seekingpurity047

Why am I not surprised
Apr 12, 2005
3,303
148
38
Brooklin
✟4,248.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
*sigh* I already said that I was gathering my thoughts. If you don't want to believe me, that's your problem as well. Why am I wasting my time with this? Because I rather see reconciliation than us biting eachother's heads off.

If my heart says "I'm sorry", can we leave it at that? Apparently not.
 
Upvote 0

dluvs2trvl

What You See Is What You Get!
Nov 9, 2006
29,104
2,092
Washington
✟46,536.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Did I say any names, D? No, I didn't. And you're exhibiting exactly my point.

It doesn't matter who deserves what. It's not our place to "punish" or "expose" people, especially on the internet, where it's not even face to face.

You can choose to be kind, REGARDLESS of what someone else deserves. If you choose not to, that's YOUR choice.
LOL! ^_^ Ok Silver...
 
Upvote 0

seekingpurity047

Why am I not surprised
Apr 12, 2005
3,303
148
38
Brooklin
✟4,248.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
D, by no means was I interested in having you leave. If you want to run away from your problems, feel free. But I can assure you, Jesus didn't run away with the problems that others had with Him, He dealt with them head on... in fact, He went all the way to the cross for people who had problems with Him.
 
Upvote 0

CoachR64

Awesome, with a side order of amazing
Jul 2, 2007
7,292
673
45
Oklahoma City, OK
✟25,977.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
randy

She didn't leave to run from anything. She bowed out to get the thread back on topic. If you want to work out your problems with D, follow her lead and take it off my thread.

Coach
 
  • Like
Reactions: dluvs2trvl
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Luther073082

κύριε ἐλέησον χριστὲ ἐλέησον
Apr 1, 2007
19,202
840
41
New Carlisle, IN
✟31,326.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
From my catechism (I'm sort of writing my own catechism for fun) Chapter 3 Part C

a. Of original sin
After the sins of Adam and Eve in Gen 3:1-6 sin completely entered the world. This made it so that human nature was to sin (Rom 5:12-18 Eph 2:1-3). Therefore I teach in simple terms that people are inherently evil who desire to do good. This seems pessimistic but can also be backed up by simple logic. When a person raises a child, does that child have to learn to be selfish or does the child have to learn to share and be giving. Obviously the latter is true! The child does however learn to share and be giving because they desire to please their parents. And so it is with God, we where first selfish however our desire to please God brings us to our good works that where taught to us through his son Jesus Christ.

I also teach that Adam’s sin has carried through to all people more directly. In fact we all inherit Adam’s disobedience and it can be clearly said that it is a sin to have an earthly father. This is because Adam’s sin has been handed down to us all through our earthly fathers. This is proved in Rom 5:14 where Paul writes “Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come”

It is important to note that Paul says “even those who did not sin by breaking a command”. This means that if it where possible for one to live their entire lives with no other sin, they would still face the earthly death because they are still guilty of sin which was handed down through Adam. Realistically however the only people who can sin by not breaking a command are small children and the unborn. This belief is confirmed in Psalm 51:5 which states “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”

This my brother’s and sister’s is why our savior was born of a virgin. This act was not just to show God’s mighty power but it was also to protect and save himself (In Jesus) from the sin of Adam handed down to all people. Therefore Jesus could not only be born sinless but continue in his life sinless. This also means that Jesus submitted himself to death willingly and was able to be resurrected 3 days later.

Anyone who does not teach original sin as the entering of sin into the world through Adam is guilty of a major error in teaching.

Anyone who teaches that we are not born sinners through Adam is guilty of a moderate error in teaching.

To claim children are innocent is foolish. Such a claim would indicate that they are not in need of Christ.

Such a claim regulates the virgin birth to "God showing off"

Such a claim states that people who don't break commands are sinless.

Sinful from birth.
 
Upvote 0

seekingpurity047

Why am I not surprised
Apr 12, 2005
3,303
148
38
Brooklin
✟4,248.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
From my catechism (I'm sort of writing my own catechism for fun) Chapter 3 Part C



To claim children are innocent is foolish. Such a claim would indicate that they are not in need of Christ.

Such a claim regulates the virgin birth to "God showing off"

Such a claim states that people who don't break commands are sinless.

Sinful from birth.

Thank you for your insight, Luther.

If I may say, to assume that children are innocent and not sinful is, as can be observed, borderline Pelagianism... and I think that was declared a heresy almost 1600 years ago...
 
Upvote 0

dluvs2trvl

What You See Is What You Get!
Nov 9, 2006
29,104
2,092
Washington
✟46,536.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
innocent
adj.
  1. Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child.
    1. Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.
    2. Within, allowed by, or sanctioned by the law; lawful.
    1. Not dangerous or harmful; innocuous: an innocent prank.
    2. Candid; straightforward: a child's innocent stare.
    1. Not experienced or worldly; naive.
    2. Betraying or suggesting no deception or guile; artless.
    1. Not exposed to or familiar with something specified; ignorant: American tourists wholly innocent of French.
    2. Unaware: She remained innocent of the complications she had caused.
  2. Lacking, deprived, or devoid of something: a novel innocent of literary merit.
 
Upvote 0

Luther073082

κύριε ἐλέησον χριστὲ ἐλέησον
Apr 1, 2007
19,202
840
41
New Carlisle, IN
✟31,326.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Purity> Probably. . . It seems to be part of baptist, pentacostal and charasmatic theolgy. Its popular in the states but IMO theologically lacking.

It dates back to the anabaptists. Read through my book of concord and they don't have much nice to say about the anabaptists.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

seekingpurity047

Why am I not surprised
Apr 12, 2005
3,303
148
38
Brooklin
✟4,248.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
innocent
adj.
  1. Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child.
    1. Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.
    2. Within, allowed by, or sanctioned by the law; lawful.
    1. Not dangerous or harmful; innocuous: an innocent prank.
    2. Candid; straightforward: a child's innocent stare.
    1. Not experienced or worldly; naive.
    2. Betraying or suggesting no deception or guile; artless.
    1. Not exposed to or familiar with something specified; ignorant: American tourists wholly innocent of French.
    2. Unaware: She remained innocent of the complications she had caused.
  2. Lacking, deprived, or devoid of something: a novel innocent of literary merit.

Umm.. D, I think that would be moving away from the original intent of the OP. What was meaning when it was mentioned that children are innocent was not that they weren't experienced, but that they were not sinful (hence the analogy with Adam and Eve before the Fall). If we are to suddenly change the definition of innocent to mean
Not experienced or worldly; naive" We would be committing a Straw Man fallacy, or maybe even the fallacy of equivocation. Don't want to be doing that now, would we? Let me give you another example of a Straw Man Fallacy from a book that I have read...

"The following is a letter to the Globe and Mail, September 6, 2005, commenting on the aftermath of hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans and its surrounding areas:

"Regarding your Quote of the Day for Sept. 2, 'Philosophers tried to imagine what a '''state of nature''' looked like - we're now seeing it inside the United States and it's really brutal.' I am hard pressed to find anything remotely natural about thousands of dispossessed people living in a football stadium. It would seem that if a healthy state of nature had been allowed to exist - wetlands and barrier islands left undeveloped and in their natural state - the effects of hurricane Katrina would have been considerably less brutal." [Christopher W. Tindale, Fallacies and Argument Appraisal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 38.]

That's a fallacy because what Philosophers mean by "state of nature" is not what the author of this letter to the editor means. He is diverting the attention from the real meaning of "state of nature" as meant by philosophers, thus committing a Straw Man.

Don't divert the attention from what the real meaning of innocent actually was.
 
Upvote 0

seekingpurity047

Why am I not surprised
Apr 12, 2005
3,303
148
38
Brooklin
✟4,248.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Purity> Probably. . . It seems to be part of baptist, pentacostal and charasmatic theolgy. Its popular in the states but IMO theologically lacking.

It dates back to the anabaptists. Read through my book of concord and they don't have much nice to say about the anabaptists.

I have seen it in some baptist circles, definitely pentecostal and charismatic ones. But I'm a Reformed Baptist, so it's a little different for us :)

Interesting video... I couldn't exactly understand waht they were saying. Umm... what was the whole bit about calvinists though?
 
Upvote 0

Luther073082

κύριε ἐλέησον χριστὲ ἐλέησον
Apr 1, 2007
19,202
840
41
New Carlisle, IN
✟31,326.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have seen it in some baptist circles, definitely pentecostal and charismatic ones. But I'm a Reformed Baptist, so it's a little different for us :)

Interesting video... I couldn't exactly understand waht they were saying. Umm... what was the whole bit about calvinists though?

The whole thing is a scene from a musical about Martin Luther. (Its a comedy musical)

This scene is from what is probably the end but I havn't seen the whole thing. The Calvinists and the Anabaptists are trying to get Martin Luther to endorse their theological positions.

Of course the thing is a comedy, historically based but not super-realistic or intended to be. I'm pretty sure the Calvinists never sent "John Calvin's pre-destination dancers"

The other woman that is with Luther from the beginning of the scene is his fiance (at the time in the musical) Katrine Von Bora

In real life I belive Luther met with Calvin to try to work out a united front against the papacy. But they ended up disagreeing about pre-destination and the real physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. With the Anabaptists Luther wasn't so nice, I'm pretty sure he was so disgusted by their theology he refused to meet with them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums