02/21/22 WHATEVER NAME IT HAS

02/21/22 WHATEVER NAME IT HAS

Below is a post that quotes a Biblical truth with an attending comment, which denies God's word. The comment is based on a Deformed Theological point of view. I saw this in a group, which is focused on eschatology, not focused on soteriology.

This exemplifies the insanity of Deformed Theology. When Deformed "Christianity" does not like God's revelation (such as the fact that God requires and enables believers to be good and to do good; God requires and enables believers to obey His commands; God requires and enables believers to be righteous, pure of heart, godly), they falsely claim those passages do not apply to Christians.

It is true that there are Old Testament passages, which Christians are not required to follow; such as Jewish laws of sacrifice, ceremony, diet. God has reasons for those laws. But the moral law of God stands, and God's salvation saves us from all sin.

Remember, holiness of heart and life is not an Old Testament or legalistic issue. It is a whole Bible reality provided through the death and resurrection of Christ.

I reformatted the POST AND COMMENT. It makes it easier to navigate and respond. I removed the SCREENSHOTS and replaced them with a text. It says the same thing as the original.

POST...

FOR I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD. YOU SHALL THEREFORE CONSECRATE YOURSELVES, AND YOU SHALL BE HOLY; FOR I AM HOLY. LEVITICUS 11:44

BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN, "BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY,." 1 PETER 1:16

COMMENT...

Both scriptures were written to Israel, why" Because the Mystery had not been revealed YET....they are not for the Body of Christ...we are not under the Law...Peter could only repeat the Law of the Prophets...

After I posted this, a friend commented to me, saying that he thought the comment reflected Dispensational Theology, to which I responded.

My response...

Again, thank you ... for your comment.

I do not wholeheartedly endorse every point in any theological camp. This is why I refer to certain teachings that come out of the Reformed movement as Deformed Theology. There are great truths that were rediscovered by some Reformationists. But some of the teachings that came out of that movement are totally Deformed.

I would apply the same view to branches that came from the Reformation, such as Arminian, Wesleyan, or Dispensational. Though I align with certain groups rather than other groups, I don't subscribe to all of the views held by any group. In fact, I don't even know all of the views held by any group.

Therefore, I would refer to any position which splinters the word of God, in order to fit a doctrinal or theological position, as holding to a deformed position, whether Reformed, Calvinistic, Dispensational, Arminian, or Wesleyan.

Though I do believe that salvific human history can better be understood in Dispensational terms, I have never been a "hyper-Dispensationalist," nor subscribed to the various views of the various "brands" on the Theological market.

However, since the mid-1960's I have had countless discussions and read many writings, which deny that large portions of New Testament are applicable to Christians (such as Sermon on the Mount). Most, if not all of them, were proffered by those who hold to a Reformed or Calvinistic position; denying the ability, the opportunity, or the responsibility to obey God, keep His commandments, be holy, be pure, be righteous, or do good.

Therefore, I would consider this other person's comment, "not for the Body of Christ," to be deformed doctrine. We can be holy, according to God's work of salvation and God's clear revelation.