The practicality of theological views...

Even if that were so, the fact remains that we are dead and blind now. So we are incapable as such of making choices until we are made alive.

No mystery there whatsoever.

 

Infant baptism is one thing they did not break free of.

Calvin declares that "infants cannot be deprived of it[baptism] without open violation of the will of God"(Inst.4, 16, 8).

It amazes me how so many today look to these types of people for theological guidance.

 

So?

Going to church is another practice that they did not BREAK FREE from/

Feeding the hungry and clothing the naked and housing the displaced and visiting the prisons are also Catholic Church practices the Reformers did not BREAK FREE from.

So what?

What kind of argument is it that says, "Well, the Reformers did not break free from every single Roman Catholic practice and therefore they are not fit to follow."?

And just for the record- your 15th century religious moorings are almost CERTAINLY Protestant.

I bet if you traced the church of which you are a member through history, you'd find that it spawns from Protestantism.

Your church, this is conjecture, is probably IFB. The IFB of which you are a part PROBABLY broke off from the SBC years ago. The SBC branches of from Protestant roots and the SBC to this day claims to be the largest PROTESTANT denomination in the world.

So, like it or not, your religious roots are probably Protestant.

 

Just for the record Luke2427 and FWIW, I left the Church of Rome partially (and a large part at that) because of my perceived error on their part concerning the ordinances or what they call "the sacraments".

I found that most of the churches of the Reformation tried a nominal doctrinal correction but none really went the full route.

Upon researching the teachings and resultant church entities associated with Calvin (The Institutes) and company, as well as Luther were still trying to "reform" the church and IMO appeared to be somewhat ambivalent about the "sacraments" their meaning, necessity and pupose.

Consequently this weakness led me to other alternatives.

For that reason I departed from them as well and chose the Baptist distinctives as this difference was IMO foundational Scripture truth.

However finding this error in so foundational truth as the meaning and purpose of the ordinances I felt their other teachings were at least suspect.


HankD

 

What we call child molestation is that which evil men do with evil intentions.

Child molestation is always evil because those who do it are evil and do it with evil intentions.

The deed is not evil because the deed has no personality. The man who does the deed is evil. A deed can be no more evil than a dog can. But it is proper to say that a deed is evil so long as we understand that what we mean is that an evil person with evil motives did the deed. A deed can technically not be evil or good in itself any more than a deed can think, or feel, or believe, or decide.

Can things which have no personality be good or evil? No. But it is not wrong to say that a deed is evil when we mean by that that the deed CONSISTS of evil people doing the deed with evil motives.

That's why God can afflict Job as well as Satan and not be doing evil.

Child molestation is always evil because it, by defintion, consists of an evil person with an evil motive.

Sex, however, which is the actual ACT of which child molestation consists, is NOT always evil. It is not evil for a man to have sex with his wife because his motive can be wholesome and righteous. If that same man were to seek to have sex with a small child then his motive cannot be wholesome and righteous. His motive is now evil as I will establish below.

Sex is the act- it is amoral.
What takes the act and turns it into child molestation is when a man has this wicked motive: to abuse the innocence of a child for self gratification. He does this by the amoral act of sex but that motive is what makes child molestation, child molestation. The evil of his motive projects onto the ACT and makes it evil (although we understand wherein the evil lies- not in the act of sex but in the heart of the man who abuses the child).

 

First of all, what text were we discussing in which I said that it was not present?

Secondly, I stand by the remark with almost ALL the Reformed Faith that God does not ever JUST allow something.

Thirdly, what you have done is bald faced lied about what I meant by "IT".

You are under moral and ethical obligation to withdraw those remarks of yours and apologize to me publicly.

 

Now Im not trying to be rude here to you Hank, I do respect your opinion ....but arent you saying your individual propensity is to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

 

Ha, Ha EWF, That's a great pun (bathwater - baptism), was it intentional?



But, to the serious element in the question: I certainly understand the importance of the ordinances and to an extent sympathize with fellow believers though we might disagree with definitions.

HankD

 

This is so typical claiming everyone has descended from the Catholic church. There has always been members of the body of Christ. It is they the RCC who got it's start from us in 325 ad. The romans couldn't kill enough of us so they put on a charade as if they were joining us then started making such bogus claims of being the first church. Nothing but lies come from the Catholic Church. Secular history has proven them wrong time after time. I knew this to be true by the time I left the 5 th grade.
MB

 

Yes, many believe the RCC is the great harlot in Revelation 17;

Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

The official symbol of the RCC is a woman with a golden cup in her hand.



Notice the golden cup in the hand of the woman. What Luke fails to realize is that this harlot is the "mother of harlots", in other words, other false apostate churches come out of her.

 

Skandelon, have found this thread to be interesting (really all are) with well thought process being shown by posters. I have a question to one of your posts to MB, and not at this time trying to get into the debate as to be liberalistic, compatibilistic, or Calvinism vs. Arminianism, to show what is determined as to voluntary, or involuntary.

Referring to your above "how he was created...it is his instinct", I was just wondering if God, who does not change, but does change things to bring about His will, would change, or bolster your position. I believe Genesis 1 and 9, will show us that God changed the diet of certain animals, and man.

 

Thanks for contemplating. I evidently worded poorly. This was meant to be rhetorical as your assumption there was no change from the beginning. As a change was made from the beginning, I was just wondering as you had not taken into consideration that a change had been made; hence my query of would this change, or bolster you position.

 

The difference is the word kill is amoral. It can be good or bad based on motive. Molest includes motive.