Liberal Christians

Vicomte13 said:

Alright. You're a Lutheran - and therefore supposedly a Sola Scripturalist. (I say "supposedly" because I get told that "because I'm a Catholic, I must therefore..." believe or do all sorts of things I neither believe nor do.) In any event, you're at least supposed to - if I show you something in the Bible - accept that yep, that's there.

Click to expand...

Well, I see an axe (not a scalpel) has been taken to entire posts, thus negating extensive labor (which hardly encourages more), but if may sum up your position stated over different posts relative to you assert "lying priests are serpents of Satan," and that your argument is invincible and brutal which no one can answer, it is that:

1. A practice (masturbation) is the #1 mortal sin based upon the veracity of the Catholic church (Vicomte13 said: ↑ "We are not meant to get our religion by reading a book. We are meant to get it by hearing it from designated ministers of the Church") which you see as defining it that way, though arguments based on extrapolation from OT law on uncleaness and its application in the NT.

However, while I have affirmed masturbation as sinful, but not a primary one, the basis is the weight (and lack thereof) of Scripture, not the uninspired words of men, and the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility (without which the church cannot be your supreme authority on Truth) is novel and unScriptural, nowhere promised or required in Scripture for either authority or preservation.

And in reality, if it were not for the written word of God there would be no NT church (which itself presumes an Old Testament), which actually began by established Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) and in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) and instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme. (Mk. 7:2-16)

And as abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of oral preaching subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.

And in the light of which we see that the NT church is not that of the RCC, as it is missing Catholic distinctives and teaching things contrary to it, while yet retaining enough salvific Truth among its trapping of traditions that a relative small remnant of poor and contrite hearts could and can be convicted of their lost state as damned and destitute sinners and cast all their faith on the risen Lord Jesus to save them on His account, with simple obedient faith.

For writing is God's chosen most-reliable means of preservation. ( Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)

It was not because oral tradition preserved the Word of God that brought about a national revival, but because of the wholly inspired-of-God written word:

And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. (2 Chronicles 34:15)
Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Chronicles 34:18-19)

2. All men are guilty of this sin and incapable of walking in prolonged victory over it ("they ARE sexual sinners, all of them) - at least perhaps under 60(?) - and thus are continually guilty of it.

But which is mere assumption and not true if the above represents your position accurately. And if you put an age level on it then that alone disallows the above statement as absolute.

3. Therefore no one can stand in judgment over you who has no been able to resist this, though you are not defending it as not sin but are contrite about it (and i say this with compassion as one who has been there too often, yet who knows you can indeed walk in victory over it, thanks be to God!).

However, a term as "stand in judgment" or "judge me" must be defined. It certainly cannot mean one cannot tell you it is a sin as a matter of fact, the practice of which is inconsistent with faith, though acknowledging they struggle with it. And as such they could even condemn those who insist the same sin is not a sin, or inconsistent with faith, as the issue there is proper judgment. As is your condemnation of those whom you denigrate for wrongly holding that this practice is not a sin.

Nor can if mean that they cannot condemn those who impenitently practice a sin if they are not doing the same, which in this case (continence) you wrongly attempt to disallow as possible in order to exclude that others could judge you for doing this.

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 4)

Note also that "not doing the same" cannot mean they never committed the sin they condemn in others, nor are guaranteed to never do so in the future, which would invalidate any condemnation of sinners in Scripture by men of God, and the validation of commands to reprove the works of darkness.

Yet in a case in which one is not justifying the practice of their sin (though arguing one is helpless to walk in victory over it is a form of justifying the practice) the attitude is not to be that of condemnation of them, but compassion without sanction. Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. (Galatians 6:1)

4. One can practice this as long as one confesses this in asking for forgiveness and forgives others, but since he is unable to continue in continence (how long?) then he would be a hypocrite for coming down on others for practicing this. However, you can condemn others for hypocrisy if they do, since you do not engage in this.

But logically it follows that one may practice hypocrisy as one confesses this in asking for forgiveness and forgives others.

5. Since on who is impure cannot enter Heaven, they will get there thru RC Purgatory (different from EOs).

However, while ambiguous terms or texts which refer to Hell or the believers judgment are wrested by RCs in support of this place of purifying torments, the only suffering for believers that is manifestly taught as after this life in the NT is that of the judgment seat of Christ, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) while wherever Scripture manifestly speaks of the next realization for true believers after this life then it is with the Lord. (Luke 23:43 [cf. 2 Corinthians 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Philippians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:8 ["we"]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thessalonians 4:17)

Meanwhile your argument presumes that your judgment is correct that your church is the infallible judge of what is right and wrong (if she does say so herself) or that your Scriptural arguments are correct, that masturbation is sin #1.

And that all virulent men engage in this and cannot walk in continence. And thus if your basis lacks the weight for these conclusions then by your own measure you can be condemned for wrong judgment.

About a month ago we had an extended debate with one who insistent born again believers do not sin, so we sure have a variety here.

To be continued..

See next post.

(Forum software insisted on adding quote tage at end, this hiding the post. So here goes a word pro paste.)

Now for some of the specifics of your post here.

Vicomte13 said: ↑ I want you to open the Torah. Unfortunately I'm not sitting here with one so I can't tell you where, but you're supposed to know the Bible better than me. It's somewhere in Leviticus.

There are many free Bible programs and sites.

God gives a law: "Whoever has an emission of sperm is unclean until evening, and anything that the sperm touches is unclean until washed with water."

And the priest shall offer them, the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord for his issue. And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even. (Leviticus 15:15-18)

However,

And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. (Leviticus 15:19)

And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.

Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. (Leviticus 15:25-27)

What is the consequence of being "unclean"? It is very specific: one cannot approach holy things in a state of uncleanliness. So, one cannot go and participate in the temple sacrifice, eat the sacrifice, etc.

So, yes, masturbation, and also sex, and noctural emission - all of is a sin - and uncleanliness - under the Torah. An emission of sperm mades a man unclean until nightfall. Subject to punishment? No - unless he went and ate the sacrifice. Note that at one point a warrior prophets troops were selected because they had remained free of sex with women for three days prior. They were "clean".

However, this also applied to marital relations - "The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation" and as with dietary laws, ritual uncleanness did not necessarily equate to moral uncleanness, and thus under the New Covenant,
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4)

For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: (1 Timothy 4:4)

Yet as expressed, since marriage is the only provided [sexual] provision as an alternative to fornication, (1 Corinthians 7:2) [otherwise being celibate] and the only bed said to be unclean for this, (Hebrews 13:4) then we can state all other sexual activity is sinful. Esp. when lusting toward what is not or lawful is involved.

Now, a literate reader of Scripture would realize that this law was specifically part of a contract with Hebrews, and unless one is a Jew, one is not even colorably under that contract and so can legally disregard it, and all of the rest of the law including the Ten Commandments.

Which is absurd as a totality, for while believers are not under the Law for salvation as by perfectly keeping it, including the the literal observance the ceremonial law, but under grace (obtaining what would take perfect obedience to the whole the Law) are made accepted in the Beloved by repentant faith in the perfect Christ, and made to sit together with Him in glory. (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6)

Yet salvific faith is manifestly only that which effects obedience by the Spirit, as also heretofore expressed (though the link would be wrong due to the axe), under the New Covenant.

And which makes a distinction btwn morals laws (Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4) and those ordinances that foreshadowed the coming and work of Christ“stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” (Heb. 9:10) "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” (Col. 2:13-17)

Under which new cov. believers are to seek to fulfill the full intent of the Law - which "is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (Romans 7:12) but not salvific - that by looking to the Lord Jesus and obeying His word, "the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4)

No one obtains salvation by becoming actually good enough here or in mythical Purgatory to enter glory, but since saving faith is that which effects "things that accompany salvation" (Hebrews 6:9) holiness is a necessary fruit. Which includes repentance when convicted of doing or being otherwise, and seeking to like Christ in heart and deed. And I have a long ways to go.

Absolutely none of God's law from Exodus to Deuteronomy - the Law of Torah - ever applied to anybody but Hebrews in Israel (or on their way there).
Most people are not so careful about the lines of law in Scripture, amalgamate it, claim that everybody was always under the Law of Torah (not true).

The heathen were not under covenant to keep the law, but the holiness of it was still the standard by which they were are judged, for thus God destroyed nations for doing what He forbade Israel to do.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination...Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: (Leviticus 18:22,24)

(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled. (Leviticus 18:27)

And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. (Leviticus 20:23)

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Romans 3:19)

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. (Romans 2:14-15)

Still, for our purposes, the Torah does put a baseline under the subject of masturbation: if it results in [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and there is an emission of sperm, under the Law given by God to Israel, it was a sin: a simple sin of uncleanness.

Only if the uncleanness here was part of the transcendent moral law, versus typological ritual uncleanness, which, contrary Leviticus 18, the law on sperm discharge in Lev. 15.

Jesus applied a new law to everyone: the law that lustful thoughts about a woman is adultery in the heart.

Not necessary new, but He magnified the law (Isaiah 42:21) which states, "Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids" (Proverbs 6:24-25)

Of course, a stubborn legalist would say that Jesus didn't say the same thing about men.

Lust/cravings of the flesh is wrong toward anything that is not yours or lawful to have, and actually all carnal cravings are to be mortified:

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: (Colossians 3:5)

I am not all there yet always in all.

Jesus condemned fornication and adultery and "inappropriate contenteia" - sexual immorality, but he never specifically said anything about masturbation or homosexual activity.

When sexual relations outside marriage are condemned, which they are even before the Law, (Genesis 34) and marriage is only defined as being btwn opposite genders, and is the only means sanctioned as the sexual solution for avoiding fornication (otherwise being celibate), then we can say it leaves all other sexual relations and activity to be sinful. (and this has a whole lot more weight than "The Church" says so").

Further weight is added when to lusting is part of the sin, but remains sin even if it were not, which otherwise can foster attempts to engage in it without lust. (I do not hold as Augustine did, that even marital relations cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, that it in no case happens to nature except from sin, though not imputed to the believer, or that even numbers denote uncleanness and prefigure the marriage compact, as Jerome wrested Scripture to argue.)

So, IF the Torah was really "nailed to the cross", then read literally Jesus said that heterosexual fornication and adultery are sins, masturbation is only a sin if one lusts after a woman while doing it, and homosexual sex or homosexual images while masturbating are not sins at all: the old Law is "nailed to the cross" so it's gone for Christians, and the new law, given by Jesus, doesn't mention it.

This is, of course, absurd - it's why Jesus left a Church, not a Bible dispensary.

No: rather it was because God gave and reliably preserved His word in writing then a body of supernatural inspired writings was what the NT church invoked for authority, in addition and superior to supernatural miracles in establishing its claims to authenticity as otherwise itinerant preachers.

And as showed by the grace of God, which does not present a contradictory conclusion as you erroneously have it.

Unfortunately, you then have ministers of the Church, like yours, who come in and tell children that masturbation is second only to murder in degree of evil.

Meaning according to you that their damning sin is getting the order wrong.

Essentially, Christian hypocrisy and playing at being lawyers without the training, have ended up leaving a dog's breakfast for any literalist. The true absolute biblical literalist is a sinner for masturbating thinking about women, but not for having outright sex with three other men.

Which is simply both a fallacious conclusion and a strawman assertion by you. Those who sanction homosexuals relations are overall anything but biblical literalists, except very selectively to support biblical literalism condemns, but instead engage in a hermeneutic which ultimately nukes any moral law.

Unless, of course, Paul is accorded the status of God and lawmaker, because he has something to say about homosexuality (which is where this thread began).

Well then if anyone denies Rm. 2 as being the word of God then they are hardly biblical literalists, but liberals.

Again, this is why Jesus left a Church, and never wrote a word. We are not meant to get our religion by reading a book. We are meant to get it by hearing it from designated ministers of the Church.

Which nonsense is already refuted. Thus according to you here, Rome, not Paul in writing as wholly inspired of God, is as God speaking as not inspired of God as per Scripture. Which she admits her popes do not do.

So in the end, the final judge of all things you believe must inevitably be you yourself. The book is incomplete and contradictory, and you can't even read it as written unless you can read ancient Hebrew. And you have to have a sharp legal mind to see what applies to whom.
The Church is what Jesus gave us, but the Church has been smashed into thousands of people, and the truth that the Church teaches is only as true as the ministers.

Which ( unless you can read ancient Hebrew) is essentially an Islamic position (unless you can read ancient Aramiac..). You require one to be able to read Hebrew, yet the one who reads Hebrews writes it down for others to read, and whose translation we can check, and God judges us for our obedience to it.

What an excuse on judgment day one can have for not doing so. "Vicomte13 said the Bible was incomplete and contradictory and I even needed to read Hebrew to understand your word, but I could not, and he said that the church was what i was to look to but that it was unreliable. But then he condemned me for disagreeing with him. And that I could not stop mortally sinning, and cannot find Purgatory that he said would get me in... "

There is a fog of confusion, and anger, and dishonesty on the subject.And there is no real way to divide it.

The way to deal with its to believe in the Lord Jesus for salvation on His account, and then follow Him in dependence on Him, and which will enable characteristic obedience, and repentance when convicted of not doing so.

And which obedience means being grieved over sins, your own and then others, and teaching what Scripture says about it. And contending against those who willfully practice it, if we are not doing the same. Or who misuse Scripture to justify their sin even if we admit we struggle with it. But seek to help those who are repentant, according to how we found victory.

This is all I can do now. Only took about 6 hours. If this gets deleted as some have before I am out of this thread.

PeaceByJesus said:

This is all I can do now. Only took about 6 hours. If this gets deleted as some have before I am out of this thread.

Click to expand...

I see that you took a great deal of time writing some long posts to respond to some of the things I said over the course of the past few days. I have not had a chance, yet, to give what you wrote a full and fair read. Rather than be glib and respond to a line here, a line there, I think it is only fair to you that I read what you wrote carefully and consider what you have written. I won't write any sort of retort here, because, again, that would not be fair until I have actually really read what you said, which I will do over the next few days. Then I will respond, measuredly, if what you've written is measured. Or like a Viking, if what you've written is brutal. Or like a scholar, if what you have written is scholarly. Or some combination of all three.

You will need to give me some time. It took you six hours to write it. That's a lot of time! It will take me time to read, to digest, and to respond.

I won't just drop it and walk away without ever responding. But if I do because life becomes overwhelming, it is ok for you to nudge me after a certain amount of time has passed, so that I turn back to it and reply to you.

Thank you.

Vicomte13 said:

I see that you took a great deal of time writing some long posts to respond to some of the things I said over the course of the past few days. I have not had a chance, yet, to give what you wrote a full and fair read. Rather than be glib and respond to a line here, a line there, I think it is only fair to you that I read what you wrote carefully and consider what you have written. I won't write any sort of retort here, because, again, that would not be fair until I have actually really read what you said, which I will do over the next few days. Then I will respond, measuredly, if what you've written is measured. Or like a Viking, if what you've written is brutal. Or like a scholar, if what you have written is scholarly. Or some combination of all three.

You will need to give me some time. It took you six hours to write it. That's a lot of time! It will take me time to read, to digest, and to respond.

I won't just drop it and walk away without ever responding. But if I do because life becomes overwhelming, it is ok for you to nudge me after a certain amount of time has passed, so that I turn back to it and reply to you.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Do not be stressed about time. And it takes me so long mainly because my arthritic stiff fingers, and having life up my hand to hit each key, and often the landing is not right, which usually results in about every third word being a typo. Thank God for auto marking of such.

I am glad you appreciate the time and enrgy i gave this,and have a conscience, and may you walk in the light God gives, which I pray will increase for both of us, if we are teachable and want to follow His wholly inspired Truth and leading wherever it may lead insofar as our eyes are single on Christ.

Hedrick, I don't think Jewish law made so much distinctions between "sin" and "uncleanliness". I think rather the Jewish concept of sin and pollution was blurred together. The Jewish religion has its origins in a "pre-moral" ethos that depended on organic group solidarity to a much greater extent than today, where people conformed to norms because they feared retribution from their group. You don't need morality when consequences to your actions are obvious.

We must keep in mind the covenant of Moses has a quality to it meant to allow the Israelites to commune with God in a cultic sense, not strict morality as we understand it today. This can only be understood in terms of what Rudolf Otto described in his work, The Idea of teh Holy, as the Numinous. God, the great Other, requires certain things be done physically for human beings to safely commune with his terrifying and holy presence. This is not about being a "good person", but communing with a God who is a power, who offers benefits but is also potentially dangerous or destructive to be associated with. The associated rules and taboos functioned as a sacramental system to mediate their relationship to God.

If anything, this has implications for how we Christians understand the Old Testament and how it applies to our situation today. Many "abominations" having nothing to do with ethics as we understand it. They are rendered dubious, as cultic taboos, by the sacrifice of Christ, as Christ fulfills all cultic functions of the old covenant for all human beings.

FireDragon76 said:

Hedrick, I don't think Jewish law made so much distinctions between "sin" and "uncleanliness". I think rather the Jewish concept of sin and pollution was blurred together. The Jewish religion has its origins in a "pre-moral" ethos that depended on organic group solidarity to a much greater extent than today, where people conformed to norms because they feared retribution from their group. You don't need morality when consequences to your actions are obvious.

We must keep in mind the covenant of Moses has a quality to it meant to allow the Israelites to commune with God in a cultic sense, not strict morality as we understand it today. This can only be understood in terms of what Rudolf Otto described in his work, The Idea of teh Holy, as the Numinous. God, the great Other, requires certain things be done physically for human beings to safely commune with his terrifying and holy presence. This is not about being a "good person", but communing with a God who is a power, who offers benefits but is also potentially dangerous or destructive to be associated with. The associated rules and taboos functioned as a sacramental system to mediate their relationship to God.

If anything, this has implications for how we Christians understand the Old Testament and how it applies to our situation today. Many "abominations" having nothing to do with ethics as we understand it. They are rendered dubious, as cultic taboos, by the sacrifice of Christ, as Christ fulfills all cultic functions of the old covenant for all human beings.

Click to expand...

New Testament example: Paul (and the Catholic Church) warning that to take the eucharist in a state of serious sin is to harm one's self, for one has taken God inside of an impure vessel, where he will do great damage. No, no: first be cleansed of sin, THEN approach the holy.

rjs330 said:

Actually liberals do not believe it is an Illness. They believe it is perfectly normal. That's what born that way means. I am not convinced it is a choice to be homosexual. They may indeed be born that way in the sense of it is a mental Illness.

However, the choice comes in where they choose to practice homosexuality. That is the choice. The choice to sin.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that.

But if it is a mental illness, doesn't that also remove the accountable for choices?

rjs330 said:

We all do my friend. As a believer we deny ourselves and pick up the cross. Our nature is sinful. So yes a homosexual must deny his sinful nature as a believer. The good news is that we as believers have the power to do so in Christ. For we are a new creature in him. All the old has passed away behold all things become new. It doesn't mean we won't wrestle with the old self, but we can overcome through the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Areeed.

rjs330 said:

I don't think the church really believes that. I think the issue really is about the push to accept homosexuality as okay. Many believers fight against the ideology that says homosexuality should be accepted by the church and that homosexual practices are accepted by God and practicing homosexuality is not sinful and will not separate you from God and salvation.

Now there is a difference between understanding the world and also how the church is to be. We as believers cannot change the world's view. I do not believe in alienating non believers due to sin. We would have to alienate everyone if that were the case. But I also don't think we have to support sin either.

In the church though we are to confront sinfulness in the church. Be it adultery, thievery or homosexuality. The Bible tells us that we are to have church discipline. We are not to allow those that say they are believers yet practice sin to be part of us.

Just to be clear, if I had a bakery I would bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple to show that I care for the sinner. And I have no problem with having gay people in my church. But once they accepted Christ as their Lord and savior they cannot continue to practice homosexuality. They would have to obstain from that just as anyone who would practice adultery or thievery.

Click to expand...

Agreed! Because the saved person is now actually saved, the old sins he choose to practice can not be overcome by the Holy Spirit in him which gives the power to reject sin.

Vicomte13 said:

Alright. You're a Lutheran - and therefore supposedly a Sola Scripturalist. (I say "supposedly" because I get told that "because I'm a Catholic, I must therefore..." believe or do all sorts of things I neither believe nor do.) In any event, you're at least supposed to - if I show you something in the Bible - accept that yep, that's there.

I want you to open the Torah. Unfortunately I'm not sitting here with one so I can't tell you where, but you're supposed to know the Bible better than me. It's somewhere in Leviticus. God gives a law: "Whoever has an emission of sperm is unclean until evening, and anything that the sperm touches is unclean until washed with water."

This is often mistranslated as "nocturnal emission" - the translators trying to put a gloss on this. But all that God said was "an emission of sperm". So, to be clear, when a man in ancient Israel had sex with his wife, he was unclean until evening. There's actually a separate passage to exactly that effect. They both were. If a man had a wet dream, he was unclean until sunset. And if a man masturbated, he was unclean until sunset.

What does "unclean" mean? Specifically, it means in a state of "sin" - sin in the Torah is not simply tied to moral failings, but also to things that are physically unclean or nasty, such as defecation, bodily discharges, blood, touching dead bodies, sperm, etc. What is the consequence of being "unclean"? It is very specific: one cannot approach holy things in a state of uncleanliness. So, one cannot go and participate in the temple sacrifice, eat the sacrifice, etc.

So, yes, masturbation, and also sex, and noctural emission - all of is a sin - and uncleanliness - under the Torah. An emission of sperm mades a man unclean until nightfall. Subject to punishment? No - unless he went and ate the sacrifice. Note that at one point a warrior prophets troops were selected because they had remained free of sex with women for three days prior. They were "clean".

Now, a literate reader of Scripture would realize that this law was specifically part of a contract with Hebrews, and unless one is a Jew, one is not even colorably under that contract and so can legally disregard it, and all of the rest of the law including the Ten Commandments. Absolutely none of God's law from Exodus to Deuteronomy - the Law of Torah - ever applied to anybody but Hebrews in Israel (or on their way there).

Most people are not so careful about the lines of law in Scripture, amalgamate it, claim that everybody was always under the Law of Torah (not true) and that we were all "released" from it by Jesus' crucifixion (also not true). This is a nice story, but it isn't what the book actually SAYS.

Still, for our purposes, the Torah does put a baseline under the subject of masturbation: if it results in [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and there is an emission of sperm, under the Law given by God to Israel, it was a sin: a simple sin of uncleanness.

Jesus applied a new law to everyone: the law that lustful thoughts about a woman is adultery in the heart.

Of course, a stubborn legalist would say that Jesus didn't say the same thing about men.

Jesus condemned fornication and adultery and "inappropriate contenteia" - sexual immorality, but he never specifically said anything about masturbation or homosexual activity. So, IF the Torah was really "nailed to the cross", then read literally Jesus said that heterosexual fornication and adultery are sins, masturbation is only a sin if one lusts after a woman while doing it, and homosexual sex or homosexual images while masturbating are not sins at all: the old Law is "nailed to the cross" so it's gone for Christians, and the new law, given by Jesus, doesn't mention it.

This is, of course, absurd - it's why Jesus left a Church, not a Bible dispensary.

Unfortunately, you then have ministers of the Church, like yours, who come in and tell children that masturbation is second only to murder in degree of evil.

Essentially, Christian hypocrisy and playing at being lawyers without the training, have ended up leaving a dog's breakfast for any literalist. The true absolute biblical literalist is a sinner for masturbating thinking about women, but not for having outright sex with three other men. Unless, of course, Paul is accorded the status of God and lawmaker, because he has something to say about homosexuality (which is where this thread began).

Again, this is why Jesus left a Church, and never wrote a word. We are not meant to get our religion by reading a book. We are meant to get it by hearing it from designated ministers of the Church.

Unfortunately, ministers lie to suit their own obsessions (I am highly confident the minister who told you that when you were young was himself a practiced and inveterate masturbator, and I'd love to put him under cross examination, reminding him that the penalty for perjury is hell, and then force him to admit that he's only one step short of a murderer BY HIS OWN YARDSTICK.)

So in the end, the final judge of all things you believe must inevitably be you yourself. The book is incomplete and contradictory, and you can't even read it as written unless you can read ancient Hebrew. And you have to have a sharp legal mind to see what applies to whom. The Church is what Jesus gave us, but the Church has been smashed into thousands of pieces, and the truth that the churches teach is only as true as the ministers. God gave you a conscience, which you have to use. But some people's consciences are defective and tell them that killing certain people is ok. Others have no conscience pangs about fornication, masturbation or homosexual behavior.

So finally let's get to the truth: we're all sexual sinners. Maybe masturbation is not a mortal sin, and maybe it is - depending on what's in your head when doing it, and depending on whether adultery of the heart is actually adultery. Maybe homosexual activity is not a mortal sin because Jesus said nothing about it and you can't add to Scripture. Maybe heterosexual activity of any kind out of wedlock is the only thing that Jesus or God really cared about. Maybe all sin is covered by Jesus so none of it matters, ultimately, as long as you make your altar call. There is a fog of confusion, and anger, and dishonesty on the subject.

And there is no real way to divide it.

Here's how I divide it: sexual activity is fraught. Sexual thoughts are fraught. It's all fraught. There's probably sin all around, and people who protest that there isn't protest too much and are always special pleading so that they don't have to think of themselves as sinners. Well, they ARE sexual sinners, all of them. They're all perverse and they've all sinned. Everybody over the age of 12 who isn't brain dead. Maybe the younger too.

Assume it's all sin and you're a sinner, now what?

Well, now you need forgiveness, and Jesus was clear about THAT. To be forgiven, you have to forgive. You can go confess if your church says to - maybe that's right - but in ANY CASE you have to forgive others or you're not forgiven.

So THAT is where we should be putting our emphasis. We should not tell a room full of kids "You're as bad as murderers if you touch yourselves." That's a lie. We probably should tell them: "God will not forgive you your sins if you don't forgive others their sins against you." That's true, and it applies to all sin.

Click to expand...

What you are referring to is Leviticus 15. I would suggest the reading of the whole chapter.

1st of all......YOU should know the Bible. You stated that the person you posted to is a Lutheran and as A Sola Scriptura he should know more than YOU. That right there tells us that you do not know the meaning of Sola Scriptura.

2 nd thing is that Being a Lutheran does not mean a person believes in Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does NOT mean that one person knows any more than anyone else. It only means that "God has given us all we need to know in order to be saved in the Scriptures".

The Word of God ought to judge and correct us, and not we it if that is what you are trying to do.
It is our outlook of prudishness and oversensitivity that is wrong. The Bible looks at the human body with a wonderful frankness. It is never vulgar, never obscene, never descends to toilet-talk, but neither is it squeamish or priggish. It simply treats these subjects as they ought to be treated.

If you are trying to make sexual functions equal to murder, or thievery or homosexuality you are in my opinion incorrect. God made sex and he likes it. If it were not for sex, YOU would not be posting comments on this site and I would not be reading them.

He designed sex and He did it with the command that a MAN and a WOMAN would produce a child which forms the family!!!!! There is nothing wrong with sex when it is done in the confines of marriage, nor is there anything wrong in discussing it. But oftentimes the way we have been raised makes us overly sensitive in this area. So it is necessary that we correct this attitude and see ourselves as needing to be changed.

You focused on masturbation but what about "menstruation". When this chapter of God speaks as it does of menstruation, of seminal emissions, of the normal discharges of elimination, there is no need for us to blush, to squirm, or to feel embarrassed. If we do, it is a sign that we need to adjust to reality and not try to make the sin of homosexuality equal to normal body functions.

So all that God is doing here when he says that the act of sex results in an uncleanness until evening is simply reminding us that man is a fallen creature and that he must deal with that problem realistically. He can't avoid it. There is no way that he can eliminate it himself. God must handle it, and God has handled it. There is only one way it can be handled -- the redemptive intervention of God -- and if it isn't handled that way there is no escape from the defilement and the destruction of humanity which will follow. So God reminds us that even in the act of sex which results in conception there is a fallen nature involved.

In Verses 19-30 there is a very similar passage dealing with women. We won't take time to read it because you can do that yourself. It deals with the normal, natural monthly menstrual flow of women and, in Verses 25 and following, with abnormalities which would be caused by diseases. Again, there is no implication here that there is anything morally wrong about this function. But the symbolic significance is the same and in each case the treatment is exactly the same -- washing, being unclean until evening, and the offering of a sacrifice of blood which would cleanse and thus take away the defilement involved.
The Trouble with Nature | Leviticus 15 | RayStedman.org

FireDragon76 said:

Hedrick, I don't think Jewish law made so much distinctions between "sin" and "uncleanliness". I think rather the Jewish concept of sin and pollution was blurred together. The Jewish religion has its origins in a "pre-moral" ethos that depended on organic group solidarity to a much greater extent than today, where people conformed to norms because they feared retribution from their group. You don't need morality when consequences to your actions are obvious.

Click to expand...

Rather, God did not destroy nations because they were unclean via marital relations (and did separate as unclean till the evening and requiring washing) etc., but it was in the context of violations of basic universally applicable moral laws on human behavior that He said:

Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. (Leviticus 18:24-25)

For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled. (Leviticus 18:27)

And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. (Leviticus 20:23)

This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: (Ephesians 4:17-18)

And typically, “Whenever Judaism entered into relations with other nations and religions, the moral laws were accentuated, and the ceremonial laws were put into the background.” (Kaufmann Kohler, Ceremonies and the ceremonial law)

Likewise, while God chastened Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of taking Sarai Abram's wife into his harem, even though he was ignorant of this fact and had not touched her yet, Genesis 12:14-20) and also God came to Abimelech king of Gerar "in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife." (Genesis 20:3) And God also chastened idolators for possessing the sacred ark of God, (1 Samuel 5) the actual vessel God used, (and slew over 50,000(?) "men of Beth–shemesh [Israelites - more accountable], because they had looked into the ark of the Lord." - 1 Samuel 6:19-20) Yet we see no such chastisement for such violations by heathen as not remaining unclean till the evening and washing after touching dead body.

The list of capital crimes in Lev. 20 did not include ones for breaking dietary laws, though as the list of capital crimes I have found shows some violations of ritual ordinances such as consuming blood was wrong due to what it signified (based on its quality), or not resting and humbling yourself the Day of Atonement due to what this signified in the context of worship of God, and which statutes are based on moral law.

Laws in Lev. 18 were like a basic rules for player behavior on of the field in a baseball league for every team, which were wrong for everyone to break, while specifics such team colors, the mascot, the practice times and team meetings, directions in case of fire, etc. can vary from team and place, but in context they can be serious violations based on basic moral laws.

No player in the league could break the basic rules, while the others do not apply to him. However, the morality behind them does. No pitcher can intentionally bean a player (nor can anyone else), which is based on life being sacred. But a baseball which put a player out of action can be considered sacred to one team, due to what it signified, while for one to use that the baseball (who innocently somehow obtained it) who is ignorant of what it signified cannot be charged with guilt. Team colors themselves mean nothing outside of what they signify, but due to what they do then these are not be misused.

It is no violation for a team player to miss the practice time of another, or even dietary rules given by the coach to that team, but which does not mean meetings and faithfulness and proper nutrition are not important in themselves for unity and victory etc., and an outsider is to value these in principle and can face punishment sooner or latter for violations of similar laws based on principle.

Breaking a law of a city in a temperate zone requiring a fence around the flat roofs people used to sleep would not be a violation for one in a city in Canada, but the principle of the sacredness of life can validate that law as well as laws regarding snow removal that Hawaiians never see.

Thus heathen nations were not wiped out for not resting and humbling themselves on the Day of Atonement, but they were for such things as adultery, sodomy, inappropriate behavior with animals and incest,hichg defiled their land (but if eating swines flesh signified idolatrous worship, or was unhealthy, separation from the latter could require separation from the former and punishment for not). I do not even see God destroying nations simply because they worshiped false gods, but because of what this resulted in.

And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; (Genesis 18:20)

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jude 7)

Moreover, the NT clearly affirms the basic moral laws of the OT, and distinguishes btwn those ordinances that foreshadowed the coming and work of Christ“stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” (Heb. 9:10) "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” (Col. 2:13-17)

This is not about being a "good person", but communing with a God who is a power, who offers benefits but is also potentially dangerous or destructive to be associated with. The associated rules and taboos functioned as a sacramental system to mediate their relationship to God.

Click to expand...

Wrong. It was most assuredly about being a morally "good person," with both observance of basic universally applicable moral laws as well ritual laws based upon the moral principle of separation from sin and towards God as a select people. The best playing team has its own distinctive uniform.

If anything, this has implications for how we Christians understand the Old Testament and how it applies to our situation today. Many "abominations" having nothing to do with ethics as we understand it. They are rendered dubious, as cultic taboos, by the sacrifice of Christ, as Christ fulfills all cultic functions of the old covenant for all human beings

Click to expand...

My study shows that abomination ( tô‛êbah) is not the word often used for ritual uncleanness, but is often used for sexual sin (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24; Ezek. 22:11; 33:26), including in this chapter (vs. 22, 58).

Meanwhile as said, ritual violations can be called abomination due to the moral significance behind them. "Don't touch that sacred baseball which disabled my brother. " "Don't wear the uniform of the competition while on our team, which would denotes immoral disloyalty," while all teams are to keep the universal league rules for player behavior on of the field and not engage in late hits.

But this is no game, and because all are to be subject to moral laws thus God has given man a basic innate sense of them, and whether expressly enlightened by them or due to basic enlightenment of nature, ("when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law..." (Romans 2:14) all are under the law:

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; (Romans 3:9) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Romans 3:19)

While those who do not know God and His word (represented as the Gentiles in Romans) can, to varying degrees but not fully, do by nature the things contained in the law and judged accordingly, what they hold as moral is not the standard, but the Law as express revelation is set forth as what determines what one does is moral or not, by which standard all come short, and must find justification on Christ's account, who alone fully kept the law and then as our scapegoat (cf. Lev. 16; Is. 53) took responsibility for our disobedience to it, and paid the price for our forgiveness with His own sinless shed blood, by His death on the cross. Thanks be to God.

And therefore no one can be saved by becoming good enough, but justification only by obtained by effectual faith in the risen Lord to save them on His account, which faith is accounted for righteousness, thanks be to God:

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: (Romans 3:20-22)

..for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. (Galatians 3:21)

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, (Romans 4:5-6)

But which faith is only that which effects obedience, and thereby we are to seek to so yield and obey Him that "the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4)

Which I feel I have a long way to go in.

By referencing Rudolf Otto, I'm not trying to necessarily validate the Hebrew perceptions about God, just explain them. Many premodern cultures tended to believe the sacred, profane, and the polluting required separation or "bad things would happen". Nor do I necessarily believe this is a legitimate ethic for modern-day Christians.

Jesus seems to not agree with this code for his disciples, that only what comes out of a person makes them unclean. This is a departure from the typical Jewish attitude about the necessity of keeping a strict separation through the kosher system.

Major1 said:

1st of all......YOU should know the Bible. You stated that the person you posted to is a Lutheran and as A Sola Scriptura he should know more than YOU. That right there tells us that you do not know the meaning of Sola Scriptura.

Click to expand...

First of all, Sola Scriptura is not the Bible. It's a belief ABOUT the Bible - one that I do not hold, but one that the Lutheran with whom I was speaking probably DOES hold, given that he's a Lutheran.

I know what's in the Bible well enough. If I never saw the Bible I would still be in good shape as long as I walked with God. The Bible is a useful tool, but not a vital one.

Major1 said:

Again, there is no implication here that there is anything morally wrong about this function.

Click to expand...

Do you believe in Original Sin, or are you a different sort of Christian?

Vicomte13 said:

New Testament example: Paul (and the Catholic Church) warning that to take the eucharist in a state of serious sin is to harm one's self, for one has taken God inside of an impure vessel, where he will do great damage. No, no: first be cleansed of sin, THEN approach the holy.

Click to expand...

Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:17-22)

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:27-32)

Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)

Thus the sin of 1 Cor. 11:17-34 was not that of a failure to discern the nature of the consecrated (thus non-existent) bread and wine, or taking God inside the, ,but the failure to recognized the body of Christ as being just what Paul persecuted Christ by attacking, that of the church which God bought with His own blood. (Acts 20:28)

For contextually, the sin was that of eating independently and even to the full while if ignoring others for whom Christ died, and which thus was "shame them that have not." All the while supposedly coming together to remember and thus to "show/proclaim" the Lord's death for them by sharing food in that communal meal (not a bit of bread and wine either, or dispensed by a Catholic priest).

Therefore Paul said by the Holy Spirit that they actually were not coming together to eat the Lord's supper, as they utterly failed to come together to share food and eat together as one body, and thus show the Lord's death by that communal meal which signifies unity with Christ and each other. For instead they utterly failed to recognizing others as those for whom Christ died. And

Thus they were to examine themselves whether they were really living consistent with remembering (which means effecting your belief and actions: cf. 1Co. 15:2) the Lord's unselfish death for them which made "members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones," (Ephesians 5:30; cf. 1Co. 12:13) and instead, like as Paul persecuted Christ by how he treated the church (and those crucify Christ anew by apostasy), they were guilty of the body and blood of the Lord by their treatment of His body, acting contrary to remembering His death that bought them.

And that being the sin, thus the solution to prevent it from happening again, and their chastisement, was to eat at home, versus coming together unto condemnation as they did due their actions and inaction.

Much more here on the Lord's supper by the grace of God.

Vicomte13 said:

First of all, Sola Scriptura is not the Bible. It's a belief ABOUT the Bible - one that I do not hold, but one that the Lutheran with whom I was speaking probably DOES hold, given that he's a Lutheran.

I know what's in the Bible well enough. If I never saw the Bible I would still be in good shape as long as I walked with God. The Bible is a useful tool, but not a vital one.

Click to expand...

Rather, while to a degree one can do by nature the things contained in the Law, without a wholly inspired word of God then you have no infallible standard by which to ascertain you are walking with God. Nor would you eve have a NT church, which still is not speaking as wholly inspired of God via her popes and prelate, let alone possessing the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

For the church actually began upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and abundantly invoked the established word of God, not simply as useful, but as the supreme transcendent authoritative word of God, to which even the veracity of the apostles was subject to testing by. Acts 17:11) Thanks be to God.

Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15,17,18; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14,15; 5:17,18,33,38,43; 8:4,17; 9:13; 11:10; 12:3,5,17-21,40,41; 13:14,15,35; 14:3,4,7-9;19:4,5,17-19; 21:4,5,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,10,35; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; 15:28; Lk. 2:22,23.24; 3:4,5,6; 4:4,6-8,10,12,16,17,18,20,25-27; 5:14; 7:27; 8:10; 10:26,27; 16:29,31; 18:20,31; 19:46; 20:17,18, 28,37,42,43; 22:37; 23:30; 24:25.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:45; 2:17,22; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,45; 7:19,22,23,38,42,51,52; 8:5,17; 9:26; 10:34,35; 12:14,15,38-41; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9,31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22,23,25; 4:11,25,26; 7:3,7,27,28,32,33,37,40,42,43,49,50,53; 8:28,30,32,33; 10:43;13:15,27,29,33,39; 15:5,15-17,21; 17:2,11; 18:13.24,28; 21:20,24; 22:12; 23:3,5; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23,26,27; Rom 1:2,17; 2:10-21,31; 4:3,7,17,18,23,24; 5:13; 7:1-3,7,12,14,16; 8:4,36; 9:4,9,12,13,15,17,25-29,33; 10:11,15,19; 11:2-4,8,9,26,27; 12:19,20; 13:8-10; 14:11; 15:3,4,9-12,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19,20; 4:6; 6:16; 7:39; 9:9,10; 10:7,11,26,28; 14:21,34; 15:3,4,32,45,54,55; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 6:2;16; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; 10:17; 13:1; Gal. 3:6,8,10-13; 4:22,27,30; 5:14; Eph. 3:3,4; (cf. 2Pt. 3:16); Eph. 4:8; 5:31; 6:2,3; (cf. Dt. 5:16); Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 1Tim. 5:18; 2Tim. 3:14,16,17; Heb. 1:5,7-13; 2:5-8,12,13; 3:7-11,15; 4:3,4,7; 5:5,6; 6:14; 7:17,21,28; 8:5,8-13; 9:20; 10:5-916,17,28,30,37; 11:18; 12:5,6,12,26,29; 13:5,6,22; James 2:8,23; 4:5; 1Pet. 1:16,24,25; 2:6,7,22; 3:10-12; 5:5,12; 2Pet. 1:20,21; 2:22; 3:1,15,16; 1Jn. 1:4; 2:1,7,8,12,13,21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11,19; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,12,14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:6,7;10,18,19

Vicomte13 said:

Do you believe in Original Sin, or are you a different sort of Christian?

Click to expand...

What over kind of sin is there my friend?

Original sin is Biblically defined as “that sin and its guilt that we all possess in God’s eyes as a direct result of Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden.”

If that is what you are asking me then YES that is what I believe as it is what the Scriptures teach us.

The doctrine of original sin focuses particularly on its effects on our nature and our standing before God, even before we are old enough to commit conscious sin.

Vicomte13 said:

First of all, Sola Scriptura is not the Bible. It's a belief ABOUT the Bible - one that I do not hold, but one that the Lutheran with whom I was speaking probably DOES hold, given that he's a Lutheran.

I know what's in the Bible well enough. If I never saw the Bible I would still be in good shape as long as I walked with God. The Bible is a useful tool, but not a vital one.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't really have time to go into it at the moment, but my beliefs are complicated and somewhat more nuanced than that. I list myself as Lutheran because that's what I was raised as and what the Church was that I always attended. It's the faith I'm most familiar with. But I have a lot of issues with the Lutheran faith (and every other faith that I'm familiar with).

That conversation with the pastor that I talked about earlier set forth a chain of events that really changed how I look at my relationship with the Church, how I view faith, how I view scripture, etc. In many ways I agree with you that I, alone, am the final arbiter on what I believe to be Godly, right and just. I may take the counsel of others, I may look at scripture, but I admittedly view it in the context of what seems right *to me* as being just and right.

Vicomte13 said:

First of all, Sola Scriptura is not the Bible. It's a belief ABOUT the Bible - one that I do not hold, but one that the Lutheran with whom I was speaking probably DOES hold, given that he's a Lutheran.

I know what's in the Bible well enough. If I never saw the Bible I would still be in good shape as long as I walked with God. The Bible is a useful tool, but not a vital one.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. If someone told you that then they are very wrong.
I do not know that I have ever heard anyone say that actually.

It does not matter is a person is a Lutheran or Baptist or Methodist or any other denomination.

Just so that we are on the same page, allow me to say to you that
Sola Scriptura is the teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for men to be saved, and proper living before a holy God.

Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures--the Old and New Testaments, 66 books written by God and penned by men are the final authority in all that they address.

1 Corth. 4:6 clearly says............
"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other."

Sola Scriptura does not negate past church councils or traditions. Those who hold to Sola Scriptura are free to consider past councils, traditions, commentaries, and the opinions of others. But, the final authority is the Scripture alone because the Scripture alone is what is inspired by God which is what God said in 2 Timothy 3:16.............
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Scripture is to be followed above and beyond past church councils, tradition, commentaries, and opinions. Scripture is above them all.

1Timothy 3:14-15.........
"I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."

You said...........
"The Bible is a useful tool, but not a vital one."

My dear friend, if it was NOT for the Bible you would not know one single thing about God.

Romans 10:17 says ......
"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God".