Damian was Innocent!

[jetb123]

Originally posted by NUKE
Yeah, I know that technically, Catholics are Christian. However, when someone mentions "Catholics" and "Christians", most people in America understand what the difference is.

If I say "Christian evangelist", do you think of a television preacher or the Catholic Pope?

Catholics fashioned themselves into whole new cult in my opinion.

quoted for truth.

[hblair]

Thanks for the reply seagoon.

It was necassary for paul and others to travel around to those different congregations and be sure that the doctrine was correct. Why would they need to do this? Because the written word had not come into being yet. We today know that the early church (each congregation) was governed by elders (also referred to as bishops, pastors, presbyters) And there are qualifications for being an elder in 1 timothy 3:1-7. There are qualifications for being a deacon also. There is no scriptural authority for a centrally governed church.


As for the born-into-sin stuff..
Calvinism came about in the 14 or 1500's. John Calvin taught the born into sin doctrine you're talking about. Let's look at the verse in psalms you are talking about. Of course we know that the old testament is not law for christians today(colossians 2:14 hebrews 8:13)  but is there for our learning (romans 15:4). To know the mind of God and how he dealt with his people under the old law. We also know that the bible isn't going to contradict itself.
Keeping that in mind, what was david talking about? Wouldn't it make more sense that david was speaking of being born into a world of sin? Look at ezekiel 18:20. And better yet, in the new law, see what Jesus has to say about the state of children.
Matthew 18:3 is pretty plain. We have to be as innocent as children.
Matthew 19:14, Jesus shows the innocence of children.

And another thing, of all the conversions to christianity in the NT, there is not one single example where a child is baptized, let alone sprinkled. Yet people today thing it is standard procedure. We are plainly told of the burial of baptism in romans 6:4 and colossians 2:12, yet people pull obscure verses to try and justify something contrary to the plain verses.

[Urchin]

Dogma fight!  Dogma fight!

[Seagoon]

Originally posted by JB73
seagoon...

i have to ask, how do you deal with explaining that to someone?

i have know that forever, and whenever it has come up, not even the Christians i know want to accept it. there is always some broad generalization of "knowing right from wrong" and all that, basically saying all kid's are sinless untill they know what is and is not a sin.

i disagree, and hold true what i quoted from you, but have never been able to explain it properly.

JB,

It depends on who you are talking to.

If you are speaking to someone who reveres the teaching of the bible, and is basically familiar with it, then you go straight to the source.

Basically you start with the creation and fall of man. Man is created in the image of God upright and undefiled, yet mutable (capable of changing). Then he disobeys God's Law by taking from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and becomes subject to death. The curse did not just apply to Adam but also to all his posterity. Mankind fell, not just an individual man. The curse they became subject to involved not only just eventual physical decline and death, but becoming spiritually dead in sin as well (Eph. 2:1-3) and he is born with a heart hopelessly inclined towards evil - "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21) This evil is nature is all pervasive, it doesn't mean that we are as bad as we can possibly be or that all people are constantly committing every sin, or that we cannot do things that are nice to others on occasion but it does mean that it affects every part of of us the mind, the imagination, the conscience, our dispositions, as the word puts it: "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9) This fallen nature is universal as the following verses indicate:
"As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10)
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8)
"All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way" (Is. 53:6)

Then you move on to the practical outworkings of this doctrine, we don't become sinners when we sin, we sin because we are by nature sinners - enemies and rebels against God as Paul puts it. That is why we don't need to teach our children to lie or steal, they have a natural inclination to do so. You can actual test most people to find that at heart they don't actually believe that all men are good deep down with in. Simply asking them questions like why they have keys in their pocket, should begin to tap into the fact that they recognize not only their own sin nature, but the universality of that nature in others. Then you point out that desperately sinful men cannot be reconciled to a Holy God by their own efforts, if they are to be Holy as He is Holy then they need to have their hearts and natures changed forever. They need a new heart, forgiveness for sin, and an alien righteous imputed to them. Hence the great good news contained in the message of salvation from sin and death through faith in Christ: Romans 3:21-24 "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"

(Note also the universality of the problem expressed above - "for all have sinned")

Now if you aren't talking with someone who doesn't believe bible, you are going to have to give an argument that reverses the presentation. I.E. Starting out by establishing the state of the world, the truth about men's hearts and inclinations, the universality of evil, the fact that they themselves have done wicked things, and then moving into the bible as the only coherent explanation of those facts with the only viable solution to the problem.

Take heart though JB, I myself was thoroughly convicted of my own sinfulness prior to believing in the Bible. Historically, conviction of sin and embracing the free offer of the Gospel go hand in hand.

- SEAGOON

[Seagoon]

Hi Hblair,

Originally posted by hblair
Thanks for the reply seagoon.

It was necassary for paul and others to travel around to those different congregations and be sure that the doctrine was correct. Why would they need to do this? Because the written word had not come into being yet. We today know that the early church (each congregation) was governed by elders (also referred to as bishops, pastors, presbyters) And there are qualifications for being an elder in 1 timothy 3:1-7. There are qualifications for being a deacon also. There is no scriptural authority for a centrally governed church.

I hope you understand, I am not attempting to prove there was a hierarchical government to the church, rather that there was a connectional nature to the church and that the Jerusalem Assembly was not a one time event, rather that that was a normative pattern.

Controversies that arise in the church are to be decided by the elders of the church working together in the Spirit to determine what the Word says on the matter. Hence the great work done in the first 6 eccumenical counsels. Doctrinal decisions are not to be solely the realm of "Me and my Bible" but that rather as Prov. 11:14 puts it "Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety." This also applies in the case of church discipline, it is not "disfellowship them yourself" but rather the final step is: "tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector" (Matthew 18:17)

As for the born-into-sin stuff..
Calvinism came about in the 14 or 1500's. John Calvin taught the born into sin doctrine you're talking about. Let's look at the verse in psalms you are talking about. Of course we know that the old testament is not law for christians today(colossians 2:14 hebrews 8:13)  but is there for our learning (romans 15:4). To know the mind of God and how he dealt with his people under the old law. We also know that the bible isn't going to contradict itself.
Keeping that in mind, what was david talking about? Wouldn't it make more sense that david was speaking of being born into a world of sin? Look at ezekiel 18:20. And better yet, in the new law, see what Jesus has to say about the state of children.
Matthew 18:3 is pretty plain. We have to be as innocent as children.
Matthew 19:14, Jesus shows the innocence of children.

The doctrine of orginal sin doesn't hail from Calvin (1509-1564) or even the Reformation. Augustine (354-430) includes a huge section on his dispute with Pelagius showing how the doctrine of Original Sin is biblical and was taught by all the Church fathers. In fact he states that he is amazed that Pelagius could even have doubted it. Augustine for instance says "even if there were in men nothing but original sin, it would be sufficient for their condemnation. For however much heavier will be their condemnation who have added their own sins to the original offense (and it will be the more severe in individual cases, in proportion to the sins of individuals); still, even that sin alone which was originally derived unto men not only excludes from the kingdom of God, which infants are unable to enter, unless they have received the grace of Christ before they die, but also alienates from salvation and everlasting life, which cannot be anything else than the kingdom of God, to which fellowship with Christ alone introduces us. "

This forum isn't really set up or intended for weighty theological discourse, so answering point by point is going to be impossible. But please note that the idea that all men have inherited the fallen and sinful nature of Adam has been (with the exception of the Pelagians and those follwing them) the almost universal confession of Christian theologians and certainly the confession of almost all of the Protestant denoms including the SBC for instance. The interpretation of Psalm 51:5 that you are employing is novel and doesn't withstand exegetical scrutiny. Iniquity ("Avon") in that passage is reflexive and climaxes the fivefold "My" in verses 1-3. It is just not exegetically coherent that David would be using the phrases: "My Transgressions" (verse 1)
"my iniquity ,my sin (verse 2)
"my transgressions, my sin" (verse 3)
And then switch to speaking of the world of sin, rather than speaking of the origin and root of "my sins" and the confession of being sinful from the beginning.

And another thing, of all the conversions to christianity in the NT, there is not one single example where a child is baptized, let alone sprinkled. Yet people today thing it is standard procedure. We are plainly told of the burial of baptism in romans 6:4 and colossians 2:12, yet people pull obscure verses to try and justify something contrary to the plain verses.

Just wondering, before I deal with this, did you click on the section of Miller I sent? I'd rather not further test the patience of this long-suffering Board by rehearsing arguments he makes better if it isn't necessary.

- SEAGOON

PS: Also just wondering which denomination  you are affiliated with (or if you are non-denominational if you have a website for your church).

[Seeker]

Seagoon; Hblair et al...

Aren't you forgetting the significance of the apolistic rite? The unbroken chain of annointment from Paul? Without it there's no talk of a catholic (with small "C" = orthodox) church?

And Seagoon...

I don't share your beliefs; but I relish your posts. You explain; and don't attempt to indoctrinate; which I find both interesting and refreshing.

[vorticon]

who cares what the devils number is, as long as the sweet sweet pie remains 3.14...

[Glasses]

Bah screw you're false idols I shall worship the only and true god and his name is Kurt Tank! Beotches!

[NUKE]

Originally posted by oboe
NUKE you can be very entertaining.  I think I know what you are trying to say but dang what a way to put it!   "Whole new cult"?  They were the original Christian church.  By original, I mean the very first.  Numero uno.

How's the turf business, btw!?   Hope things are going well.

Hey oboe, it's just that I feel the catholic church has morphed into something very different. I would call myself a Christian, but never a Catholic. They are not the same to me.

Oh, and my "synthetic" turf business ( or, fake grass ) is rolling along. There are 4 partners and we have just formed our LLC and have gotton our first job. We have three lined up that look like they are going to go through. Thanks for asking.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Glasses
Bah screw you're false idols I shall worship the only and true god and his name is Kurt Tank! Beotches!

STFU I'm trying to start a new religious war, all I gotta do is haul in the Mormons and the 7th day crowd...

[GREENTENERAL]

Originally posted by Habu
Numerology? Phafffttttttt

What a load of horse crap that is. Not at all like good old reliable Phrenology and Physiognomy.

LOL!   You forgot about astrology, which is every bit as crappy as the others, with the bonus of still being quite popular and annoying.  It can be a real kok-blocker if your stupid chart doesn't line up right!  I wish phrenology was back instead astrology since I have such a lumpy head!

[hblair]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Hblair,

 

I hope you understand, I am not attempting to prove there was a hierarchical government to the church, rather that there was a connectional nature to the church and that the Jerusalem Assembly was not a one time event, rather that that was a normative pattern.

Controversies that arise in the church are to be decided by the elders of the church working together in the Spirit to determine what the Word says on the matter. Hence the great work done in the first 6 eccumenical counsels. Doctrinal decisions are not to be solely the realm of "Me and my Bible" but that rather as Prov. 11:14 puts it "Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety." This also applies in the case of church discipline, it is not "disfellowship them yourself" but rather the final step is: "tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector" (Matthew 18:17)
 

I agree in that the eldership of the congregation should be governing the body. I take it you are a member of the presbyterian church. I'm not very familiar with presbeteryians. Do you practice church discipline and disfellowship if necassary? This is unfortunately a rarety in todays religious world.

Originally posted by Seagoon

The doctrine of orginal sin doesn't hail from Calvin (1509-1564) or even the Reformation. Augustine (354-430) includes a huge section on his dispute with Pelagius showing how the doctrine of Original Sin is biblical and was taught by all the Church fathers. In fact he states that he is amazed that Pelagius could even have doubted it. Augustine for instance says "even if there were in men nothing but original sin, it would be sufficient for their condemnation. For however much heavier will be their condemnation who have added their own sins to the original offense (and it will be the more severe in individual cases, in proportion to the sins of individuals); still, even that sin alone which was originally derived unto men not only excludes from the kingdom of God, which infants are unable to enter, unless they have received the grace of Christ before they die, but also alienates from salvation and everlasting life, which cannot be anything else than the kingdom of God, to which fellowship with Christ alone introduces us. "

This forum isn't really set up or intended for weighty theological discourse, so answering point by point is going to be impossible. But please note that the idea that all men have inherited the fallen and sinful nature of Adam has been (with the exception of the Pelagians and those follwing them) the almost universal confession of Christian theologians and certainly the confession of almost all of the Protestant denoms including the SBC for instance. The interpretation of Psalm 51:5 that you are employing is novel and doesn't withstand exegetical scrutiny. Iniquity ("Avon") in that passage is reflexive and climaxes the fivefold "My" in verses 1-3. It is just not exegetically coherent that David would be using the phrases: "My Transgressions" (verse 1)
"my iniquity ,my sin (verse 2)
"my transgressions, my sin" (verse 3)
And then switch to speaking of the world of sin, rather than speaking of the origin and root of "my sins" and the confession of being sinful from the beginning.
 

Interesting points seagoon. I will look further into what you are talking about. It is my understanding that calvinism was when the belief in "original sin" really took off. So what you are saying is that it was actually 300 years after the inspired word was penned. A serious question, Why do you think something like this is not be mentioned clearly in the inspired scripture, but actually comes about hundreds of years later from men?

Originally posted by Seagoon

Just wondering, before I deal with this, did you click on the section of Miller I sent? I'd rather not further test the patience of this long-suffering Board by rehearsing arguments he makes better if it isn't necessary.

No, I haven't yet, but I will. I'll try to read it later today, possibly tonight. This board doesn't have to read all this stuff. Thanks for taking time to give detailed answers. It is clear you have spent time in study. Are you a minister? That's the only way you could possibly have the time.

Originally posted by Seagoon

PS: Also just wondering which denomination  you are affiliated with (or if you are non-denominational if you have a website for your church).

I'm a member of the church of Christ, for four years. Was raised in the baptist church. Here's the website for the congreagtion I attend. I just noticed it needs to be updated. I've been a deacon for almost a year lol.

[Naso]

Originally posted by Urchin
Dogma fight!  Dogma fight!

Yeah!!!



And burn Nuke!!!

[Habu]

Originally posted by GREENTENERAL
LOL!   You forgot about astrology, which is every bit as crappy as the others, with the bonus of still being quite popular and annoying.  It can be a real kok-blocker if your stupid chart doesn't line up right!  I wish phrenology was back instead astrology since I have such a lumpy head!

Ahh an educated man I see.

I think my joke fell flat as no one else here had any idea what Phrenology is.

Salute my scholarly friend.

[GREENTENERAL]

Originally posted by Habu
Ahh an educated man I see.

I think my joke fell flat as no one else here had any idea what Phrenology is.

Salute my scholarly friend.

Thank you!

I beleive that an education is very important.  A simple course in elementary logic would do wonders around here, as most can't identify a basic fallacy.  I see alot of circular arguments, bifurcations, false dilemmas, and my favorite phallacy of all, the (argumentum ad hominem)....LOL!  So, for all you kids out there, pick up a book on elementary logic!  Win arguments!  Impress your friends!  Most importantly, dont fall victim to BS!  LOL!

At least Phrenology is pretty much dead.  The residue of Physiognomy is still alive and well, but maybe that is because it falls under natural judgment instict, maybe a bit archetypal, not shure.