goes for doing works like giving money to the poor etc. solely to feel more holy and assured of salvation. It's what's in the inside that counts, but persisting in the same old external sin implies that probably what's in the inside didn't actually change.

>"repentance towards God, and Faith in Jesus"

Notice the "and". The two sides of the "and" use wholly different words, and you can't decide that they're really the same just because Jesus is part of the Trinity. And in any case, if you call Jesus your Lord, wouldn't you want to do according to his word?

>>1988

>I'm pro-repentance. Repentance is a change of mind from unbelief to belief

Not in the bible it isn't

>Repentance toward God IS faith in Christ. A change of mind from unbelief

A change of mind from sin to submission. You think someone can claim to believe in God while they spit on His name and worship strange gods? Think again.

>Turning from sins will never save you

Imagine that on opposite sides of you are Christ and sin. You are standing between them, and since you are a sinner, your eyes are fixed on sin. Now, how will you turn to Christ, who is behind you, without turning away from the sin before you? It is one action, it is not that turning from sin saves you, it is Christ that saves you, and to turn to Christ is to turn from sin.

>Thus to turn from sin is to follow the law

The law also commands us to believe

>You call God a sinner by your definition. God repented

Did God repent from unbelief to belief?

Now I will clarify that turning from sin is not an external action. That is called penance. Repentance is in the heart, it is a detestation of sin and desire to be saved there from, which led the publican to keep his eyes from heaven in shame. Repentance is not a condition that we must fulfill to be saved, rather it is part of the package deal that is faith (works are not). If somebody sins and justifies it saying "I do not need to submit to God, I am saved, it is my right to do evil", that one does not know Christ. The regenerate heart reviles sin.

>>1990

Repentance does not refer to the actions which result from the change of mind, see here

Acts 26:20 NKJV — “but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.

"Do works befitting repentance" as in, demonstrating repentance in your deeds.

Your position seems to be that your have to put away sin before turning to Christ. Does the Bible point to that even being possible?

I think we're all in agreement that repentance is a biblical mandate, and that salvation comes by grace not of works. The question is; do I need to have stopped all sin in my life before I can receive salvation?

>>1989

"And" doesn't mean one isn't the other. It's like saying "God and the father". They're both the same thing.

The Grandville sharp rule proves this further in Acts 20:21

http://www.jesusisprecious.org/articles/acts_20-21.htm

Good luck paying for the priceless gift of salvation with dirty rags.

>>1991

They should repent, Change their mind from unbelief, and do works. Two events.

KJV - But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works MEET for repentance

This is saying if you're saved, you should do works, just as free grace teaches. It's not that hard to understand.

I don't know why you think the word of God would be inconsistent.

For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, REPENTED not afterward, THAT YE MIGHT BELIEVE him Matt 21:32

Repenting is believing. The pharisees didn't change their ming at the preaching of God, therefore they didn't believe.

Now stop being a brainlet

>>1993

I agree with this presentation

>>1991

>Repentance does not refer to the actions which result from the change of mind

I know, I said as much explicitly. Why did you choose to ignore my definition of repentance?

>Your position seems to be that your have to put away sin before turning to Christ.

I think this is a good example of the blindness traditions can inflict on a mind, because no one can rationally take that away from what I said.

>I think we're all in agreement that repentance is a biblical mandate

I think we're not

>The question is; do I need to have stopped all sin in my life before I can receive salvation?

No sir, the question is 'may I persist in hatred of the Triune Majesty and adoration of evil deeds and be a saint? Can I be both a child of wrath and a son of God?' and the answer of scripture is a strict no, but the answer of the cheap grace Antinomians is yes. That is where the issue is, that is where there is another spirit, that is where ways must be parted.

>>1994

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

Now why did the publican not dare to face God, but strike himself and beg like a filthy pauper? It is because in repentance he was ashamed, and here we see the regenerate heart, in that he did not assert in pride that he did not need to obey God, that by his own free act he was saved, and become conceited, but he in humble obedience, knowing it was proper and good that he should face eternal wrath, submitted himself to God, and though he no doubt went down doubting himself, he was justified, because in his penitent heart he did nothing to support himself (knowing that he a weak creature could not counteract the horrendous evil he had committed) but extended the empty hand of faith and begged to be caught from his fall.

>>1930

Please reread that excerpt and think about what you just wrote…

>>1975

<THIS

>>2002

>calling the gospel cheap grace

>thinks grace is worth filthy rags

>>2037

>>thinks grace is worth filthy rags

Our righteousness is called filthy rags because it is tainted by our sins. In Christ God views us as absolutely righteous, so it would be inaccurate to say a believer has filthy rags. But it is certainly a gift from God when we have the strength to obey His holy laws. To quote a prayer of Augustine, "Lord, command what you will, and please grant what you command".

>>1988

>i ignore the fact that human action matters and completely disjoint thought from act

occurrences of πιστεύω as a participial identifier for Christians in the authentic letters include: Rom 1:16; 3:22; 4:5, 11, 24; 9:33; 10:4, 11; 1 Cor 1:21;14:22 (twice); Gal 3:22. The aorist participle is found in 2 Thess 1:10; 2:12. Wallace points out the NT writers opted more requentl or the present participle with the aspectual force in view. He writes: “the present was the tense of choice most likely because the NT writers by and large saw continual belief as a necessary condition of salvation" (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 621, n.22).

Baptists btfo

Throughout 1Thessalonians, Paul speaks of faith in such a way that reveals it as vibrantly active in nature. For example, at the outset of the letter Paul’s phrase t9 the Thessalonians is not simply because of some generic declaration of faith. Rather, it is specifically because their faith generated action through good works

If faith is the locus in the human from which work arises, it is clear that faith is not simply a one-off cognitive assent to certain truth claims. On the contrary, faith is essentially active and productive; good works are yielded as its fruit. The active nature of faith is also revealed in the participle ἱ πιστεύ ντες (1:7; 2:10, 13), which in the present tense emphasises the ongoing nature of faith. Wallace points out that although the aorist participle was sometimes used, the New Testament writers opted more frequently for the present participle with the aspectual force of continual belief in view.

The activity of faith is evident as well when Paul rejoices that their faith spread to Macedonia, Achaia, and all places (1:7-8). The intriguing statement, ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν ἡ π ὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐξελήλυθεν s expla ned b the act t that Paul summarises in the surrounding verses: 1) they became examples to believers in Macedonia and Achaia; 2) the word of the Lord sounded forth from them (v.7); 3) reports about their welcoming spirit to the apostles (v.9); 4) turning to God from idols (v.9); 5) serving a living and true God (v.9); 6) waiting for the return of Jesus (v.10). The importance of an active faith is evident in many ways throughout the letter

>>2081

>zondervan

>>2081

>>2082

stop

>>2089

He's right though. Havent seen anyone refute them

>>2090

That guy in particular is an autistic spammer with whom it is a waste of time to reason. You're not going to see anyone refute him, and that doesn't make anything he says right.

He is essentially correct in this circumstance though

>>2090

The necessity of persistence in belief is not a defeater for eternal security, see "perserverance of the saints"

>>2092

It wont, when that condition is stated alone. When paired with warning passages and indications one is in the process of falling away, it does. Regardless what is there opposes the views of many a Baptist and Evangelical