Theology vs. the Bible

Martin Marprelate said:

I agree, but if we suppose that doing good works is going to gain us salvation, we are in for a great big shock. Our very best efforts are not enough to save us. Paul, in 1 Tim. 1:15 says, 'Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.' He doesn't say, 'of whom I was chief' but of whom I am chief' (present continuous tense). Even after his conversion and new birth he still regarded himself as a sinner (c.f. also Romans 7:15-25).

Click to expand...

Who said we work our way to salvation? Nobody here on this board. We all are sinners saved by grace. The struggle against sin never ends in this life. It is constant, but getting rid of worldly influences like TV, secular music, movies, etc. helps a lot.

Martin Marprelate said:

When you stand before God, will you stand in the filthy rags of your own righteousness, or in the garments of salvation and the robe of righteousness provided by the Lord Jesus? He says, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with Me!" Read my last post again. Nothing but the perfect righteousness and the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ will avail you on that day. This is serious stuff. We don't even agree on the way of salvation!

Click to expand...

I will stand having been cleansed, having a new heart (with the old one gone), having put to death the "old man", having been made into the image of Christ, having been glorified.


I agree that we disagree on the way of salvation.

I believe that in order to be saved one must repent and believe in Christ. I do not think that there is any other path to salvation.

The difference here is mot Christ's blood (we both have posted on this thread that it is only by the cross - the blood shed for us - that we are saved.

Where we disagree is that I believe Christ's blood actually cleanses us from all unrighteousness while you seem to hold that the Father accepts His blood on our behalf.


From my perspective you remove the efficacy of the blood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Everytime I have posted that Christ's blood actually cleanses us from unrighteousness, that we will be made into the image of Christ, that we will be glorified you have objected.


I am telling you this because it is eternally significant - IF at Judgment you remain wicked then you will perish. God WILL NOT clear the guilty. The wicked WILL NOT enter the kingdom of God. You MUST be born again. You MUST be recreated. You MUST be made into Christ's image. You MUST be glorified. This is ONLY through Christ and His blood shed for us.

IF you remain as you are, guilty, at judgment thdn you will perish. This is serious and that is why I am pointing it out plainly. No games.

IF you hold to another way of salvation than I then you will perish. I do not want that for you. I do not want that for anybody.

But if you do hold a different way of salvation then you, unfortunately, will not be alone in your condemnation (you wont be the only one). There will simply be no place for the wicked, guilty sinner in God's kingdom. There will be Christ, the Firstborn. There will be many brethren who have been made in His image, cleansed by His blood. But the wicked, guilty sinners will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

Armchair Apologist said:

Seems we are going all over the place here or are you just choosing to take exception to pretty much everything I am saying?

What exactly are your objections to the Penal Substitutionary Atonement? Is it the "Penal" part. If I just said "substitutionary atonement," I am certain that everyone you cited would be in agreement with it. Can you agree if I just said "Substitutionary Atonement?" I would certainly hope so!

A Substitutionary atonement is an absolute, non-negotiable essential to the orthodox Christian faith! Without it, there is no gospel and no redemption! If you reject it, you are outside the realm of orthodoxy and I stand by this.

The differing theories of atonement all have some "truth" to it (even the "moral example theory") but the penal substitutionary atonement gets right to the root of the matter. It is also the one mostly under attack by liberals and apostates! No one ever attacks the Ransom Theory, Christus Victor Theory, or Recapitulation Theory. Why the hostility towards the Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

And for the record, Martin Luther MOST CERTAINLY affirmed the Penal Substitutionary Atonement! Perhaps the liberal ELCA Lutherans of reject it now but their theology is so far removed from Martin Luther that they shouldn't even call themselves "Lutheran!"

Just so you know, the "Cosmic Child Abuse" statement is attributable to Steve Chalke who is vocal opponent of PSA right along with his apostate buddy, Brian Zahnd.

Click to expand...

Think their view is that God in the Cross has made it to where sinners got saved due to God seeing their repenting and turning to Jesus as saving them, but still have to deal with just where did all of the wrath of God stored up to unload on them went to after getting saved now, who paid and atoned for it, and appease that divine wrath?

JonC said:

That IS my point (and, I think, a part of our disagreement).

God has appointed a time for judgment. There is a "Day of Wrath". It is appointed to man once to die and then (AFTER death) the Judgment.

When we stand before God, after this life is done, after Christ has returned, there will be a judgment.

We stand before God having been made perfect or we will stand before God as wicked men.

If we are saved then we are foreknown in Christ. Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that Jesus might be the firstborn among many. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

When we stans before God we will have been conformed into the image of His Son. We will have been actually made perfect.


The crux of our disagreement is not whether we will actually be perfect at rhe time of Judgment. I think we both accept the numerous passages stating we will.

It is instead whether God can actually recreate a man (recreate a guilty wicked man into an innocent, perfect man in the image of Christ).

Click to expand...

No, the point of contention is by what basis is a Holy God allowed to freely forgive sinners without violating that Holiness?

JonC said:

I will stand having been cleansed, having a new heart (with the old one gone), having put to death the "old man", having been made into the image of Christ, having been glorified.


I agree that we disagree on the way of salvation.

I believe that in order to be saved one must repent and believe in Christ. I do not think that there is any other path to salvation.

The difference here is mot Christ's blood (we both have posted on this thread that it is only by the cross - the blood shed for us - that we are saved.

Where we disagree is that I believe Christ's blood actually cleanses us from all unrighteousness while you seem to hold that the Father accepts His blood on our behalf.


From my perspective you remove the efficacy of the blood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Everytime I have posted that Christ's blood actually cleanses us from unrighteousness, that we will be made into the image of Christ, that we will be glorified you have objected.


I am telling you this because it is eternally significant - IF at Judgment you remain wicked then you will perish. God WILL NOT clear the guilty. The wicked WILL NOT enter the kingdom of God. You MUST be born again. You MUST be recreated. You MUST be made into Christ's image. You MUST be glorified. This is ONLY through Christ and His blood shed for us.

IF you remain as you are, guilty, at judgment thdn you will perish. This is serious and that is why I am pointing it out plainly. No games.

IF you hold to another way of salvation than I then you will perish. I do not want that for you. I do not want that for anybody.

But if you do hold a different way of salvation thdn you, unfortunately, will not be alone in your condemnation. There will simply be no place for the wicked, guilty sinner in God's kingdom. There will be Christ, the Firstborn. There will be many brethren who have been made in His image, cleansed by His blood. But the wicked, guilty sinners will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

Click to expand...

NO Psa holder here has ever denied final and full sanctification, as all saved shall be resurrected in the physical glorified body form

Ascetic X said:

Who said we work our way to salvation? Nobody here on this board. We all are sinners saved by grace. The struggle against sin never ends in this life. It is constant, but getting rid of worldly influences like TV, secular music, movies, etc. helps a lot.

Click to expand...

I look at putting to death the "old man" in us as a process in this life

God shows us a sin. We struggle, but by His grace we overcome that sin. Then another is revealed. We move from glory to glory.

But in the end (after this life) we will be raised Incorruptible. We will be made into His image, guiltless. The "old man" in us will not survive the grave.

JonC said:

Theology is the study of God.

Click to expand...

"Theology is the study of religious belief from a religious perspective, with a focus on the nature of divinity and the history behind religion."

Includes all belief systems.

I recommend that you broaden your horizon.

Wesley Briggman said:

Theology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Theology is the study of religious belief from a religious perspective, with a focus on the nature of divinity and the history behind religion."

Includes all belief systems.

I recommend that you broaden your horizon.

Click to expand...

Like I said, theology is the study of God (that is what the "theo" means).

Any study of God or a god is the study of religious belief, from a religious perspective (the study itself, not necessarily the student).

I already said it includes belief systems other than Christianity (remember the Plato comment).

I recommend you read the complete conversation before making recommendations based on a single post.

But, obviously, on a Hindu thread "theology" will be in context of the Hindu religion.

And in a Christian discussion on a Baptist board it is in a Christian context. Christian Theology.


Theology proper (in Christian theology) is the study of the Father, BTW.

JonC said:

Like I said, theology is the study of God (that is what the "theo" means).

Any study of God or a god is the study of religious belief, from a religious perspective (the study itself, not necessarily the student).

I already said it includes belief systems other than Christianity (remember the Plato comment).

I recommend you read the complete conversation before making recommendations based on a single post.

But, obviously, on a Hindu thread "theology" will be in context of the Hindu religion.

And in a Christian discussion on a Baptist board it is in a Christian context. Christian Theology.


Theology proper (in Christian theology) is the study of the Father, BTW.

Click to expand...

Thanks - I stand corrected.

Wesley Briggman said:

Thanks - I stand corrected.

Click to expand...

Nah. No need to stand.

I was just noting that "theology" does not mean "God's Word" as another suggested.

Ascetic X said:

Round and round we go, where it stops, nobody knows.

Theology can freeze the mind into a rigid pattern that seduces and imprisons thought, so that any different viewpoint is not prayerfully pondered, but is instantly rejected and renounced.

We are safer by studying the Bible, with occasional reference to commentaries, instead of devouring and adhering to a system of hermeneutics as though it was the ultimate, infallible, comprehensive truth.

The real danger is exalting theology above the Word of God and elevating a theologian above the Savior.

We may like and agree with much in a certain theology, but we must retain the resilience to question and reject any elements that seem to contradict the scriptures.

“How can this system or preacher be so right about so many things, yet be so wrong about other things?” is the troubling question that lingers unpleasantly. So we trust God and know that in heaven all will be perfectly clear and resolved…forever.

Some of the most popular and prominent pastors and youth leaders have fallen in shame. Their followers are in confusion and dismay. They begin to question the whole package. It is just an aspect of the battleground we have entered when we became Christians.

Which goes back to my persistent woe that burdens me: I wish every church, every denomination, was just a slight variation on the one true gospel.

I wish it was easier to find a place where the salvation message was foremost, sanctification was taken seriously, genuine love prevailed, and evangelism was practiced joyfully. A sanctimonious country club has often replaced the church. People figure out how to play the game of church and fit in smoothly. But not much that is truly spiritual is going on.

Sadly, some institutions and systems are apostate, abusive, abhorrent. I wish we could walk into any church or seminary and enjoy the fellowship and teaching of true believers. Often, the tares seem to overwhelm the wheat. In some cases, it seems like there is nothing but tares.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as theology vs the Bible, as they are not pitted versus each other.

@JonC, we do not give birth to ourselves. It is God who must give us new birth (1 Peter 1:3) if we are to be saved.

JonC said:

Everytime I have posted that Christ's blood actually cleanses us from unrighteousness, that we will be made into the image of Christ, that we will be glorified you have objected.

Click to expand...

How does Christ's blood cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:7)? Not by being made righteous. In the very next verse, John tells us, 'If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.' He continues, 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.' That he is faithful to do so simply means that He can be relied upon; but that He is just or righteous to do so is very important. God is 'by no means clearing the guilty' (Exodus 4:7). He is just to do so because the penalty for our sins has been paid in full by the Lord Jesus, 'To demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.' 'He is the propitiation for our sins....' God's justice is satisfied by the death of Christ, so that He is just in giving new birth to those for whom Christ died.

JonC said:

I will stand having been cleansed, having a new heart (with the old one gone), having put to death the "old man", having been made into the image of Christ, having been glorified.

Click to expand...

You will not. You will stand only if Christ has taken your sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full.

Martin Marprelate said:

@JonC, we do not give birth to ourselves. It is God who must give us new birth (1 Peter 1:3) if we are to be saved.

How does Christ's blood cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:7)? Not by being made righteous. In the very next verse, John tells us, 'If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.' He continues, 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.' That he is faithful to do so simply means that He can be relied upon; but that He is just or righteous to do so is very important. God is 'by no means clearing the guilty' (Exodus 4:7). He is just to do so because the penalty for our sins has been paid in full by the Lord Jesus, 'To demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.' 'He is the propitiation for our sins....' God's justice is satisfied by the death of Christ, so that He is just in giving new birth to those for whom Christ died.

You will not. You will stand only if Christ has taken your sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full.

Click to expand...

I have no idea why you mention "give birth to ourselves". That is a bit weird. If I posted such a thing then please quote me so others can know you are not using a strawman here.

Christ's blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness. How? We are made new creatures in Christ.

What does God say about us standing?

He (Jesus) will make us stand
In Him there is no condemnation
He will give us a new spirit
He will put His Spirit in us
He will give us a new heart
He will make us new creations
He will conform us into the image of Christ
He will glorify us
His (Jesus') blood cleanses from all unrighteousness
He will forgive sins


What do You say?

You will stand only if Christ has taken your sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full.



Do you not see why so many Christians view your faith as a heretical cult?

I give passage after passage of God stating what is required.

But you give some "theology" that is foreign to God's actual words.

SovereignGrace said:

There is no such thing as theology vs the Bible, as they are not pitted versus each other.

Click to expand...

Sure they are.

There are plenty of theologies that cannot stsnd the test of "what is written" and depart from the "faith once given".

I certainly believe SDA theology, Calvinism and Arminianism fits the bill.

How can you seriously say that Wesleyan theology AND Calvinism are not contrary to the Bible?

JonC said:

Christ's blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness. How? We are made new creatures in Christ.

Click to expand...

This just doesn't work for me as a coherent statement.

DaveXR650 said:

This just doesn't work for me as a coherent statement.

Click to expand...

Which part?

1 Jn 1:17 or 2 Cor 5:17?

I think I used "new creatures" instead of "new creatitions" as a typo. But both work.

JonC said:

Sure they are.

There are plenty of theologies that cannot stsnd the test of "what is written" and depart from the "faith once given".

I certainly believe SDA theology, Calvinism and Arminianism fits the bill.

How can you seriously say that Wesleyan theology AND Calvinism are not contrary to the Bible?

Click to expand...

Theology is the study of God. And that cannot be done other than the scriptures.

JonC said:

Which part?

1 Jn 1:17 or 2 Cor 5:17?

I think I used "new creatures" instead of "new creatitions" as a typo. But both work.

Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with either statement as being scriptural, although I don't think 1 John 17 is the right verse, but I can't think of where it is either, and don't mean to pick. What isn't working for me is the way you connect the two thoughts as if one implies the other. I thought this is the type of thing you object to. I don't see a logical connection between the two statements.

JonC said:

Christ's blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness. How? We are made new creatures in Christ.

Click to expand...

(Original quote)

DaveXR650 said:

I don't have a problem with either statement as being scriptural, although I don't think 1 John 17 is the right verse, but I can't think of where it is either, and don't mean to pick. What isn't working for me is the way you connect the two thoughts as if one implies the other. I thought this is the type of thing you object to. I don't see a logical connection between the two statements.

(Original quote)

Click to expand...

Although I did not mean it that way, I suppose in the overall (complete) Atonement one dies imply the other (they are two aspects of the same redemption rather than two unrelated acts). I'd have to think about that one.

Biblically Christ came under our curse, bore our sins. Sin produces death as a consequence or wage (Rom 6:23; James 1:15; 1 Cor 15:56) and the one who holds this power (of death) is Satan (Heb 2:14). That was our captive.

Look at the Passover.

Egypt held Israel captive. God defeated Egypt and delivered Israel from bondage. The lamb's blood was applied to the door posts for death to Passover.

But then there is the issue of sin. The Passover did not take away Israel's sin. What did?

At the Day of Atonement a goat was dedicated to God and sacrificed. The blood was taken into the Temple and sprinkled on the altar. This was to cleanse of sin.

The goat dedicated for Azazel. It represents sin. Israel drives this animal (sin) away and is on guard lest it return.


Think of Christ as the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

That has two aspects (here the Lamb is taking away sin). But implied in the usage of a lamb is the Passover.

Christ's applied blood (think of the Day of Atonement) cleanses from unrighteousness. Christ as a "Life giving Spirit", as "the Life", saves us from death.

Christian theology was developed as an intellectual system, not by using the Bible exclusively, but by framing it in Greek philosophical terms and structures. It was a blend of secular concepts and scriptural content.

Early Christian theology extensively utilized Greek philosophy, particularly Platonism and Stoicism, to articulate, defend, and structure its doctrines between the 2nd and 4th centuries. Church Fathers and later theologians used concepts like the Logos and metaphysical frameworks to make Christian doctrines intelligible to the Hellenistic world.

In the early days when people began to get converted to Christianity there were not many Christians that were well educated.

But by the third century there were Greek Christians who were sizeably intellectual and educated in the philosophy of the day. When they tried to engage in preaching the Christian gospel and apologetics with their fellow citizens who were also intellectuals, they frequently used the categories of Greek thought and philosophy in order to explain their beliefs.

That happened, notoriously so, in the attempts of the church fathers to explain how Jesus could be both man and God simultaneously. If you look at the explanations they give and the terms they use, they are the terms borrowed from Aristotelian philosophy. They were the only categories of thought open to them at the time, if they wanted to be philosophical.

Stoicism commended itself to many, and to Romans in particular, as being a manly faith. They couldn't accept Epicureanism, which, among other things, made the whole universe—man included—depend upon chance.

Stoics were more fatalists. It is not surprising, therefore, that medieval schoolmen and even the Reformers (whose education was firstly in classical philosophies and classical languages, and then in theology) took some of their concepts of God from Greek philosophy. Some of the fatalism that lies behind extreme forms of Calvinism owes a tremendous lot to the influence of the fatalism of Greek philosophy on men like Calvin, who were first students of Greek philosophy before they became believers, and then theologians.