Latest activity

MarkRohfrietsch · Jul 20, 2025

pastorwaris said:
You’re right to point out that salvation is by grace, and Baptism is a means of grace. But the mention of the "Age of Accountability" isn’t meant to replace that—it’s more of a theological framework some Christians use to grapple with the fate of those (like infants or young children) who die before they can consciously respond to the Gospel or receive believer’s baptism (as in Credobaptism views).

For Credo Baptists, who hold that faith must precede baptism, the Age of Accountability becomes a way to explain how God might justly deal with those who die before reaching moral or spiritual responsibility. They believe God, in His mercy, covers such children under grace—without denying the necessity of faith for salvation.

Now, that’s different from Pedobaptism traditions, which see infant baptism as part of God’s covenantal promise, tying it more directly to saving grace.

So to your point—while the AoA isn’t tied directly to the sacrament of baptism, it is often brought up in place of it within Credo Baptist theology when discussing the fate of infants. That’s why it showed up in this context.

Hope that helps clarify! I’d love to hear your thoughts on how different traditions reconcile God’s justice and mercy here.

Baptism is a sign of the new covenant, circumcision was a sign of the old covenant. Circumcision took place 8 days after the child was born. This is a pretty good indication that infant baptism should be the norm, not the exception. The baptism of the Roman Centurian (and his household) shows that adult baptism is important also., but does not exclude the youg.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 20, 2025

public hermit said:
So you think adulterers need more shame. At what point do they deserve grace?

They deserve grace only after demonstrating they have changed. Not immediately after to satisfy your delicate sensibilities and sympathy for adultery. Why do you have more of a problem with people condemning these two than the adultery itself?

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 20, 2025

public hermit said:
Yes, I think forgiven sinners should start of with grace and compassion. You think they need more shame than they have already experienced. At what point do they deserve grace?

I think cheating deserves a serious amount of shame. I don't think once you repent that's a ticket to not feel bad for your actions or be judged by others.

Would you use the same logic for a murderer or a man who abuses his wife? He repented therefore no one should shame him?

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 20, 2025

public hermit said:
I didn't condemn. I offered an in-house critique. I'm still making the same critique.

So you have more condemnation for the people condemning the sinner than the sinners themselves? Why?

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 20, 2025

public hermit said:
I am not Paul, and as Paul said, I have to give an account for what I do. What is interesting is 1/2 the commenters were trying to say that their shame was inherent given their reaction, but you think they need more shame. Okay, at what point would you be gracious?

Actually you condemned other Christians for their justifiable reaction to a couple cheating on their spouses.

Why is this deserving couple worthy of receiving grace? Have they publically repented? Have they stopped seeing each other? Why are you against this gut reaction to evil?

MarkRohfrietsch · Jul 20, 2025

Ain't Zwinglian said:
Another question raised here: What about adults who refuse to be baptized? I have communicated to individuals here at CF who believe baptism is optional for the Christian.

Good question... or maybe a dilemma is a better description LOL. Baptism is required, but, since we all sin and fall short regardless of how much or how little faith we have, and that refusing or neglecting Baptism to me is a sign of incomplete faith, and my faith/sanctification has yet to reach it's full potential, I doubt that it would be "the unforgivable sin". Again, our Lord knows for sure, I don't, so I leave it in His hands.

Don't stop trying to convince them as Scripture does say: Baptism saves, so does the Eucharist, so does confession and holy absolution.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 20, 2025

public hermit said:
I haven't said any of that.

You're arguing against shaming this couple and making them feel bad. How else should we treat them but with compassion and kindness? Because apparently they deserve said treatment.

Bradskii · Jul 20, 2025

Clare73 said:

Your trite response speaks volumes.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 20, 2025

public hermit said:
You think they should be shamed? Interesting. Please, say more.

Is infidelity not shameful? I think it is and therefore it should be shamed. Paul shamed a man for sleeping with his Father's wife. Do you disagree with what Saint Paul did?

FaithT · Jul 20, 2025

Michie said:
Explore the intersection of science, history, and faith to uncover the enduring mystery of the Shroud of Turin.

Few artifacts have captured the world’s imagination and inspired centuries of debate like the Shroud of Turin. This linen cloth, believed by many to be the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, continues to baffle scientists, theologians, and historians alike. Enigmatic and controversial, the shroud bridges the realms of history, religious tradition, and modern forensic science. Through carbon dating, blood analysis, and image evaluation, researchers strive to unlock its secrets. Despite skepticism and conflicting data, the Shroud of Turin remains one of the most studied (and most mysterious) religious relics in human history.

The Historical Journey of the Shroud of Turin

Continued below.

Scientific Insights into the Shroud of Turin

The Shroud of Turin is a burial shroud that apparently covered a man who suffered the wounds of crucifixion in a way very similar to Jesus of Nazareth.

www.magiscenter.com

I’ve always thought it was Jesus’ burial Shroud until I read something that bothered me. I read something somewhere that said if the Shroud was wrapped around Jesus’ body it wouldnt have left the kind of bloody marks that were on it. The imprints would’ve been different. Thoughts?

Bradskii · Jul 20, 2025

Clare73 said:
Sorry you regard the legal process as flippant. . .which I guess is one way to avoid the reality of the matter.

The reality of the matter? You are actually accusing me of ignoring the facts of the matter? That is simply not credible by any stretch of the imagination. Your comment is akin to 'let them eat cake'. I simply don't understand how anyone can support this action from a moral point of view. It seems that a political position overrides any sense of what is right or wrong.

It's basic humanity. Feeding those that are hungry. And it's it's not just a case of turning away when you have the opportunity to help. It's actively preventing those who want to help from doing so.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 20, 2025

public hermit said:
Grace and compassion are the calling. How can those who know they are sinners and need grace not be compassionate and brokenhearted for those with the same malady? We already live in a culture that is exceedingly merciless. Let's try to cut against that grgrain.

So you're arguing that infidelity should
be treated lightly and with softness and compassion towards those who have committed the infidelity?

Do you oppose all harsh responses to public immorality or just sins like cheating?

BelieveItOarKnot · Jul 20, 2025

Hentenza said:
Who is Paul talking to:

The above is simply poor methodology. IF Jesus said every Word of God is for all people and the Apostles taught the Word, then their words are also, in some way or another for all people as well.

I can see how a person could go off the rails using such methods as elimination of applicability based on who God or the Apostles or Prophets were speaking to. Unfortunately there are many bad and unprincipled teachers who line their pockets selling such wares, usually trying to sell self justifications to the hearers. I instantly pass on such notions.

Hentenza said:
Who is raised imperishable?

Paul is abundantly clear. Those who have born the image of the earthly will, at some point also bear the image of the heavenly. 1 Cor. 15:48-51

And it really does pay to keep in mind we're no better than any other common sinner. Romans 3:9

Hentenza said:
No dissection but a simple read of the passage. Only those that have been baptized into Christ Jesus and buried with Him through baptism onto death are freed from sin. The words are simple unless you twist them as you have.

By all means please step up, personally, to the "I AM SINLESS" position.

The body of sin is done away with when we actually die a physical death, and no sooner.

Hentenza said:
Nope. In your mind maybe. Maybe you should study what Catholics believe before making such a claim. Hopeful Universalism, while believing in the existence of hell, is merely a hope not a dogma. All of us can hope but universalism is outside of biblical principles And teachings.

The RCC does pray that all people be saved. IF they do not hold that out as a possibility, then they are not only liars, butr wasting their breath.

I"d suggest you read their positions further. What you'll find in ALL of orthodoxy is that they have been unable to determine a single named person to be in hell now, or in the future. And most of Protestantism holds a similar view.

So, yes, in orthodoxy, it remains at a minimum, a POSSIBILITY. And any decent Christian would stand firmly on the benefit of the doubt for all people, even for their own hearts sake, lest your own heart and conscience be seared to the core against your neighbors. Not a good place for anyone's mind, that God is NOT powerful enough for this.

I would not waste my time with a looser god.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 20, 2025

public hermit said:
Most of these comments have a certain glee to them, which is gross. Here's some:

“Notice how happy they are in their sin — all smiles and hugs — until they realized their sin had been exposed. They knew inherently that they were wrong. No one needed to tell them, their own conscience having already convicted them."

“This is a huge, huge moment, and he'll never live it down,”

“A sobering reminder that someday we'll stand before God, and all our secret sins will be exposed just like this,”

It's a heartbreaking situation for these families, and it's very public, but by all means, let's have Christians pile on their two cents.

How dare people publicly shame these two for their infidelity? Do you think their actions were deserving of hugs and consolation?

RDKirk · Jul 20, 2025

BNR32FAN said:
I feel like the discussion is bouncing back & forth between different sinful situations. Saying that that someone who just murdered someone isn’t saved and saying that murderers can’t be saved are not the same thing. One is referring to their current state and the other is referring to their potential state.

I agree from our temporal point of view, but from God's eternal point of view, potential is already realized.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jul 20, 2025

Ligurian said:
Does Science find out things by mistake, or are they looking to prove what they think?

Both can happen. They are not mutually exclusive and impossible.

What's impossible is getting you to cite anything written in the last half century or even this century.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jul 20, 2025

Ligurian said:
For once, we agree. Science has an agenda... which you seem to be calling an "angle to exploit". Ancient Science used to be part of Philosophy...

Please answer post #160.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jul 20, 2025

Ligurian said:
The so-called metal "Ages" happened at different times in different places. The Druids may have been spoken of by that name during the time of the Roman Empire, but that doesn't mean they "originated" in that time.

If anything, the late-coming Celtic-speaking people are earlier "practitioners of cultural appropriation".

"Bertrand and Reinach both maintain the pre-Celtic origin of Druidism."
--Wright, Druidism the Ancient Faith of Britain

"so we must pass on to the non-Celtic natives, who had another religion, namely, druidism, which may be surmised to have had its origin among them."--Rhys, Celtic Britain, p.69

"Professor Rhys goes so far as to refer Druidism to the Silurian race, because Caesar mentions Britain as the birthplace of that cultus, and it is of a character which he considers non-Aryan. It is almost certain that second-sight and other ecstatic moods must be referred to the pre-Celtic races."--MacBain, Celtic Mythology and Religion

"The monuments we call Druidical, must be appropriated, exclusively, to the Aborigines of the midland, and western divisions. They are found in such corners, and fastnesses, as have, in all ages, and countries, been the last retreat of the conquered, and the last that are occupied by the victorious."--Davies, Celtic Researches

"The Celtic invaders of Britain did not create Druidism, and, neolithic or not, it was at all events pre-Celtic."--Holmes, Caesar's Conquest

Therefore, who are the "non-Celtic natives" of Britain?

"Strabo reports of Posidonius ... 'The Cassiterides are ten in number, and lie near each other in the ocean, towards the north from the haven of the Artabri: one of them is desert, but the others are inhabited by men in black cloaks, clad in tunics reaching to the feet, and girt about the breast; walking with staves, and bearded like goats. They subsist by their cattle, leading for the most part a wandering life. And having metals of tin and lead, these and skins they barter with the merchants for earthenware and salt, and brazen vessels.' ...
Solinus ... states that 'a stormy channel separates the coast which the Damnonii occupy from the island Silura, whose inhabitants preserve the ancient manners, reject money, barter merchandise, value what they require by exchange rather than by price, worship the gods, and both men and women profess a knowledge of the future.'"
--Skene, Celtic Scotland,v1

"The wide extension of the Ligues westward is in agreement with the language of Eratosthenes. According to Strabo (2. i. 40, p. 92) this old geographer taught that there were three forelands projecting from the north—the Peloponnesian, the Italian, and the Ligurian—between the first and second of which lay the Adriatic, and between the second and third the Tyrrhenian Sea. When we remember the high reputation and the real merits of Eratosthenes, it is astonishing how little attention has been drawn to the fact that he calls the Spanish peninsula the Ligurian."
--Guest, Origines Celtae

"The swarthy complexion and curled hair of the Silures, together with their situation opposite to Spain, render it probable that a colony of the ancient Iberi possessed themselves of that territory."
--Tacitus, Agricola

These are the indigenous people of Western Europe who had the stone circles and nemetons, and the Druids. The Celtic language evolved from the Ligurian, and IMO, is proven by Whatmough and Sims-Williams.

Why do you refuse to use any book written in the last half century?
Celtic Researchs is from 1804. Why is that more trustworthy to you than anything written in the 1990s or the 2000s?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jul 20, 2025

Ligurian said:
So you deny that scientists start with a theory, and then prove it. Do they find out things by mistake?

Hypothesis. Not a theory. Science starts with a hypothesis, which then becomes a theory.

Richard T · Jul 20, 2025

N

Skipper80 said:
"Some do say they hear the trivial. Perhaps so, sometimes God may just want to fellowship with you"

By "hear" do you mean someone can literally hear God saying private things to them in their ear?

Ive never heard an audible voice. Most believe that is extremely rare. Most guidance comes from within. Some teach it is the Holy Spirit revealing things to our human (born again) spirit. For me it occurs usually when i am closest to God. During worship or just listening for God in silence. Revelation too comes when one is reading the word. God talks in many ways such as visions, words from others and even our circumstances.

bbbbbbb · Jul 20, 2025

HIM said:
I don’t see where this isn’t true for all here posting on this thread, praise God!

There are many professing Christians who hold to a synergistic view in which God does His part in salvation and we are required to do our part.

ralliann · Jul 20, 2025

Yarddog said:
You strive? Why don't you turn your sins over to God and let God change you? Trust God, not yourself
.

I understand what the Church teaches but the Church knowingly allows those in sin partake of the Eucharist.

No repentance?
Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Latest activity

Latest activity

The Historical Journey of the Shroud of Turin​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

The Historical Journey of the Shroud of Turin