Just now, I listened to this video. watch?v=voY37hYwrWQ
It's a bad copy and it might be 20 years old or older but it makes some points that I think are very valuable. It's largely about TL Osborne, who preached to more unsaved people than anyone in history. (I don't know if Bonnke has passed him. I think not.) It talks about the influence that Jesus had through a man who went astray to get Osborne's ministry on the track to effectiveness. I'm sure you'll have complaints but I hope you hear God.
@TheClarkianApologist divide and separate and try to make a difference when the Lord Jesus spent such time and effort to admonish us to love, forgive, embrace and accept one another EVEN when we have a "quarrel against any." You guys seem to relish getting "us" down to the smallest and most narrowly defined group you can where you're all in complete agreement. Where do you see this in Scripture and why is it that you do not see this as sectarian and contrary to Christ?
@TheClarkianApologist When I used "dead letter" I should have used "old" or "antiquated." "Dead letter" is so common that I forgot the text says "old." It is common because Paul also said, "The letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life. While the text in Romans 7 is referring to the Law, the text in 2Cor3 is referring to any Scripture wrongly used and I'm a little surprised you didn't understand what I consider was rather obvious.
Where do you find the NT admonition to use terminology to
@TheClarkianApologist We're united to Jesus only by faith. This is why He plainly said in John 15:4, Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
If you don't believe that verse and want another, just let me know.
Remember, the covenant is with the "seed," not "seeds." To be partaker of the covenant, we must abide in Christ by faith.
I know you guys steer clear of this doctrine, but God's Word rules.
@TheClarkianApologist "... the reference is John 10:27," which I notice you didn't address, was a REMINDER of my earlier point.
"Dead letter" is using the Scripture without the enlivening of the Holy Spirit. In other words, "wresting" it as Peter said. There are right ways and wrong ways to use the Scripture and right use necessarily involves the illumnation (or revelation) of the Spirit. Men's opinion is USUALLY "wresting" because "the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit... ."
@TheClarkianApologist "Those who believe we are united to Christ experientially and existentially, rather than legally and intellectually, always attack propositional revelation--wrongly believing that life is deeper than logic."
Amen brother! This nut actually claims he saw Jesus! God bless!
cont10 twice what the world's is and would you claim NONE of them are Believers? Why would Paul say, "Accept one another" is there wasn't something about your brothers which bothered you?
Can you not find and see the need for the Lord Jesus to say, "Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy"?
Frankly, I didn't expect such UNSCRIPTURAL rejection of my words to come before I even finished what I had to say but I'll stop here as it's obvious that Christian charity here is limited.
cont9 life of our beloved brother who we knew to be a genuine Believer and IF WE'RE HONEST, we'd be thoroughly ashamed for our brothers to know all the details of our lives.
If this isn't your experience and your testimony, then speak up because if "living in sin" makes someone not a Christian, then I DON'T KNOW ANY CHRISTIANS. EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN I KNOW WELL has serious and blatant violations of specific plain and simple commands in the Bible. The divorce rate among professing Christians is
@BludBaut "I DON'T KNOW ANY CHRISTIANS. EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN I KNOW WELL has serious and blatant violations of specific plain and simple commands in the Bible."
I have decided to unblock you following Lightspeed52's advice. You have confused willful lifestyle sins with the fact that ALL CHRISTIANS will sin every day in word, thought, or deed. Pimps, prostitutes, pedophiles, hit men, PRACTICING homosexuals and such are living sinful lifestyles as are shacked-up couples and adulterers. Got it?
I do and when I do the Lord blesses me with rest and refreshment. How about you Mr Troll? I have read in His Holy Word that there was NO peace for the wicked.
cont8 sword to hack and attack and wound our brothers. Which one of you is without sin? I'm not. To reference a recent remark which I found funny that "we sin every day but we're not habitual sinners" seems to me to be the very worst use of a semantic game. What's the purpose? To claim "we're in but he's out" because his sin is "bad" and my sin is "reasonable."
Please listen carefully to what I've learned in 39 years as a Believer. We're almost always shocked at the sin that we find was in the
cont7 The sectarianism, the division, the pride, the suspicion, the accusation, the lack of love. Is this the way you want to be treated? Do we not have VERY SPECIFIC COMMANDS that THIS (Luke 6:31) is the way we're to treat others, ESPECIALLY our brethren?
That said, I want to address point #2 at 2:50 in the video. THIS ISN'T SCRIPTURE and honesty dictates that its use is invariably going to be hurtful, legalistic and hypocritical. "Live in sin" is subject to the whim of the one wielding this
cont6 separately because different factors come into play. Sometimes, it's just a matter of cultural differences or word changes, but nevertheless, though there are a very few exceptions, I think my point is weighty and strong. God could well have communicated in different language AND HE DIDN'T. He is not limited. Why don't we represent the Scripture as SUFFICIENT with the help of the Holy Ghost as our Lord told us to communicate and why don't we love our brethren enough to count them brethren?
cont5 states the truth that anyone feels the need to have it reworded by men? I NEVER have understood this! In my experience, hearing God Himself give illumination (or revelation) on HIs Word has typically convinced me that the way the Bible says the truth is the best way to say it. I say "typically" because I do admit there are a few passages where I do try to "help" God by changing, rewording or adding and if I were asked to give an account of those, I think each would need to be addressed
@Blogrich55 I most definitely have a direct pipeline to God, just as EVERY BELIEVER DOES. He lives IN ME and I HEAR HIS VOICE JUST AS THE SCRIPTURE SAYS.
That you find that strange shows spend entirely too much time debating dead letter and haven't bothered to learn to hear the Master's voice. Again, the reference is John 10:27 and it's not the only one.
Everything I said before you started "reading me the riot act" and showing me that your faith is in the wisdom of men instead of the power of God, was a prelude to the point(s) that I really wanted to make. But it seems your theologians haven't exegeted a "hearing ear" or a "hearing heart" for you and since they're all dead, I don't expect you have any way of finding out what such a thing is so it looks like I'll just have to take it elsewhere because "the voice of the shepherd" you know not.
@Blogrich55 It seems to me from the hardness of your heart that you're quite not qualified to judge who is and who isn't inspired. I understand you were using the term as a reference to Scripture, but the term isn't limited to Scripture and your attempting to make it so doesn't really matter because God makes the rules and not you. In 1Cor. 12:3 God's Word reveals that men other than the apostles and Canon writers are inspired by the Spirit of God, whether you like it or not.
@BludBaut "In 1Cor. 12:3 God's Word reveals that men other than the apostles and Canon writers are inspired by the Spirit of God, whether you like it or not."
No doubt we all are led by the Holy Spirit if we are truly born again sons and daughters of God. Preachers are to preach the Word and do so, hopefully, under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. BUT that does NOT make them inspired as the writers of scripture were. If you think it does, you are a bigger NUT JOB than I think you are.
@Blogrich55 I am not going to apologize for regarding the Word of God over the opinions of men. Frankly, I'm surprised at that hostility and lack of understanding the work of the Spirit. The bulk of the doctrine that you've been discussing is really rather good and I assume (obviously wrongly so) that you guys had some understanding of the witness of the Spirit. Your contrary ways to the things I've said, which I know please the Lord tells me you know very little about how to hear God.
@BludBaut "I am not going to apologize for regarding the Word of God over the opinions of men."
And I am NOT going to apologize with valuing God's Word over some jumped-up modern Joe Smith who CLAIMS Jesus talked to him in Person VISIBLY. WOW! BTW Mr Know-it-all, I was raised and originally ordained as a Pentecostal and I know all about you nonsense! I know professed prophets and apostles. Is THAT clear enough for you? Oh, don't bother trying to answer. You can't. You have been BLOCKED!
@Blogrich55 I suppose that's because of your unbelieving denominational backgrounds. Most denominations go from life to death and if you don't know that or don't understand it, then you're ignorant of adequate denominational history, "Apart from Me you can do nothing is as true today as it was when the Lord spoke it and all of life teaches you that denominational pattern is following the rest of nature. God gives life by His Spirit and darkness and the enemy come to destroy it.
@Blogrich55 You many not appreciate it but the very claim of our Lord that the Church will overcome is a marvel of His grace because left to any of us, we'd all most surely fail. I don't know how old you guys are but those who are over 60 should be well convinced that the grace and mercy of God has saved you from the consequences of your own ways MORE than once. He is so wonderful and amazing. His mercies are new every morning and His lovingkindness is everlasting. He's BETTER than we realize.
@Blogrich55 I'm STILL MARVELING that you actually had the audacity to challenge me about having a "direct pipeline to the Almighty?
I'm hoping that your silence for the last two plus hours is because you're repenting before the Lord for your unbelief and failure to fellowship and have communion with Him.
The Bible is "The Word." Jesus is "The Word." That should give you a clue about the difference between the letter and the Spirit. Jesus IS the Word. You ONLY understand of the Bible what He's
@BludBaut "I'm hoping that your silence for the last two plus hours is because you're repenting before the Lord for your unbelief and failure to fellowship and have communion with Him."
Repent of WHAT? I have not answered because you made a PLETHORA of stupid, self-serving, emotional, irrational, hyper-mystical comments that were ALL OVER the theological landscape. I cannot and WILL NOT waste my time with an idiot like you.
You have a VERY judgmental spirit. How do YOU know what I think??
@Blogrich55 cont3 and as you do, recognize a few things. One, if the Baptists had believed those verses, they wouldn't have censored the condition of the fulfillment and two, theologians were not given as a substitute in which to abide.
I'm hoping you do understand that "continue" wasn't the best way to translate that word as it means "live, dwell, stay, abide." So I'll spell it out here:
IF you ABIDE IN MY WORD THEN you are TRULY My disciples and YOU SHALL KNOW the Truth and the Truth SHALL
Please listen thoughtfully to my words, whether you believe in eternal security or not, it has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the dunamis and zoe of these two verses. As you guys seem so proud of emphasizing "ES" is a doctrine of logic but the power of obeying these verses is released by the grace of God as you OBEY THE INSTRUCTIONS.
This has NOTHING to do with "going to heaven after you die" but Jesus said it will MAKE YOU FREE IN THIS LIFE. Don't muddy the waters.
Well, it's been 39 years and I've not yet found the Christians that do this. What I've found is what I see here. Everyone stating their position and declaring it to be the truth of God's Word in posturing, pride and a tremendous lack of love towards the brethren. Where do you find this attitude and disposition in the Bible?
The different factions quote men to back up their positions. Why does the Word of God need the confirmation of men? What's wrong with the way the Bible
@BludBaut "Why does the Word of God need the confirmation of men? What's wrong with the way the Bible"
God gave us theologians to study and explain and AUGMENT and AID in our personal study of His Word.They are NOT infallible. Yet I am sick of those who do NOT understand basic Bible truth, sound hermeneutic principles, and are strangers to proper exegesis, who run around spouting of EISEGETIC nonsense they claim God showed them.They don't need anyone's opinion but their own.Clark is a teacher.
And your "two or three" witnesses for that statement are?
While you're at it please also give the "two or three witnesses" for the need of "sound hermeneutic principles.
And if you don't understand the necessity for "two or three witnesses," you'll find it twice in the Old Testament, starting at Deut 17:6 and referenced FOUR times in the New.
@Blogrich55 I think you're making yourself very clear. CONTRARY to Jesus' testimony YOU DON'T KNOW HIS VOICE and you don't follow Him but follow "theologians" and my complaints fall on deaf ears because you like the way you've been doing it and you're not going to let my sound Scriptural reasons sway your behavior and you're certainly not going to bother to pray about it?
I'll tell you what. I'll decline your "Friend" invitation and if you can find a theologian who can justify a new invitation, you can do that when and if you find such theological, hermeneutic and exegetical principles to justify it. Who needs the Bible when we have theologians?
cont3 radio and watch Christian preachers on TV present their "gospel" in a contentious fashion which found fault, criticized and condemned their brethren for not believing as they believed. My response, having read, "By this shall all men know that you are My disciples, that you have love for one another," was incredulity. I thought, "Why don't these guys get together and say, "let's pray and ask God to give us wisdom and understanding and His opinion on this issue, since we call His opinion,
cont3 me within the hour, "This means I believe the Bible" because I instinctively understood that it was the Bible which testified of Jesus and I knew that Christians held the Bible as the Word of God. Note that my INITIAL experience was receiving divine communication via a vision and hearing God speak to me. Therefore, even before I was born again, I understood that hearing God's voice was NORMAL for the Christian experience.
Imagine my surprise then, when I started to listen to Christian
cont2 That's all He said to me. I didn't know what to do with that information and asked someone. They told me that I was supposed to believe it (which I already had -- of course) and that commitment was what made me a Christian. I don't recall their telling me of the necessity of confessing Jesus as Lord but, as that is the natural outgrowth of the life of God being imparted to us, I soon testified to several that I had believed in Jesus as Lord and what He had spoken to me. The thought came to
I received your "Friend" invitation and I thank you.
I am very slow to accept friend invitations because I don't want to be associated with those who don't really stand for that for which I stand, and I want to make some points to clarify where I stand. Jesus appeared to me in 1972 in this fashion. I had what is probably the mildest form of a vision in which I saw Jesus crucified, dead and buried. He then appeared before me and said to me, "I did it for you because I love you and I want you."
@BludBaut You said, " Jesus appeared to me in 1972 in this fashion. I had what is probably the mildest form of a vision in which I saw Jesus crucified, dead and buried. He then appeared before me and said to me, "I did it for you because I love you and I want you."
@TheClarkianApologist "Those who "accompany their profession with their works"--as stegokitty does--will be sent to Hell."
Works are NOT meritorious. They do NOT contribute to justification at all. Clark said "faith is the root and works are the fruit. We CANNOT be saved without them.
@TheClarkianApologist No, you are wrong, Pro 21:4 An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin. Jesus is saying their works are iniquity (miracles, etc...). There is no such thing as a good work to the unconverted. Even casting out demons, and performing miracles is iniquity. The point is self-righteous workers of iniquity or profane workers of iniquity are both lawless and unacceptable to Christ.
@TheClarkianApologist - My statement is the same faith that all of the Reformers (including Clark) proclaimed. Faith without works is dead faith, which is not saving faith. Period. This has nothing to do with works based, nor faith-plus-works based salvation. No one is justified by works nor by faith plus works. But a justified person is a person with a living faith, which produces good works. Therefore anyone claiming the name of Christ, who does not have good works, is self deceived.
@TheClarkianApologist You miss the point, Every true Christian will have good works accompanying him on the last day, BUT he will NEVER hold those works up to Christ and say "LORD, LORD, have I not done...etc, etc." He knows he is there b/c of Christ alone. Those in Mat.7 had works but none were good. What was the charge Jesus leveled against them? "ye that work iniquity" If these that seemingly had "good" works worked iniquity what chance does the openly profane sinner have?
@TheClarkianApologist - Christ through James said, "Faith without works is dead". For me to be an RCW (as you, O so ridiculously accused me), I would have to say that one is justified by faith plus works, which I said nothing of the sort. But true faith manifests itself in good works. If there are no good works, then there is no living faith; and if there is no living faith, then it is a dead faith, and a dead faith cannot save. It is mere intellectual assent.
Stegokitty is espousing standard Lordship Salvation heresy. James White, R.C. Sproul, and John MacArther all teach that no one gets into heaven unless they can show Jesus their good works on the last day. Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis publicly endorses this teaching, for it leads Protestants back to Rome. The implication is that faith alone is not enough. When militant Roman Catholics endorse Lordship Salvation, then that should tell you something--LOL!
@RedBeetle "Calvin was Luther's greatest student, Blogrich55 is not."
WOW do you actually think I would dare to put myself in the same class as John Calvin? But then, being the megalomaniac that YOU are, you probably think everyone over rates themselves. You think everyone is like you. Pathetic fellow.
@Blogrich55 wrote: "Do you actually think I would dare to put myself in the same class as John Calvin?"
I'm glad you finally admitted you are not a Calvinist, Richard.
Under the Calvinist Class, we find those who teach the 5 Solas, the 5 Points, in short, the Westminster Confession, but under your class, we find those who teach Neonomianism, Pietism, Justification by faith and non-meritorious works, common grace, free will, perfectionism, irreconcilable paradox, and so on.
@RedBeetle [Blogrich55] "wrote: "Do you actually think I would dare to put myself in the same class as John Calvin?" I'm glad you finally admitted you are not a Calvinist, Richard."
You draw THIS conclusion from what I wrote? Your conclusion is a non sequitur and YOU claim to know logic? LOL You have been exposed Monty. You are irrational and emotional and NOT a Clarkian. You refuse to say that you agree with him.
let me ask you seriously buddy, if we are free from the penalty for disobeying gods commands, what is the "tool" god uses to see that we strive to obey them? It seems that it does not make sense. If you are elect then you can go whack babies into bits then with no penalty.
@Blogrich55 Richard you are acting out of control, get a hold of yourself. You did not answer his question and frankly I pose the same one to you, you are never free to disobey gods commands but WHAT IF YOU DO? Is the implication that your sins are secret commands of God? He was not talking about autonomianism he was asking you what compels one of the elect to follow God. Please answer the question properly, or shut your channel down if you cannot operate a proper evangelical channel.
@GooksForChrist - That's utter nonsense. Jesus took the necessary precautions to protect His life from the hands of men who would kill Him before the appointed time of His crucifixion. And the Apostolic teaching is clear enough concerning good works, and the necessity of obedience to God's moral law. We are saved unto good works, which God prepared beforehand.
Bottom line: No one claiming the name of Christ shall be the recipient of eternal life on the Last Day unless they have good works accompanying their profession.
Salvation is threefold: we have been saved; we are being saved; we shall be saved. The Bible says so. Salvation is not merely justification. Justification is necessarily connected to adoption, & sancitification, which inlcudes good works. Faith without works is dead, useless, unsaving "faith". It appears that Gordon Clark agrees.
Essentially true. HOWEVER we must not forget elect infants and idiots who are incapable of good works but still saved. Clark also mentioned the thief on the cross who didn't have much time to do too many good works or advance in holiness. Also just because justification guarantees good works it does NOT guarantee the absence of bad works. Christians still have a sinful nature and will manifest BOTH while in this life. God bless you!
@Blogrich55 - And like you said, even the thief on the cross did good works, in his short (and horrible) experience of being a follower of Christ. And yes, our good works will be mixed with failures, & even bad works. Just a quick note on the thief: the thing that's so graciously amazing about his conversion & good works, is how God preserved him in the faith, even when he saw his Saviour die before him, & he continued to hang on the cross in agony awaiting death.
@Blogrich55 - BTW - I'm not skipping public worship today ... I'm actually awaiting the arrival of my students in Christian Ed. May the Lord bless and keep you all, and that you may find yourselves in the joyous duty of public worship with God and His people this (and every) Lord's Day.
@TheClarkianApologist - Just so you know, I don't know you, so I'm not trying to be insulting, but from what I've seen in your responses to Rich, Jeff, et al, you aren't offering the benefit of the doubt. For instance, on the 6th comandment, you should be assuming that these Reformed folk understand that we all sin in thought, word, and deed every day, AND that actually murdering is indeed worse than simply thinking it. But you spend so much time dancing around, that only frustration abounds.
@TheClarkianApologist - Do you enjoy misrepresenting the point of another man? His statement stands, & is acknowledged as well by Clark -- that anyone who WANTS to live in sin, is not a real Christian. That's the point. There are people who profess the name of Christ, yet whose lives show no change. We're not talking about sinless perfectionism, we're talking about some semblance of an encounter with Christ, some, as Edwards put it, affection for the things of God. Do you disagree with that?
Got your email, but I'm swamped at work right now. Some of us must work and pay our bills, while others stay home, refuse to work, and live off of tax payer's money (Calvinism calls this stealing). Clark taught the Protestant Work Ethic, but few here have read Clark. Above, I commented to the liars who made this video. In fact, these Federal Vision men behind this video already admitted in other comment sections that they are saved by their "non-meritorious" works.
Gordon Clark never said our good works are necessary FOR salvation on page 162 of "What Do Presbyterians Believe."
Blogrich55 (Rich) and LightSpeed52 (Tom) have a habit of telling this lie over and over again--they read that into Clark's text--LOL!
The claim that our good works are necessary to / for salvation met with confessional condemnation from the conservative branch of the Protestant Reformation. See my video "Why Gordon Clark didn't say: Our Good Works Are Necessary To Salvation."
"Gordon Clark never said our good works are necessary FOR salvation on page 162 of "What Do Presbyterians Believe."
Blogrich55 (Rich) and LightSpeed52 (Tom) have a habit of telling this lie over and over again--they read that into Clark's text--LOL!"
#1. Really Monty?? HERE is what Clark said:
"The relationship between faith and works is really very simple and easy to understand, even though from age to age so many people entertain confused notions about it.
#2. "The relation is that faith is the cause of good works and good works are the effect of faith. This simple causal relation removes the notion that good works are the basis of our justification AND, AS WELL, THE NOTION THAT GOOD WORKS ARE UNNECESSARY IN A SALVATION ACCOMPLISHED BY SOVEREIGN GRACE."
Is that clear enough for you Monty or do you just not understand simple English?
Thanks for showing you did NOT quote Clark word for word--LOL! You misinterpreted him, again. Clark did NOT say our good works are necessary FOR salvation. That's your heresy, chump. Clark taught the 3rd use of the Law, which is that in the salvation of one of God's elect, his / her good works are necessary to glorify God and help our fellow man. It is YOU who cannot read simple English: "good works...in salvation" does not equal "good works...for / to salvation."
@RedBeetle "It is YOU who cannot read simple English: "good works...in salvation" does not equal "good works...for / to salvation."
Either they are necessary or they are not. Either they are the effect of justification (which is the cause) or they are not.Clark said " faith is the root and works are the fruit. We CANNOT be saved without them."He said "it is the purpose of justification to produce holy lives." Do you agree with all of this or not? You are NOT a Calvinist but antinomian Lutheran!
Saying our good works are necessary is NOT enough: no Roman Catholic priest would disagree with you, chump. In Calvinism, we explain what good works are necessary FOR! If you held to the 3rd Use of the Law, and it is clear that you do NOT, then you would NEVER say such a vague thing. You're a Catholic whore, who makes it up as he goes along. Calvin, for your information, was Luther's greatest student. If holding to Law / Gospel Distinction be Lutheran, then I'll have seconds!
@RedBeetle "Saying our good works are necessary is NOT enough: no Roman Catholic priest would disagree with you"
The Roman Catholics teach good works are meritorious and we do NOT! Hence it follows we are NOT Roman Catholics. We have NEVER denied the Calvinistic 3rd use of the law. But LIES are ALL you have besides your useless abusive ad hominems.
I do deny YOUR aberrant use of the L/G distinction as an excuse to shred the Bible and discard the portions that contradict your antinomianism.
I thought you were going to show us a quote from Clark saying "our good works are necessary for salvation?" Your appeal to ambiguous statements and your misinterpretation of Clark is absurd, and it is not consistent with the 3rd Use of the Law, which is the same for both Lutherans and Calvinists (another basic truth anyone who has studied Law / Gospel Distinction would know--but then you haven't). I see why Dr. Kenneth Talbot and the RPCGA refused to ordain you.
Actually YOU are the one whining and sniveling Marty. You cannot possibly fail to understand the quote from Clark on page 162 in WDPB? Where he says "removes the notion that...good works are unnecessary in a salvation accomplished by sovereign grace." Across the page he says "We cannot be saved without them."
So THIS is ambiguous to YOU?? Your antinomianism has been exposed and no amount of squirming will change that.You DO understand basic grammar don't you?
@Blogrich55 Richard are you trying to beat Monty at at threatening and yelling heretic at everyone? Frankly it surprises me that there ARE any elect since according to each of you clowns, one or the other of you is a complete heretic. The comedy you Calvinists generate is better than Comedy Central (not hard) but still, a LOT better.
"good works...IN a salvation accomplished by sovereign grace" is NOT equal to "our good works are necessary for / to salvation."
Our good works are necessary to glorify God and to help our fellow man: they're NOT necessary for our salvation (In Calvinism, this is called this the 3rd Use of the Law). Federal Vision teaches that our "non-meritorious" works are necessary for salvation, not Calvinism. You are headed to Rome.
@RedBeetle "Our good works are necessary to glorify God and to help our fellow man: they're NOT necessary for our salvation"
A A Hodge said they are "necessary FOR salvation" and explained in what sense on pg 526 of his OUTLINES OF THEOLOGY.
The problem is NOT with the prepositions in, for, or to. The problem is that YOU refuse to use the term salvation in its broad sense as Clark requested us to do. See our most recent video.
Do you agree with Clark that "we CANNOT be saved without them"?
You are STILL begging the question. You have NOT demonstrated from Clark's writings that he was teaching: "our good works are necessary for / to salvation." You attempt to change the subject, for you are intellectually broke. It's been days, but you can't provide a single quote where Clark said: "Our good works are necessary for salvation." Clark's commentary on Philippians rejects the idea that something other than Christ's works are necessary for our salvation.
@RedBeetle "Clark's commentary on Philippians rejects the idea that something other than Christ's works are necessary for our salvation."
Clark requested us to use salvation in the broad sense. You obviously refuse to do so. You insist on using salvation as a synonym for justification. It is NOT. Clark said it is a VERY BROAD term. Got integrity?
@RedBeetle "And chump, you didn't even try to reply to Clark's teaching in Philippians, but then, you never have."
Paul refers to the Judaizers as dogs. We are hardly Judaizers. I suggest you read Clark's commentary more closely. Page 85 should clear the matter up for you. We do not add anything to justification. You insist on using the word salvation as a synonym for justification instead of using it in its broader sense as Clark requested.
Since you cannot prove your Lordship claim, I will simply say that Clark's commentary on Philippians did clear up the matter, for instead of Clark saying our good works are necessary FOR salvation, as you say all the time, Clark wrote that those who reject Justification By Faith Alone run around saying "our good works are necessary FOR salvation." According to Clark, you're a dog: un perro vago.
@RedBeetle ", Clark wrote that those who reject Justification By Faith Alone run around saying "our good works are necessary FOR salvation." According to Clark, you're a dog"
So produce the exact reference like I ALWAYS do. Until then this is just hear say and I must consider the source. Your credibility is ZILCH. Also, according to Clark, Paul was referring to the Judaizers. I hardly fit that classification Mr Liar. But then, integrity is not your strong suit. Neither is logic.
My question exactly Mr LIAR. WHERE is the quote where "Clark wrote that those who reject Justification By Faith Alone run around saying "our good works are necessary FOR salvation."
Produce the exact reference or I will assume you are lying as usual.You obviously do NOT understand logic or even know what a proposition is.You just keep asking me the same asinine question and ignoring the obvious answer.See quote from Clark WDPB? Pg 162 it refutes you.
@TheClarkianApologist "How many will I have to commit before I need to tap into the Treasury of Merit before I can stand Justified before God?"
WOW Paul! Shall I run with this question like Monty does and make a video calling you a Catholic whore? How can you defend a liar. Notice I have NEVER defended Bianca's doctrine. I have treated her with kindness as a fellow Christian who is wrong and confused on certain points. You think this is kissypoo. Yet you have NO problem with Monty lying at all!
@TheClarkianApologist I would say someone who wants to push the bounds of sin to see if grace still abounds is very close to a habitual sinner, and judging by your comment that just might be you. Rom 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Clark said it is a psychological impossibility to so identify yourself with the death of Christ and still want to live in sin.
@1689Baptist Please demonstrate to me, where in ANY of TheClarkianApologist's comments does he say anything that warrants your damnation as you have stated:
"I would say someone who wants to push the bounds of sin to see if grace still abounds is very close to a habitual sinner, and judging by your comment that just might be you." (1689Baptist)
I have been floored at the murderous heart of Blogrich55 these last months. Hypocrite! Go and read Genesis 6:5 and realise that you are included in it!
@Afrikitty You said, "I have been floored at the murderous heart of Blogrich55 these last months" OH, PLEASE!!
Read carefully what I said, "that just might be you." I did not pronounce any damnation on him, I do not have that ability, only God does. I just sent a warning b/c of his gleeful and maybe prideful way of presenting his sins that he commits to Rich. Where is his sorrow and repentance for those sins? Instead he wields his sins as a sword to shred sound Doctrine. Christian??? Hmm!
"Read carefully what I said, "that just might be you." I did not pronounce any damnation on him, I do not have that ability, only God does. I just sent a warning b/c of his gleeful and maybe prideful way of presenting his sins that he commits to Rich. Where is his sorrow and repentance for those sins? Instead he wields his sins as a sword to shred sound Doctrine. Christian??? Hmm!"
OH, PLEASE!!
Richard has a saying about a chocolate and a tootsie roll, Jeff.
Ever understand it? There's plenty of Apostolic Pentecostals in my area that read that book devotionally, and never understand it. If you hold to Lordship Salvation, you DON'T understand John Bunyan, who said that if he could have only one book besides the Bible, it would be Luther's commentary on Galatians. And THAT commentary destroys your entire theology, chump. See my video "On Galatians."
@RedBeetle Oh, I understand Pilgrims Progress. I have also given you my definition of LS but that doesn't matter to you. LS is, those whom God justifies (by faith alone) He will sanctify, and sanctification is a life long process of God conforming us to the likeness of Christ. Now you tell me where Clark, John Bunyan, or Luther for that matter would disagree with that definition?
If John MacArthur and I disagree then take it up with him.
You were asked for an exact definition for the term "habitual sinner" You gave none.
When are you Lordship Pharisees going to do a video boasting that you have no bad habits?
Habitual sinners are those with at least one bad habit. My, we are so unworthy to be in the presence of 1689Baptist, who has only good habits! You sound a lot like John Wesley, who was influenced by pietism. Remember, according to you guys, one bad habit means you are not a Christian--LOL!
@RedBeetle 'One may say that so and so is living in sin. This does not mean occasional acts, even occasional acts of fornication; but an established mode of life. ... that the true Christian is not an habitual sinner. Gordon H. Clark, 1John, page 95, 100
Your attempt to reply to my comment by ripping Clark out of context shows that 1) you really think you have no bad habits (heresy of perfectionism, which Clark rejected), 2) you do look to your works for assurance (one of your latest videos denied this--you're a liar), and 3) you contradict Richard, who below denied that habitual sin means one is not a Christian. You chumps don't know if you are coming or going. Oh, and the Clark quote is not a definition for "habitual sin."
@RedBeetle You said, "Oh, and the Clark quote is not a definition for "habitual sin."
Really? "The explanation should be well known: the present tense can and here must refer to HABITUAL CONDUCT. It does not have to with sporadic acts of sinning. There is an English parallel. One may say that so and so is living in sin. This does not mean occasional acts, even occasional acts of fornication; but an established mode of life. Gordon H. Clark, 1John, page 95
A partial description is not the same thing as a complete definition.
If by "an established mode of life" is meant constant sinning or even concuspicence, then every Christian, who's best works are all tainted with sin, would meet the definition. Clark's book on sanctification is his most comprehensive treatment, and it does not teach when a person is regenerated they have no more bad habits. It teaches that progress is slow, a small beginning (see Heidelberg Catechism Q.114).
@RedBeetle Monty, I am talking about a person who continues his lifestyle unaltered after his supposed "conversion". Not one that struggles with daily sins or retains some bad habits. I believe you know this, you are trying to get me to play the game of how many sins is to much, 3 of these sins are ok, but 20 of those are to much.
@RedBeetle "Your attempt to reply to my comment by ripping Clark out of context..."
Any time anyone disproves your nonsense with a quote from Clark you squeal out of context. I guess you figure if you repeat a LIE enough it will become true. You LOSE as usual. Pathetic.
@RedBeetle "ood habits! You sound a lot like John Wesley, who was influenced by pietism. Remember, according to you guys, one bad habit means you are not a Christian--LOL"
We NEVER said this Mr LIAR. But then, LIES are ALL you have, aren't they? Oh, yes, I forgot, you DO have your abusive ad hominems too :D
1689Baptist, in a comment right above, just claimed that bad habits do indicate that one is not a Christian. You just got caught lying, Richard. You guys not only contradict Gordon H. Clark, but you contradict each other, too.
Which is it? Do bad habits indicate one is not a Christian?
@RedBeetle "Which is it? Do bad habits indicate one is not a Christian?"
Clark painstakingly explains all of this in his commentary on 1John; see his comments on 1 John 3:6,9
We are NOT contradicting each other. I know that would make you happy. There is a big difference between someone living a sinful life style and a true Christian falling into sin, even egregious sins. Bonnie and Clyde, for example LIVED the lives of bank robbers and murderers. That is one tiny example of habitual sin.
@RedBeetle Putting words in my mouth again Marty? ""The explanation should be well known: the present tense can and here must refer to HABITUAL CONDUCT. It does not have to with sporadic acts of sinning. There is an English parallel. One may say that so and so is living in sin. This does not mean occasional acts, even occasional acts of fornication; but an established mode of life." Gordon H. Clark, 1John, page 95 Do you agree with Clark or not? Do you agree with the Hodges in this video?
@Upermonotheismos We gave A A Hodge's definition from his OUTLINES OF THEOLOGY pg 404 in the video. Antinomians believe that because Christ has fulfilled the law or covenant of works we are under no obligation to obey the moral law ourselves. The correct view is that even though Christ has indeed fulfilled the law or covenant of works we are nevertheless obligated to obey the law and to struggle against sin. Obedience is not optional.The purpose of justification is to produce holy lives. GBU
@TheClarkianApologist "Rich, have you ever violated the sixth commandment? I have just this past week."
Did you violate the 6th commandment only in thought or also in deed? Furthermore are you confusing the two? Do you think that THINKING of doing something is the same as actually doing it?
I would much rather have someone THINK of killing me than to ACTUALLY do it.The two are NOT the same.
Finally, since you think Hodge is so unclear, I take it you do not agree with what he said here.
This is a great video Rich, but I see we have one that want to cause confusion. You can't convince me that they don't know the difference between we still sin every day, and someone that is a habitual sinner, they just want to hold on to their antinomianism.
@TheClarkianApologist "Would you say I "live in sin" because I sin daily in thought, word, and deed?"
No, of course not! But to use justification by faith alone as an excuse NOT to "daily struggle to put to death the old man in us" would be the sign of a reprobate. We do NOT teach perfectionism BUT a Christian fights sin. Also a reprobate life style would be living as a homosexual, pedophile, murderer, etc...
Antinomianism teaches we don't have to fight sin because we are justified by faith.
Just because a born again lad "delights in the Law of the Lord",donsn't mean we always keep it,BUT there is a hunger to,like never before being rescued from the pit. The hunger of wanting to an "imitator of Christ" and the sadness that occurs when looking in the mirror of God we most times look like Ahab.
Thank God,in Christ,He saves His lads from this body of death.
Even the elect will be antinomian till going Home,but that doesn't change our eternal destiny,because of Christ.
@Blogrich55 Sadly,the Bible talks of even the elect that think they are can "go on sinning so that Grace may increase"Rom 6:1-4.Yes,there were and no doubt are today,true children of God that think they are released by Grace from the moral obligations of the Law. This is a Biblical reality and the Word gives many such examples of christian ignorance.
@Blogrich55 BTW,I know some loud mouthed professing "christians" that think that just because they claim to be "justified by faith Alone" means they can act consistently like the bottom of the barrel heathens.
I'm no expert in reformed matters,but didn't Luther have something to say about this matter?
@TheWallsOfJerich09 "I'm no expert in reformed matters,but didn't Luther have something to say about this matter?"
Actually Luther coined the term antinomianism. The part was left out of the video for the sake of brevity. Charles Hodge goes into it in Volume III of his systematic theology starting on page 238. Some of Luther's followers had grossly misrepresented his teachings back in his day. Those who deliberately continue to live a reprobate life style are only deluding themselves. GBU
You're nothing more than a Roman Catholic, Pelagian, LS, denier of the gospel heretic who also believes in free will! You also reject the Trinity, virgin birth, creation exnihilo, Pauline epistles, the resurrection, chocolate chip cookies; you beat up girl scouts and skin kittens alive!
Don't ask me for any evidence for these accusations! I don't need any!
Just now, I listened to this video. watch?v=voY37hYwrWQ
It's a bad copy and it might be 20 years old or older but it makes some points that I think are very valuable. It's largely about TL Osborne, who preached to more unsaved people than anyone in history. (I don't know if Bonnke has passed him. I think not.) It talks about the influence that Jesus had through a man who went astray to get Osborne's ministry on the track to effectiveness. I'm sure you'll have complaints but I hope you hear God.
BludBaut 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist divide and separate and try to make a difference when the Lord Jesus spent such time and effort to admonish us to love, forgive, embrace and accept one another EVEN when we have a "quarrel against any." You guys seem to relish getting "us" down to the smallest and most narrowly defined group you can where you're all in complete agreement. Where do you see this in Scripture and why is it that you do not see this as sectarian and contrary to Christ?
BludBaut 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist When I used "dead letter" I should have used "old" or "antiquated." "Dead letter" is so common that I forgot the text says "old." It is common because Paul also said, "The letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life. While the text in Romans 7 is referring to the Law, the text in 2Cor3 is referring to any Scripture wrongly used and I'm a little surprised you didn't understand what I consider was rather obvious.
Where do you find the NT admonition to use terminology to
BludBaut 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist We're united to Jesus only by faith. This is why He plainly said in John 15:4, Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
If you don't believe that verse and want another, just let me know.
Remember, the covenant is with the "seed," not "seeds." To be partaker of the covenant, we must abide in Christ by faith.
I know you guys steer clear of this doctrine, but God's Word rules.
BludBaut 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist Frankly, your remark suggesting that life is not deeper than logic is one I'd like to see you present Scripture to support.
I'll be waiting for your "two or three witnesses."
BludBaut 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist "... the reference is John 10:27," which I notice you didn't address, was a REMINDER of my earlier point.
"Dead letter" is using the Scripture without the enlivening of the Holy Spirit. In other words, "wresting" it as Peter said. There are right ways and wrong ways to use the Scripture and right use necessarily involves the illumnation (or revelation) of the Spirit. Men's opinion is USUALLY "wresting" because "the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit... ."
BludBaut 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist "Those who believe we are united to Christ experientially and existentially, rather than legally and intellectually, always attack propositional revelation--wrongly believing that life is deeper than logic."
Amen brother! This nut actually claims he saw Jesus! God bless!
Blogrich55 8 months ago
cont10 twice what the world's is and would you claim NONE of them are Believers? Why would Paul say, "Accept one another" is there wasn't something about your brothers which bothered you?
Can you not find and see the need for the Lord Jesus to say, "Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy"?
Frankly, I didn't expect such UNSCRIPTURAL rejection of my words to come before I even finished what I had to say but I'll stop here as it's obvious that Christian charity here is limited.
BludBaut 8 months ago
cont9 life of our beloved brother who we knew to be a genuine Believer and IF WE'RE HONEST, we'd be thoroughly ashamed for our brothers to know all the details of our lives.
If this isn't your experience and your testimony, then speak up because if "living in sin" makes someone not a Christian, then I DON'T KNOW ANY CHRISTIANS. EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN I KNOW WELL has serious and blatant violations of specific plain and simple commands in the Bible. The divorce rate among professing Christians is
BludBaut 8 months ago
@BludBaut "I DON'T KNOW ANY CHRISTIANS. EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN I KNOW WELL has serious and blatant violations of specific plain and simple commands in the Bible."
I have decided to unblock you following Lightspeed52's advice. You have confused willful lifestyle sins with the fact that ALL CHRISTIANS will sin every day in word, thought, or deed. Pimps, prostitutes, pedophiles, hit men, PRACTICING homosexuals and such are living sinful lifestyles as are shacked-up couples and adulterers. Got it?
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Blogrich55
127 videos ---- what do You love DEBT. AND all the-- ISM. LIKE I"M RIGHT ISM
127 videos ----
127 videos ---- and You answer all comments. With ISMs. LIKE I"M RIGHT ISM
127 videos ---- GO TO BED get some ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZs
127 videos
2222pauline 7 months ago
@2222pauline "GO TO BED..."
I do and when I do the Lord blesses me with rest and refreshment. How about you Mr Troll? I have read in His Holy Word that there was NO peace for the wicked.
Blogrich55 7 months ago
cont8 sword to hack and attack and wound our brothers. Which one of you is without sin? I'm not. To reference a recent remark which I found funny that "we sin every day but we're not habitual sinners" seems to me to be the very worst use of a semantic game. What's the purpose? To claim "we're in but he's out" because his sin is "bad" and my sin is "reasonable."
Please listen carefully to what I've learned in 39 years as a Believer. We're almost always shocked at the sin that we find was in the
BludBaut 8 months ago
cont7 The sectarianism, the division, the pride, the suspicion, the accusation, the lack of love. Is this the way you want to be treated? Do we not have VERY SPECIFIC COMMANDS that THIS (Luke 6:31) is the way we're to treat others, ESPECIALLY our brethren?
That said, I want to address point #2 at 2:50 in the video. THIS ISN'T SCRIPTURE and honesty dictates that its use is invariably going to be hurtful, legalistic and hypocritical. "Live in sin" is subject to the whim of the one wielding this
BludBaut 8 months ago
cont6 separately because different factors come into play. Sometimes, it's just a matter of cultural differences or word changes, but nevertheless, though there are a very few exceptions, I think my point is weighty and strong. God could well have communicated in different language AND HE DIDN'T. He is not limited. Why don't we represent the Scripture as SUFFICIENT with the help of the Holy Ghost as our Lord told us to communicate and why don't we love our brethren enough to count them brethren?
BludBaut 8 months ago
cont5 states the truth that anyone feels the need to have it reworded by men? I NEVER have understood this! In my experience, hearing God Himself give illumination (or revelation) on HIs Word has typically convinced me that the way the Bible says the truth is the best way to say it. I say "typically" because I do admit there are a few passages where I do try to "help" God by changing, rewording or adding and if I were asked to give an account of those, I think each would need to be addressed
BludBaut 8 months ago
@BludBaut "In my experience, hearing God Himself give illumination (or revelation) on HIs Word has typically convinced me..."
WOW! You have a direct pipeline to the Almighty? And WHY should we take YOUR word for anything? The Bible and the Bible ALONE is the Word of God.
We value good teachers like Calvin, Luther, Clark, Gill, etc... but they are NOT inspired and NEITHER ARE YOU!
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Blogrich55 You OBVIOUSLY DON'T BELIEVE JOHN 10:27.
BludBaut 8 months ago
@Blogrich55 I most definitely have a direct pipeline to God, just as EVERY BELIEVER DOES. He lives IN ME and I HEAR HIS VOICE JUST AS THE SCRIPTURE SAYS.
That you find that strange shows spend entirely too much time debating dead letter and haven't bothered to learn to hear the Master's voice. Again, the reference is John 10:27 and it's not the only one.
BludBaut 8 months ago
Everything I said before you started "reading me the riot act" and showing me that your faith is in the wisdom of men instead of the power of God, was a prelude to the point(s) that I really wanted to make. But it seems your theologians haven't exegeted a "hearing ear" or a "hearing heart" for you and since they're all dead, I don't expect you have any way of finding out what such a thing is so it looks like I'll just have to take it elsewhere because "the voice of the shepherd" you know not.
BludBaut 8 months ago
@Blogrich55 It seems to me from the hardness of your heart that you're quite not qualified to judge who is and who isn't inspired. I understand you were using the term as a reference to Scripture, but the term isn't limited to Scripture and your attempting to make it so doesn't really matter because God makes the rules and not you. In 1Cor. 12:3 God's Word reveals that men other than the apostles and Canon writers are inspired by the Spirit of God, whether you like it or not.
BludBaut 8 months ago
@BludBaut "In 1Cor. 12:3 God's Word reveals that men other than the apostles and Canon writers are inspired by the Spirit of God, whether you like it or not."
No doubt we all are led by the Holy Spirit if we are truly born again sons and daughters of God. Preachers are to preach the Word and do so, hopefully, under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. BUT that does NOT make them inspired as the writers of scripture were. If you think it does, you are a bigger NUT JOB than I think you are.
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Blogrich55 I am not going to apologize for regarding the Word of God over the opinions of men. Frankly, I'm surprised at that hostility and lack of understanding the work of the Spirit. The bulk of the doctrine that you've been discussing is really rather good and I assume (obviously wrongly so) that you guys had some understanding of the witness of the Spirit. Your contrary ways to the things I've said, which I know please the Lord tells me you know very little about how to hear God.
BludBaut 8 months ago
@BludBaut "I am not going to apologize for regarding the Word of God over the opinions of men."
And I am NOT going to apologize with valuing God's Word over some jumped-up modern Joe Smith who CLAIMS Jesus talked to him in Person VISIBLY. WOW! BTW Mr Know-it-all, I was raised and originally ordained as a Pentecostal and I know all about you nonsense! I know professed prophets and apostles. Is THAT clear enough for you? Oh, don't bother trying to answer. You can't. You have been BLOCKED!
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Blogrich55 I suppose that's because of your unbelieving denominational backgrounds. Most denominations go from life to death and if you don't know that or don't understand it, then you're ignorant of adequate denominational history, "Apart from Me you can do nothing is as true today as it was when the Lord spoke it and all of life teaches you that denominational pattern is following the rest of nature. God gives life by His Spirit and darkness and the enemy come to destroy it.
BludBaut 8 months ago
@Blogrich55 You many not appreciate it but the very claim of our Lord that the Church will overcome is a marvel of His grace because left to any of us, we'd all most surely fail. I don't know how old you guys are but those who are over 60 should be well convinced that the grace and mercy of God has saved you from the consequences of your own ways MORE than once. He is so wonderful and amazing. His mercies are new every morning and His lovingkindness is everlasting. He's BETTER than we realize.
BludBaut 8 months ago
@Blogrich55 I'm STILL MARVELING that you actually had the audacity to challenge me about having a "direct pipeline to the Almighty?
I'm hoping that your silence for the last two plus hours is because you're repenting before the Lord for your unbelief and failure to fellowship and have communion with Him.
The Bible is "The Word." Jesus is "The Word." That should give you a clue about the difference between the letter and the Spirit. Jesus IS the Word. You ONLY understand of the Bible what He's
BludBaut 8 months ago
@BludBaut "I'm hoping that your silence for the last two plus hours is because you're repenting before the Lord for your unbelief and failure to fellowship and have communion with Him."
Repent of WHAT? I have not answered because you made a PLETHORA of stupid, self-serving, emotional, irrational, hyper-mystical comments that were ALL OVER the theological landscape. I cannot and WILL NOT waste my time with an idiot like you.
You have a VERY judgmental spirit. How do YOU know what I think??
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Blogrich55 cont3 and as you do, recognize a few things. One, if the Baptists had believed those verses, they wouldn't have censored the condition of the fulfillment and two, theologians were not given as a substitute in which to abide.
I'm hoping you do understand that "continue" wasn't the best way to translate that word as it means "live, dwell, stay, abide." So I'll spell it out here:
IF you ABIDE IN MY WORD THEN you are TRULY My disciples and YOU SHALL KNOW the Truth and the Truth SHALL
BludBaut 8 months ago
@Blogrich55 cont4 MAKE you FREE.
Please listen thoughtfully to my words, whether you believe in eternal security or not, it has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the dunamis and zoe of these two verses. As you guys seem so proud of emphasizing "ES" is a doctrine of logic but the power of obeying these verses is released by the grace of God as you OBEY THE INSTRUCTIONS.
This has NOTHING to do with "going to heaven after you die" but Jesus said it will MAKE YOU FREE IN THIS LIFE. Don't muddy the waters.
BludBaut 8 months ago
cont4 "Truth."
Well, it's been 39 years and I've not yet found the Christians that do this. What I've found is what I see here. Everyone stating their position and declaring it to be the truth of God's Word in posturing, pride and a tremendous lack of love towards the brethren. Where do you find this attitude and disposition in the Bible?
The different factions quote men to back up their positions. Why does the Word of God need the confirmation of men? What's wrong with the way the Bible
BludBaut 8 months ago
@BludBaut "Why does the Word of God need the confirmation of men? What's wrong with the way the Bible"
God gave us theologians to study and explain and AUGMENT and AID in our personal study of His Word.They are NOT infallible. Yet I am sick of those who do NOT understand basic Bible truth, sound hermeneutic principles, and are strangers to proper exegesis, who run around spouting of EISEGETIC nonsense they claim God showed them.They don't need anyone's opinion but their own.Clark is a teacher.
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Blogrich55 "God gave us theologians"
And your "two or three" witnesses for that statement are?
While you're at it please also give the "two or three witnesses" for the need of "sound hermeneutic principles.
And if you don't understand the necessity for "two or three witnesses," you'll find it twice in the Old Testament, starting at Deut 17:6 and referenced FOUR times in the New.
BludBaut 8 months ago
@Blogrich55 I think you're making yourself very clear. CONTRARY to Jesus' testimony YOU DON'T KNOW HIS VOICE and you don't follow Him but follow "theologians" and my complaints fall on deaf ears because you like the way you've been doing it and you're not going to let my sound Scriptural reasons sway your behavior and you're certainly not going to bother to pray about it?
BludBaut 8 months ago
I'll tell you what. I'll decline your "Friend" invitation and if you can find a theologian who can justify a new invitation, you can do that when and if you find such theological, hermeneutic and exegetical principles to justify it. Who needs the Bible when we have theologians?
BludBaut 8 months ago
@Blogrich55 My Bible say the Holy Spirit is my teacher.
But that's what I get for believing the Bible.
BludBaut 8 months ago
cont3 radio and watch Christian preachers on TV present their "gospel" in a contentious fashion which found fault, criticized and condemned their brethren for not believing as they believed. My response, having read, "By this shall all men know that you are My disciples, that you have love for one another," was incredulity. I thought, "Why don't these guys get together and say, "let's pray and ask God to give us wisdom and understanding and His opinion on this issue, since we call His opinion,
BludBaut 8 months ago
cont3 me within the hour, "This means I believe the Bible" because I instinctively understood that it was the Bible which testified of Jesus and I knew that Christians held the Bible as the Word of God. Note that my INITIAL experience was receiving divine communication via a vision and hearing God speak to me. Therefore, even before I was born again, I understood that hearing God's voice was NORMAL for the Christian experience.
Imagine my surprise then, when I started to listen to Christian
BludBaut 8 months ago
cont2 That's all He said to me. I didn't know what to do with that information and asked someone. They told me that I was supposed to believe it (which I already had -- of course) and that commitment was what made me a Christian. I don't recall their telling me of the necessity of confessing Jesus as Lord but, as that is the natural outgrowth of the life of God being imparted to us, I soon testified to several that I had believed in Jesus as Lord and what He had spoken to me. The thought came to
BludBaut 8 months ago
I received your "Friend" invitation and I thank you.
I am very slow to accept friend invitations because I don't want to be associated with those who don't really stand for that for which I stand, and I want to make some points to clarify where I stand. Jesus appeared to me in 1972 in this fashion. I had what is probably the mildest form of a vision in which I saw Jesus crucified, dead and buried. He then appeared before me and said to me, "I did it for you because I love you and I want you."
BludBaut 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BludBaut You said, " Jesus appeared to me in 1972 in this fashion. I had what is probably the mildest form of a vision in which I saw Jesus crucified, dead and buried. He then appeared before me and said to me, "I did it for you because I love you and I want you."
COO-COO COO-COO
1689Baptist 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist "Then why not tell that to stegokitty? He disagrees with you."
Does he? Or have you been hanging around Marty too long brother? Blessings.
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist "If works are "not meritorious"...why would one need them to stand justified before God on the last day?"
1. Even though we are not saved BY our works, we are NOT saved without them.
2. Works are a necessary consequence of justification.
3. God not only saves us from the guilt of our sin (justification) but He also saves us from the power of our sin (sanctification)
4. We do NOT plead our good works before God but ONLY the merit of Christ.
Isaiah 61:10 AND Eph 2:10 GBU
Blogrich55 8 months ago 11
@TheClarkianApologist "Those who "accompany their profession with their works"--as stegokitty does--will be sent to Hell."
Works are NOT meritorious. They do NOT contribute to justification at all. Clark said "faith is the root and works are the fruit. We CANNOT be saved without them.
Clear enough for you?
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist No, you are wrong, Pro 21:4 An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin. Jesus is saying their works are iniquity (miracles, etc...). There is no such thing as a good work to the unconverted. Even casting out demons, and performing miracles is iniquity. The point is self-righteous workers of iniquity or profane workers of iniquity are both lawless and unacceptable to Christ.
The only chance any sinner has is Christ alone.
1689Baptist 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist - My statement is the same faith that all of the Reformers (including Clark) proclaimed. Faith without works is dead faith, which is not saving faith. Period. This has nothing to do with works based, nor faith-plus-works based salvation. No one is justified by works nor by faith plus works. But a justified person is a person with a living faith, which produces good works. Therefore anyone claiming the name of Christ, who does not have good works, is self deceived.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist You miss the point, Every true Christian will have good works accompanying him on the last day, BUT he will NEVER hold those works up to Christ and say "LORD, LORD, have I not done...etc, etc." He knows he is there b/c of Christ alone. Those in Mat.7 had works but none were good. What was the charge Jesus leveled against them? "ye that work iniquity" If these that seemingly had "good" works worked iniquity what chance does the openly profane sinner have?
1689Baptist 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist - Christ through James said, "Faith without works is dead". For me to be an RCW (as you, O so ridiculously accused me), I would have to say that one is justified by faith plus works, which I said nothing of the sort. But true faith manifests itself in good works. If there are no good works, then there is no living faith; and if there is no living faith, then it is a dead faith, and a dead faith cannot save. It is mere intellectual assent.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist,
Stegokitty is espousing standard Lordship Salvation heresy. James White, R.C. Sproul, and John MacArther all teach that no one gets into heaven unless they can show Jesus their good works on the last day. Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis publicly endorses this teaching, for it leads Protestants back to Rome. The implication is that faith alone is not enough. When militant Roman Catholics endorse Lordship Salvation, then that should tell you something--LOL!
RedBeetle 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist
Calvin was Luther's greatest student, Blogrich55 is not.
LOL!
RedBeetle 8 months ago
@RedBeetle "Calvin was Luther's greatest student, Blogrich55 is not."
WOW do you actually think I would dare to put myself in the same class as John Calvin? But then, being the megalomaniac that YOU are, you probably think everyone over rates themselves. You think everyone is like you. Pathetic fellow.
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Blogrich55 wrote: "Do you actually think I would dare to put myself in the same class as John Calvin?"
I'm glad you finally admitted you are not a Calvinist, Richard.
Under the Calvinist Class, we find those who teach the 5 Solas, the 5 Points, in short, the Westminster Confession, but under your class, we find those who teach Neonomianism, Pietism, Justification by faith and non-meritorious works, common grace, free will, perfectionism, irreconcilable paradox, and so on.
RedBeetle 8 months ago
@RedBeetle [Blogrich55] "wrote: "Do you actually think I would dare to put myself in the same class as John Calvin?" I'm glad you finally admitted you are not a Calvinist, Richard."
You draw THIS conclusion from what I wrote? Your conclusion is a non sequitur and YOU claim to know logic? LOL You have been exposed Monty. You are irrational and emotional and NOT a Clarkian. You refuse to say that you agree with him.
Blogrich55 8 months ago
let me ask you seriously buddy, if we are free from the penalty for disobeying gods commands, what is the "tool" god uses to see that we strive to obey them? It seems that it does not make sense. If you are elect then you can go whack babies into bits then with no penalty.
GooksForChrist 8 months ago
@GooksForChrist "let me ask you seriously buddy..."
First of all, I am NOT your buddy! Secondly, if you had bothered to watch and pay attention to the video, you MIGHT have read Clark's words:
"The only sense in which we are free from the moral law is that we are free from its penalty. We are NEVER free to disobey God's commands."
Antinomianism is a DAMNABLE heresy. Get it? Got it? Good! BTW you are BLOCKED!
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Blogrich55 Richard you are acting out of control, get a hold of yourself. You did not answer his question and frankly I pose the same one to you, you are never free to disobey gods commands but WHAT IF YOU DO? Is the implication that your sins are secret commands of God? He was not talking about autonomianism he was asking you what compels one of the elect to follow God. Please answer the question properly, or shut your channel down if you cannot operate a proper evangelical channel.
ConsulPontiusPilate 8 months ago
@GooksForChrist - That's utter nonsense. Jesus took the necessary precautions to protect His life from the hands of men who would kill Him before the appointed time of His crucifixion. And the Apostolic teaching is clear enough concerning good works, and the necessity of obedience to God's moral law. We are saved unto good works, which God prepared beforehand.
stegokitty 8 months ago
Bottom line: No one claiming the name of Christ shall be the recipient of eternal life on the Last Day unless they have good works accompanying their profession.
Salvation is threefold: we have been saved; we are being saved; we shall be saved. The Bible says so. Salvation is not merely justification. Justification is necessarily connected to adoption, & sancitification, which inlcudes good works. Faith without works is dead, useless, unsaving "faith". It appears that Gordon Clark agrees.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty "Faith without works is dead..."
Essentially true. HOWEVER we must not forget elect infants and idiots who are incapable of good works but still saved. Clark also mentioned the thief on the cross who didn't have much time to do too many good works or advance in holiness. Also just because justification guarantees good works it does NOT guarantee the absence of bad works. Christians still have a sinful nature and will manifest BOTH while in this life. God bless you!
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Blogrich55 - And like you said, even the thief on the cross did good works, in his short (and horrible) experience of being a follower of Christ. And yes, our good works will be mixed with failures, & even bad works. Just a quick note on the thief: the thing that's so graciously amazing about his conversion & good works, is how God preserved him in the faith, even when he saw his Saviour die before him, & he continued to hang on the cross in agony awaiting death.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@Blogrich55 - BTW - I'm not skipping public worship today ... I'm actually awaiting the arrival of my students in Christian Ed. May the Lord bless and keep you all, and that you may find yourselves in the joyous duty of public worship with God and His people this (and every) Lord's Day.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@stegokitty Amen! SOLI DEO GLORIA!
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist - Just so you know, I don't know you, so I'm not trying to be insulting, but from what I've seen in your responses to Rich, Jeff, et al, you aren't offering the benefit of the doubt. For instance, on the 6th comandment, you should be assuming that these Reformed folk understand that we all sin in thought, word, and deed every day, AND that actually murdering is indeed worse than simply thinking it. But you spend so much time dancing around, that only frustration abounds.
stegokitty 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist "Luther said: "sin boldly!" Paul, could you please give the reference for this quote?
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist - Do you enjoy misrepresenting the point of another man? His statement stands, & is acknowledged as well by Clark -- that anyone who WANTS to live in sin, is not a real Christian. That's the point. There are people who profess the name of Christ, yet whose lives show no change. We're not talking about sinless perfectionism, we're talking about some semblance of an encounter with Christ, some, as Edwards put it, affection for the things of God. Do you disagree with that?
stegokitty 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist Thank you for admitting that
1689Baptist 9 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist,
Got your email, but I'm swamped at work right now. Some of us must work and pay our bills, while others stay home, refuse to work, and live off of tax payer's money (Calvinism calls this stealing). Clark taught the Protestant Work Ethic, but few here have read Clark. Above, I commented to the liars who made this video. In fact, these Federal Vision men behind this video already admitted in other comment sections that they are saved by their "non-meritorious" works.
RedBeetle 9 months ago
Gordon Clark never said our good works are necessary FOR salvation on page 162 of "What Do Presbyterians Believe."
Blogrich55 (Rich) and LightSpeed52 (Tom) have a habit of telling this lie over and over again--they read that into Clark's text--LOL!
The claim that our good works are necessary to / for salvation met with confessional condemnation from the conservative branch of the Protestant Reformation. See my video "Why Gordon Clark didn't say: Our Good Works Are Necessary To Salvation."
RedBeetle 9 months ago
@RedBeetle
"Gordon Clark never said our good works are necessary FOR salvation on page 162 of "What Do Presbyterians Believe."
Blogrich55 (Rich) and LightSpeed52 (Tom) have a habit of telling this lie over and over again--they read that into Clark's text--LOL!"
#1. Really Monty?? HERE is what Clark said:
"The relationship between faith and works is really very simple and easy to understand, even though from age to age so many people entertain confused notions about it.
cont'd...
Blogrich55 9 months ago 3
cont'd...
#2. "The relation is that faith is the cause of good works and good works are the effect of faith. This simple causal relation removes the notion that good works are the basis of our justification AND, AS WELL, THE NOTION THAT GOOD WORKS ARE UNNECESSARY IN A SALVATION ACCOMPLISHED BY SOVEREIGN GRACE."
Is that clear enough for you Monty or do you just not understand simple English?
Blogrich55 9 months ago 2
@Blogrich55,
Thanks for showing you did NOT quote Clark word for word--LOL! You misinterpreted him, again. Clark did NOT say our good works are necessary FOR salvation. That's your heresy, chump. Clark taught the 3rd use of the Law, which is that in the salvation of one of God's elect, his / her good works are necessary to glorify God and help our fellow man. It is YOU who cannot read simple English: "good works...in salvation" does not equal "good works...for / to salvation."
You lose.
RedBeetle 9 months ago
@RedBeetle "It is YOU who cannot read simple English: "good works...in salvation" does not equal "good works...for / to salvation."
Either they are necessary or they are not. Either they are the effect of justification (which is the cause) or they are not.Clark said " faith is the root and works are the fruit. We CANNOT be saved without them."He said "it is the purpose of justification to produce holy lives." Do you agree with all of this or not? You are NOT a Calvinist but antinomian Lutheran!
Blogrich55 9 months ago 4
@Blogrich55,
Saying our good works are necessary is NOT enough: no Roman Catholic priest would disagree with you, chump. In Calvinism, we explain what good works are necessary FOR! If you held to the 3rd Use of the Law, and it is clear that you do NOT, then you would NEVER say such a vague thing. You're a Catholic whore, who makes it up as he goes along. Calvin, for your information, was Luther's greatest student. If holding to Law / Gospel Distinction be Lutheran, then I'll have seconds!
RedBeetle 9 months ago
@RedBeetle "Saying our good works are necessary is NOT enough: no Roman Catholic priest would disagree with you"
The Roman Catholics teach good works are meritorious and we do NOT! Hence it follows we are NOT Roman Catholics. We have NEVER denied the Calvinistic 3rd use of the law. But LIES are ALL you have besides your useless abusive ad hominems.
I do deny YOUR aberrant use of the L/G distinction as an excuse to shred the Bible and discard the portions that contradict your antinomianism.
Blogrich55 9 months ago 14
@Blogrich55,
You done crying?
I thought you were going to show us a quote from Clark saying "our good works are necessary for salvation?" Your appeal to ambiguous statements and your misinterpretation of Clark is absurd, and it is not consistent with the 3rd Use of the Law, which is the same for both Lutherans and Calvinists (another basic truth anyone who has studied Law / Gospel Distinction would know--but then you haven't). I see why Dr. Kenneth Talbot and the RPCGA refused to ordain you.
RedBeetle 9 months ago
@RedBeetle "You done crying?"
Actually YOU are the one whining and sniveling Marty. You cannot possibly fail to understand the quote from Clark on page 162 in WDPB? Where he says "removes the notion that...good works are unnecessary in a salvation accomplished by sovereign grace." Across the page he says "We cannot be saved without them."
So THIS is ambiguous to YOU?? Your antinomianism has been exposed and no amount of squirming will change that.You DO understand basic grammar don't you?
Blogrich55 9 months ago 12
@Blogrich55 Richard are you trying to beat Monty at at threatening and yelling heretic at everyone? Frankly it surprises me that there ARE any elect since according to each of you clowns, one or the other of you is a complete heretic. The comedy you Calvinists generate is better than Comedy Central (not hard) but still, a LOT better.
ConsulPontiusPilate 8 months ago
@ConsulPontiusPilate Antinomianism IS a damnable heresy! Deal with it! You are BLOCKED!
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Blogrich55,
You're begging the question.
"good works...IN a salvation accomplished by sovereign grace" is NOT equal to "our good works are necessary for / to salvation."
Our good works are necessary to glorify God and to help our fellow man: they're NOT necessary for our salvation (In Calvinism, this is called this the 3rd Use of the Law). Federal Vision teaches that our "non-meritorious" works are necessary for salvation, not Calvinism. You are headed to Rome.
You lose, again.
RedBeetle 8 months ago
@RedBeetle "Our good works are necessary to glorify God and to help our fellow man: they're NOT necessary for our salvation"
A A Hodge said they are "necessary FOR salvation" and explained in what sense on pg 526 of his OUTLINES OF THEOLOGY.
The problem is NOT with the prepositions in, for, or to. The problem is that YOU refuse to use the term salvation in its broad sense as Clark requested us to do. See our most recent video.
Do you agree with Clark that "we CANNOT be saved without them"?
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Blogrich55,
You are STILL begging the question. You have NOT demonstrated from Clark's writings that he was teaching: "our good works are necessary for / to salvation." You attempt to change the subject, for you are intellectually broke. It's been days, but you can't provide a single quote where Clark said: "Our good works are necessary for salvation." Clark's commentary on Philippians rejects the idea that something other than Christ's works are necessary for our salvation.
Got Logic?
RedBeetle 8 months ago
@RedBeetle "Clark's commentary on Philippians rejects the idea that something other than Christ's works are necessary for our salvation."
Clark requested us to use salvation in the broad sense. You obviously refuse to do so. You insist on using salvation as a synonym for justification. It is NOT. Clark said it is a VERY BROAD term. Got integrity?
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Blogrich55,
You are habitually begging the question, Richard.
I thought you Lordship Salvation boys didn't have any bad habits?
Looks like the Pharisees can't demonstrate their claims.
And chump, you didn't even try to reply to Clark's teaching in Philippians, but then, you never have.
You simply try and change the subject, a sure sign you have nothing intelligent to say.
RedBeetle 8 months ago
@RedBeetle "And chump, you didn't even try to reply to Clark's teaching in Philippians, but then, you never have."
Paul refers to the Judaizers as dogs. We are hardly Judaizers. I suggest you read Clark's commentary more closely. Page 85 should clear the matter up for you. We do not add anything to justification. You insist on using the word salvation as a synonym for justification instead of using it in its broader sense as Clark requested.
Also, I am NOT a Lordship Salvationist Mr LIAR.
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Blogrich55,
You're still begging the question.
Where's that quote you promised?
Since you cannot prove your Lordship claim, I will simply say that Clark's commentary on Philippians did clear up the matter, for instead of Clark saying our good works are necessary FOR salvation, as you say all the time, Clark wrote that those who reject Justification By Faith Alone run around saying "our good works are necessary FOR salvation." According to Clark, you're a dog: un perro vago.
Got Logic?
RedBeetle 8 months ago
@RedBeetle ", Clark wrote that those who reject Justification By Faith Alone run around saying "our good works are necessary FOR salvation." According to Clark, you're a dog"
So produce the exact reference like I ALWAYS do. Until then this is just hear say and I must consider the source. Your credibility is ZILCH. Also, according to Clark, Paul was referring to the Judaizers. I hardly fit that classification Mr Liar. But then, integrity is not your strong suit. Neither is logic.
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Blogrich55,
You're still begging the question.
Where's that quote from Clark?
As for Clark condemning your nonsense, see my video: "He Called Them Dogs."
It's fully cited.
RedBeetle 8 months ago
@RedBeetle "Where's that quote from Clark?"
My question exactly Mr LIAR. WHERE is the quote where "Clark wrote that those who reject Justification By Faith Alone run around saying "our good works are necessary FOR salvation."
Produce the exact reference or I will assume you are lying as usual.You obviously do NOT understand logic or even know what a proposition is.You just keep asking me the same asinine question and ignoring the obvious answer.See quote from Clark WDPB? Pg 162 it refutes you.
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist "How many will I have to commit before I need to tap into the Treasury of Merit before I can stand Justified before God?"
WOW Paul! Shall I run with this question like Monty does and make a video calling you a Catholic whore? How can you defend a liar. Notice I have NEVER defended Bianca's doctrine. I have treated her with kindness as a fellow Christian who is wrong and confused on certain points. You think this is kissypoo. Yet you have NO problem with Monty lying at all!
Blogrich55 9 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist I would say someone who wants to push the bounds of sin to see if grace still abounds is very close to a habitual sinner, and judging by your comment that just might be you. Rom 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Clark said it is a psychological impossibility to so identify yourself with the death of Christ and still want to live in sin.
1689Baptist 9 months ago
@1689Baptist Please demonstrate to me, where in ANY of TheClarkianApologist's comments does he say anything that warrants your damnation as you have stated:
"I would say someone who wants to push the bounds of sin to see if grace still abounds is very close to a habitual sinner, and judging by your comment that just might be you." (1689Baptist)
I have been floored at the murderous heart of Blogrich55 these last months. Hypocrite! Go and read Genesis 6:5 and realise that you are included in it!
Afrikitty 9 months ago
@Afrikitty You said, "I have been floored at the murderous heart of Blogrich55 these last months" OH, PLEASE!!
Read carefully what I said, "that just might be you." I did not pronounce any damnation on him, I do not have that ability, only God does. I just sent a warning b/c of his gleeful and maybe prideful way of presenting his sins that he commits to Rich. Where is his sorrow and repentance for those sins? Instead he wields his sins as a sword to shred sound Doctrine. Christian??? Hmm!
1689Baptist 9 months ago
@1689Baptist
@1689Baptist
"Read carefully what I said, "that just might be you." I did not pronounce any damnation on him, I do not have that ability, only God does. I just sent a warning b/c of his gleeful and maybe prideful way of presenting his sins that he commits to Rich. Where is his sorrow and repentance for those sins? Instead he wields his sins as a sword to shred sound Doctrine. Christian??? Hmm!"
OH, PLEASE!!
Richard has a saying about a chocolate and a tootsie roll, Jeff.
Afrikitty 9 months ago
@Afrikitty Ever read "Pilgrims Progress"? I think John makes an excellent contrast between the habitual sinners and poor pilgrim.
1689Baptist 9 months ago
@1689Baptist wrote, "Ever read "Pilgrims Progress?" "
Ever understand it? There's plenty of Apostolic Pentecostals in my area that read that book devotionally, and never understand it. If you hold to Lordship Salvation, you DON'T understand John Bunyan, who said that if he could have only one book besides the Bible, it would be Luther's commentary on Galatians. And THAT commentary destroys your entire theology, chump. See my video "On Galatians."
You don't understand the basics.
RedBeetle 9 months ago
@RedBeetle Oh, I understand Pilgrims Progress. I have also given you my definition of LS but that doesn't matter to you. LS is, those whom God justifies (by faith alone) He will sanctify, and sanctification is a life long process of God conforming us to the likeness of Christ. Now you tell me where Clark, John Bunyan, or Luther for that matter would disagree with that definition?
If John MacArthur and I disagree then take it up with him.
1689Baptist 9 months ago
@1689Baptist,
Your "definition" is incomplete.
You also define Lordship Salvation
to be where people are saved by their "non-meritorious" good works.
You also rejects Law / Gospel Distinction,
calling it a Lutheran error, like Jeff Meyers (Federal Vision).
Should I continue? Need I point out how your definition includes Common Grace,
Human Free Will, Irreconcilable Paradox, and, like this video, the notion that assurance
is only obtained by doing good works (Bunyan rejected that-LOL)?
RedBeetle 9 months ago
@RedBeetle This comment is full of lies.
1689Baptist 9 months ago
@1689Baptist,
You were asked for an exact definition for the term "habitual sinner" You gave none.
When are you Lordship Pharisees going to do a video boasting that you have no bad habits?
Habitual sinners are those with at least one bad habit. My, we are so unworthy to be in the presence of 1689Baptist, who has only good habits! You sound a lot like John Wesley, who was influenced by pietism. Remember, according to you guys, one bad habit means you are not a Christian--LOL!
RedBeetle 8 months ago
@RedBeetle 'One may say that so and so is living in sin. This does not mean occasional acts, even occasional acts of fornication; but an established mode of life. ... that the true Christian is not an habitual sinner. Gordon H. Clark, 1John, page 95, 100
Now the burden is on you to explain Clark.
1689Baptist 8 months ago
@1689Baptist,
Your attempt to reply to my comment by ripping Clark out of context shows that 1) you really think you have no bad habits (heresy of perfectionism, which Clark rejected), 2) you do look to your works for assurance (one of your latest videos denied this--you're a liar), and 3) you contradict Richard, who below denied that habitual sin means one is not a Christian. You chumps don't know if you are coming or going. Oh, and the Clark quote is not a definition for "habitual sin."
RedBeetle 8 months ago
@RedBeetle You said, "Oh, and the Clark quote is not a definition for "habitual sin."
Really? "The explanation should be well known: the present tense can and here must refer to HABITUAL CONDUCT. It does not have to with sporadic acts of sinning. There is an English parallel. One may say that so and so is living in sin. This does not mean occasional acts, even occasional acts of fornication; but an established mode of life. Gordon H. Clark, 1John, page 95
1689Baptist 8 months ago
@1689Baptist,
A partial description is not the same thing as a complete definition.
If by "an established mode of life" is meant constant sinning or even concuspicence, then every Christian, who's best works are all tainted with sin, would meet the definition. Clark's book on sanctification is his most comprehensive treatment, and it does not teach when a person is regenerated they have no more bad habits. It teaches that progress is slow, a small beginning (see Heidelberg Catechism Q.114).
RedBeetle 8 months ago
@RedBeetle Monty, I am talking about a person who continues his lifestyle unaltered after his supposed "conversion". Not one that struggles with daily sins or retains some bad habits. I believe you know this, you are trying to get me to play the game of how many sins is to much, 3 of these sins are ok, but 20 of those are to much.
1689Baptist 8 months ago
@RedBeetle "Your attempt to reply to my comment by ripping Clark out of context..."
Any time anyone disproves your nonsense with a quote from Clark you squeal out of context. I guess you figure if you repeat a LIE enough it will become true. You LOSE as usual. Pathetic.
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Blogrich55,
I'm afraid you have the evil habit of taking men out of context.
According to you, doesn't that mean you are not a Christian?
RedBeetle 8 months ago
@RedBeetle "I'm afraid you have the evil habit of taking men out of context. According to you, doesn't that mean you are not a Christian?"
I have not been taking men out of context Marty.
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@RedBeetle "ood habits! You sound a lot like John Wesley, who was influenced by pietism. Remember, according to you guys, one bad habit means you are not a Christian--LOL"
We NEVER said this Mr LIAR. But then, LIES are ALL you have, aren't they? Oh, yes, I forgot, you DO have your abusive ad hominems too :D
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Blogrich55,
1689Baptist, in a comment right above, just claimed that bad habits do indicate that one is not a Christian. You just got caught lying, Richard. You guys not only contradict Gordon H. Clark, but you contradict each other, too.
Which is it? Do bad habits indicate one is not a Christian?
Blogrich55 says "No!"
1689Baptist says "Yes!"
Both chumps claim to teach the same thing,
yet the two chumps cannot both be right.
Got Logic?
RedBeetle 8 months ago
@RedBeetle "Which is it? Do bad habits indicate one is not a Christian?"
Clark painstakingly explains all of this in his commentary on 1John; see his comments on 1 John 3:6,9
We are NOT contradicting each other. I know that would make you happy. There is a big difference between someone living a sinful life style and a true Christian falling into sin, even egregious sins. Bonnie and Clyde, for example LIVED the lives of bank robbers and murderers. That is one tiny example of habitual sin.
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Blogrich55,
You are claiming that following propositions are consistent?
1) habitual sinning means one is not a Christian
2) habitual sinning does not mean one is not a Christian
Please explain.
RedBeetle 8 months ago
@RedBeetle Putting words in my mouth again Marty? ""The explanation should be well known: the present tense can and here must refer to HABITUAL CONDUCT. It does not have to with sporadic acts of sinning. There is an English parallel. One may say that so and so is living in sin. This does not mean occasional acts, even occasional acts of fornication; but an established mode of life." Gordon H. Clark, 1John, page 95 Do you agree with Clark or not? Do you agree with the Hodges in this video?
Blogrich55 8 months ago
@Upermonotheismos We gave A A Hodge's definition from his OUTLINES OF THEOLOGY pg 404 in the video. Antinomians believe that because Christ has fulfilled the law or covenant of works we are under no obligation to obey the moral law ourselves. The correct view is that even though Christ has indeed fulfilled the law or covenant of works we are nevertheless obligated to obey the law and to struggle against sin. Obedience is not optional.The purpose of justification is to produce holy lives. GBU
Blogrich55 9 months ago
@TheClarkianApologist "Rich, have you ever violated the sixth commandment? I have just this past week."
Did you violate the 6th commandment only in thought or also in deed? Furthermore are you confusing the two? Do you think that THINKING of doing something is the same as actually doing it?
I would much rather have someone THINK of killing me than to ACTUALLY do it.The two are NOT the same.
Finally, since you think Hodge is so unclear, I take it you do not agree with what he said here.
Blogrich55 9 months ago
This is a great video Rich, but I see we have one that want to cause confusion. You can't convince me that they don't know the difference between we still sin every day, and someone that is a habitual sinner, they just want to hold on to their antinomianism.
1689Baptist 9 months ago 3
@TheClarkianApologist "Would you say I "live in sin" because I sin daily in thought, word, and deed?"
No, of course not! But to use justification by faith alone as an excuse NOT to "daily struggle to put to death the old man in us" would be the sign of a reprobate. We do NOT teach perfectionism BUT a Christian fights sin. Also a reprobate life style would be living as a homosexual, pedophile, murderer, etc...
Antinomianism teaches we don't have to fight sin because we are justified by faith.
Blogrich55 9 months ago 4
WOW! That's so funny. I was just about to begin reading that chapter of the Law of God in Clark's 'WDPB?' when played this video LOL!
zmode82 9 months ago 3
@zmode82 Thanks for watching but what do you think? God bless!
Blogrich55 9 months ago
@Blogrich55 Loved the video, and I'm loving the book.
zmode82 9 months ago
You look different. Did you get a haircut?
JesusforLife2 9 months ago
@JesusforLife2 LOL Yes! It took off 30 years and a couple hundred pounds:) God bless!
Blogrich55 9 months ago
Just because a born again lad "delights in the Law of the Lord",donsn't mean we always keep it,BUT there is a hunger to,like never before being rescued from the pit. The hunger of wanting to an "imitator of Christ" and the sadness that occurs when looking in the mirror of God we most times look like Ahab.
Thank God,in Christ,He saves His lads from this body of death.
Even the elect will be antinomian till going Home,but that doesn't change our eternal destiny,because of Christ.
Blessings !
TheWallsOfJerich09 9 months ago
@TheWallsOfJerich09 "Even the elect will be antinomian till going Home"
There is no doubt that we all sin every day in word, thought, or deed. Yet this is not antinomianism. God bless.
Blogrich55 9 months ago
@Blogrich55 Sadly,the Bible talks of even the elect that think they are can "go on sinning so that Grace may increase"Rom 6:1-4.Yes,there were and no doubt are today,true children of God that think they are released by Grace from the moral obligations of the Law. This is a Biblical reality and the Word gives many such examples of christian ignorance.
Blessings my friend !
TheWallsOfJerich09 9 months ago
@Blogrich55 BTW,I know some loud mouthed professing "christians" that think that just because they claim to be "justified by faith Alone" means they can act consistently like the bottom of the barrel heathens.
I'm no expert in reformed matters,but didn't Luther have something to say about this matter?
TheWallsOfJerich09 9 months ago
@TheWallsOfJerich09 "I'm no expert in reformed matters,but didn't Luther have something to say about this matter?"
Actually Luther coined the term antinomianism. The part was left out of the video for the sake of brevity. Charles Hodge goes into it in Volume III of his systematic theology starting on page 238. Some of Luther's followers had grossly misrepresented his teachings back in his day. Those who deliberately continue to live a reprobate life style are only deluding themselves. GBU
Blogrich55 9 months ago
You're nothing more than a Roman Catholic, Pelagian, LS, denier of the gospel heretic who also believes in free will! You also reject the Trinity, virgin birth, creation exnihilo, Pauline epistles, the resurrection, chocolate chip cookies; you beat up girl scouts and skin kittens alive!
Don't ask me for any evidence for these accusations! I don't need any!
HERETIC!!!!!!!!!!!
fivepointbaptist 9 months ago
@fivepointbaptist "Don't ask me for any evidence for these accusations! I don't need any!"
ROFLOL Yeah but don't I gots nice blue eyes LOL God bless!
Blogrich55 9 months ago
@Blogrich55 NO! You stole those from a baby and then ate him!
LOL, Love ya, brother!
fivepointbaptist 9 months ago
@fivepointbaptist Back at ya bro!
Blogrich55 9 months ago
Amen. Good works are the mere external evidence of our faith.
huguenot67 9 months ago
@huguenot67 God bless you!
Blogrich55 9 months ago
@Blogrich55 and you, brother.
huguenot67 9 months ago