:)Or act wise and say up front, with the hand open palm up a must-
"I know nothing".
Helen
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
2 famous quotes come to mind as relevant to the topic of this thread:
(1) Luther said, "Sin boldly." He meant this: we will all inevitably sin; so the key question is how we respond to our need for forgiveness. We basically have 2 choices: we can wallow on guilt with a poor self-image and just accept our 2nd-rate spirituality.
Or we can sin with gusto, not deliberately, but with the knowledge that God always knew we would still sin, but will still accept us if we gratefully repent with a renewed expectation of a victorious Christian life and a resolve to learn from our errors. Jesus' atoning death means that He buries our sins in the sea of His forgetfulness and puts up a sign that says "No fishing!" So when we continue to wallow in guilt after repenting, we are fishing in a No fishing zone and acting as if Jesus didn't do an adequate job on the cross.
(2) St. Augustine taught: "Love God and do whatever you please." His point is that Christians need not live a life enslaved to long list of burdensome duties or "oughts" that tax our willpower. If we truly understand and embody agape love, when doing whatever please will naturally be in harmony with God's will.
(1) Luther said, "Sin boldly." He meant this: we will all inevitably sin; so the key question is how we respond to our need for forgiveness. We basically have 2 choices: we can wallow on guilt with a poor self-image and just accept our 2nd-rate spirituality.
Or we can sin with gusto, not deliberately, but with the knowledge that God always knew we would still sin, but will still accept us if we gratefully repent with a renewed expectation of a victorious Christian life and a resolve to learn from our errors. Jesus' atoning death means that He buries our sins in the sea of His forgetfulness and puts up a sign that says "No fishing!" So when we continue to wallow in guilt after repenting, we are fishing in a No fishing zone and acting as if Jesus didn't do an adequate job on the cross.
(2) St. Augustine taught: "Love God and do whatever you please." His point is that Christians need not live a life enslaved to long list of burdensome duties or "oughts" that tax our willpower. If we truly understand and embody agape love, when doing whatever please will naturally be in harmony with God's will.
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
Augustine had a much better understanding than Luther. He knew of the power of the Spirit to give us a new nature that loves righteousness and hates sin, therefore "do what you love."
Luther's statement went directly against scripture. Paul said we are DEAD TO SIN, not that we will keep sinning. Paul said we will not be of a carnal mind as we walk in the Spirit - that is what he meant by we are not in the "flesh," but in the Spirit. Evidently Luther did not know the power of the all-powerful Spirit of God. John said Jesus took away our sin, and in Him there is no sin. That doesn't mean the sins we keep committing are no longer considered "sin." He meant the DESIRE to sin has been taken away, because of the Spirit. John also said that a Christian CANNOT sin because of the seed of the Father. That seed is the all-powerful Holy Spirit of Christ.
Unfortunately, most denominations out of the Reformation adopt Luther's mistaken belief, even Calvinists, and do not know anything about the power of the Spirit of Christ.
Last edited:
I'm not sure about this "sinning with gusto", I figure that must be tongue in cheek, I don't know, just the same, yeah!
Luther knew that we would inevitably sin again. He wanted us to confess the sin and immediately get back to experiencing Jesus as the joy bringer, as evangelist Gipsy Smith used to say. That's what Luther meant by "Sin boldly."
Luther loved to use shock tactics like Jesus. Once he was asked to respond to reformer Schwenkfeldt's criticism of his doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Luther dryly replied, "I don't care if Schwenkfeldt swallows the Holy Spirit, feathers and all!"
Luther loved to use shock tactics like Jesus. Once he was asked to respond to reformer Schwenkfeldt's criticism of his doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Luther dryly replied, "I don't care if Schwenkfeldt swallows the Holy Spirit, feathers and all!"
You won't find any support for this in the Bible. Luther said a lot of stupid things in his lifetime.
Here is what you will find in the Bible: And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.(2 Tim 2:19)
I think that is part of the cage building, and they aren't free to be themselves.There's a certain "at risk" feeling to being genuine with people. Because you are right, in my view, everyone is the same inside, we all have some sort of issue or issues, and so many have learned to hide who they are, or who they feel like they are.
And then people get so used to hiding, they forget who they are. And they construct false images of themselves, which they feel portrays someone better than they really are, and then get invested in propping up that image.
And as anyone on this forum knows . . . show any weakness, prepare to be eaten alive!
Much love!
Mark
I had many common phobias as a young Christian. Free will gave me fear of not believing enough and doing enough to maintain my acceptability with God. Dispensationalism gave me a fear of not being good enough to make the rapture and facing the tribulation. Knowing that in myself I always fell short in these matters. But true freedom came when I realized I believe only because God saved me. Otherwise I could not believe. That there is no pre-trib rapture or great tribulation in anyone's future. And I can do nothing to keep my salvation, it's settled and all I do in thanksgiving is acceptable with God because of Christ's atoning death for me.
Just thinking about some recent 'conversations' I have had on this site, I think some people can get 'caged' by doctrinal issues and bind themselves in knots trying to prove their point to others.
I agree Pearl, those issues just go round and round in circles, and nobody as far as I can tell, has been "converted" to the others doctrine. I think they just like to argue and disagree, lol. They would never get away with, or even talk like they do on here if it were a true and civil debate with a moderator.
Having a moderator does not increase our abilities to express ourselves honestly as a moderator can be used dishonestly to force the members' desired outcomes upon other people.
One Prophecy forum I used to frequent was forced to close because of the attitude of just one or two members who demanded that certain action was implemented. The owner of the forum had had enough of being the judge and enforcer of form rules etc., and simply decided that the forum was not meeting its goals of being a forum where bible prophecy could be discussed "nicely." I noticed that one of those "problem "members was a poster on this forum for a time.
On another forum I frequented, the moderator had lost interest in interacting on his forum, so the members themselves had to moderate themselves and this worked for a while until a belligerent member arrived who was very aggressive and demanded that the moderator act at that members direction. After a few months of the member's ranting on the forum, two long term members approached the owner of the forum to seek out a solution. They discovered that the owner was no longer interested in a forum where he could not control the contents of the posts and so he adopted the Blogger format where he could simply delete any comments which were not in line with his POV or questioned his POV. The owner is an often sort after conference speaker who has written many book on the End Times.
However, the own of that forum was interested to ditch his forum as long as the forum changed it name so that he was not longer associated with the forum. This was done and the two longer term members of the forum took over the responsibilities of looking after the forum. The problem member was blocked but that member came back a number of times and continued in their usual belligerent manner until they were able to permanently block the members access to the forum.
The issue of having a moderator to control civil debate is not the answer. The answer is that the members understand and practice the conventions of enduring peace were the members are as responsible for maintaining the niceties of "civil" debate as is a good moderator.
Sadly, not everybody understand the responsibilities of the process of establishing peace and of maintaining that peace.
Just as true freedom has boundary conditions that helps keep us within bounds of freedom, it to relies of the peace processes of giving and taking.
Helping people to understand how peace works and the members responsibilities in this process would go a long way in resolving many of the problems faced here.
Shalom
"Having a moderator does not increase our abilities to express ourselves honestly as a moderator can be used dishonestly to force the members' desired outcomes upon other people......"
Hi Jay,
You are referring to an "online" forum, I was speaking about the difference between that and the "forum" being public, with moderator and many times, an audience who get to ask questions after the debates. I find people will behave much differently when debating online as opposed to the "live" ones. :)
Just goes to show that the understanding of being involved in a "civil" debate creates two very different pictures from what you were attempting to say and how I understood what you had said. You knew what you meant, but the words that you used to describe what you meant had some missing that would have conveyed the idea of a public meeting with a chairman moderating the discussion.
My comments were framed around on line forum discussions but they are just as applicable to a public forum with a moderator where the audience can after the timed discussion can then ask question. Usually, in a public forum, it is not always allowed for interjecting questions to be asked during the panels discussion's time, whereas with a online forum, unless it is set up as a limited members discussion, interjecting questions can be asked at any point during the forum discussion with many side discussion also occurring within the forum's thread.
I was addressing the need to be civil and self censusing where the need for a moderator is only really needed when self control goes out the window, so to speak and people need to be brought back into line with regards to being civil to one and other.
That is where understanding how the peace process works by all of the participants becomes important for a non dysfunctional forum to operate successfully.
Shalom
Similar threads
