Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

what is the threat of antinomianism?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    And CP you follow Christ's commands? You love God with ALL your heart? You really love your neighbor as yourself?
    That's where Grace comes in, Seer. God knows the intent of my heart, and that in my own strength I am weak.

    How many works does it take to receive this salvation?
    None. Unless you define accepting Him as Savior a "work".
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
      my thoughts now...

      The threat of antinomianism is not a big issue.

      First, the Law of Moses was written for the Israel tribes within the Mosaic covenant. (Rom 3:19-20)

      The letter of the Law went away for various reasons -- part of which was that Christians don't have the same circumstances. We don't have a land dedicated to us. Nor are Christians under threat of 'pagan' religions as were the Israel tribes.

      There were problems of adherence to the letter of the law. People exalted the law over against a focus on God. People judged each other based on faulty definitions of what the law required.

      Christians are under the law of Christ -- but this is basically two commandments.

      Paul wasn't giving permission to do all sorts of evil. He even spoke against bad behavior, but in a fashion to avoid getting people focused on the OT law.

      Yet, the OT scriptures were still important to guide people who were going off the deep end. Paul told Timothy that the scriptures were good for reproof, for correction. So we do find God's will expressed -- and thus God's guidance.

      It is not the typical Christian who would be inclined to live an unruly life. I would just apply antinomianism as a description of people dead set against living decently. I wouldn't apply the term to describe someone who didn't care to read the OT and learn its laws.
      You seem to be making up your own definition of antinomianism and declaring that to be not a big issue. There are a whole lot of Christians who don't seem to make any effort to live a godly life, and are different people in church and out of church. They may not explicitly endorse antinomianism, but that's how they live their lives. That, to me, is a big issue.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        You seem to be making up your own definition of antinomianism and declaring that to be not a big issue. There are a whole lot of Christians who don't seem to make any effort to live a godly life, and are different people in church and out of church. They may not explicitly endorse antinomianism, but that's how they live their lives. That, to me, is a big issue.
        This is your chance to give more detail on your concept of antinomianism.

        The issue I was exploring was not exactly the definition but what the concern is. The person I spoke to seemed to think that the lack of attention to the OT law would make you antinomian.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
          As you might gather from my sig, I don't consider it much of a threat at all.

          IMO, the two "gutters" are antinomianism and legalism. In practical terms, it is impossible to navigate a path precisely equidistant between the two, and so I'm determined to always err in the antinomian direction.

          I don't consider even the Decalogue "binding" except in the NT formulation of "Love one another," and even then I don't consider perfection to be required.
          Wouldn't it be better to lean in the legalist direction if you had to go one way or the other? If you look at Paul's letters, you get the distinct impression it's not as big a deal to lean in the legalist direction. He talks about accommodating the weaker brother in that manner. It doesn't affect your salvation to be too legalistic. But with the constant warnings about failure to persevere, sins that will exclude you from eternal life, etc. in the New Testament, going too far in the other direction certainly can affect your salvation.
          Last edited by KingsGambit; 10-19-2019, 09:10 PM.
          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
            This is your chance to give more detail on your concept of antinomianism.

            The issue I was exploring was not exactly the definition but what the concern is. The person I spoke to seemed to think that the lack of attention to the OT law would make you antinomian.
            So you're accepting this person's definition of antinomianism and using it in your own post about how you don't see it as a threat, to be clear?

            The way this person is using the term seems to be at odds with how most people use it.
            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
              Wouldn't it be better to lean in the legalist direction if you had to go one way or the other? If you look at Paul's letters, you get the distinct impression it's not as big a deal to lean in the legalist direction. He talks about accommodating the weaker brother in that manner. It doesn't affect your salvation to be too legalistic. But with the constant warnings about failure to persevere, sins that will exclude you from eternal life, etc. in the New Testament, going too far in the other direction certainly can affect your salvation.
              Nope, not gonna burden myself that way. In Col. 2, Paul exhorts his readers to "not submit" to various strictures, and affirms they are of "no value" against "fleshly indulgence," and in fact may even *cause* it (NET). Gal. 5:4 warns of the potential damning harm of focusing on laws.
              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

              Beige Nationalist.

              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                That's where Grace comes in, Seer. God knows the intent of my heart, and that in my own strength I am weak.



                None. Unless you define accepting Him as Savior a "work".
                You are confusing me CP, you said:

                Not sure I understand what you're asking, but to me, the problem is not understanding Grace through Faith, and the whole "you are my disciples if you obey my commands" thing.

                You just said that you do not keep God's commands: Loving Him with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself - does that mean you are not his disciple?

                And you said:

                The threat, as KG so aptly pointed out, is the false sense of security in Salvation. AND, the leading astray of others to miss out on what it takes to receive Salvation.


                How many works must we have before we have a secure sense of salvation?
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                  Wouldn't it be better to lean in the legalist direction if you had to go one way or the other? If you look at Paul's letters, you get the distinct impression it's not as big a deal to lean in the legalist direction. He talks about accommodating the weaker brother in that manner. It doesn't affect your salvation to be too legalistic. But with the constant warnings about failure to persevere, sins that will exclude you from eternal life, etc. in the New Testament, going too far in the other direction certainly can affect your salvation.
                  Leaning on the crutch of legalism can also endanger salvation.

                  I understand the correct 'formula' to be 'show it because you believe it', not 'believe it because you show it'.

                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    You are confusing me CP, you said:

                    Not sure I understand what you're asking, but to me, the problem is not understanding Grace through Faith, and the whole "you are my disciples if you obey my commands" thing.

                    You just said that you do not keep God's commands: Loving Him with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself - does that mean you are not his disciple?

                    And you said:

                    The threat, as KG so aptly pointed out, is the false sense of security in Salvation. AND, the leading astray of others to miss out on what it takes to receive Salvation.


                    How many works must we have before we have a secure sense of salvation?
                    I believe you've take some liberties with "what I said", brother -- I'll come back after Church to address this.
                    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      You are confusing me CP, you said:

                      Not sure I understand what you're asking, but to me, the problem is not understanding Grace through Faith, and the whole "you are my disciples if you obey my commands" thing.

                      You just said that you do not keep God's commands: Loving Him with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself - does that mean you are not his disciple?
                      Actually, here's what I said...
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Personally, I've always considered myself a "New Testament Christian". I don't follow the OT dietary, civil, or ceremonial laws, but the OT moral laws are kinda hard to chunk.

                      And the reason I said it that way is because I don't think the dietary, civil or ceremonial laws apply to me - but the moral laws do.

                      And you said:

                      The threat, as KG so aptly pointed out, is the false sense of security in Salvation. AND, the leading astray of others to miss out on what it takes to receive Salvation.
                      That sounds closer to something I actually said, but it would help if you used actual quotes.

                      How many works must we have before we have a secure sense of salvation?
                      I think you're being too literal here. If I'm saved, I'm saved. If I'm not living for Jesus, there won't be much (if any) evidence of my faith, which would make me a pretty poor witness.
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        The phrase "false sense of security in salvation," at least in the context you're using it, implies that someone can believe on Christ for salvation and be let down.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                          The phrase "false sense of security in salvation," at least in the context you're using it, implies that someone can believe on Christ for salvation and be let down.
                          So, let me be clear - when I say "false sense of security in salvation" I mean, for example, somebody who thinks they're saved because their good deeds outweigh their bad deeds, or they give money to the church, or they are a member of a particular church -- none of which actually save you.
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I mean, for example, somebody who thinks they're saved because their good deeds outweigh their bad deeds, or they give money to the church, or they are a member of a particular church
                            In other words, someone like KingsGambit.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                              In other words, someone like KingsGambit.
                              ...no, not even close to my view.
                              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                                The phrase "false sense of security in salvation," at least in the context you're using it, implies that someone can believe on Christ for salvation and be let down.
                                "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
                                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X