(no subject)
Hi
luigitheclanger's LiveJournal popularity rating is 1.33/10.
luigitheclanger is more popular than 52.5% of all LiveJournal users.
luigitheclanger is more popular than 0.0% of their mutual friends.
How popular are you?
LJ Popularity created by thehumangame.
not that its anything to be proud of
In related news i was just reading thearticles of religion in the back of my 1662 Book of commomn prayer (God knows Why?) and i found this which you may find quite interesting ...
Of original or birth-sin
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians vainly talk ;) but It is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered if the offspring of Adam whereby man is very far gone from original rightiousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth away contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world it deserveth Gods wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated ; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek Phronema Sarkos, which some do expond the wisdom, some sensuality, some rhe affection, some the desire of the flesh is not subject to the law of God. And allthough there is no condemnation for them that beleive and are baptized, yet the apostle doth confess, that consupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.
I see this as saying that first, the concept of original sin isn't to be taken literally and second, that the soul should not be held responsible for the lust of the flesh as it is not under gods law but we should confess the sins anyway.
also
Of free will
The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strengh and good works, to faith and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.
There by say that without God we cant do anything properly. And, though we have free will, we neeed God to complete that ree will so the conceptn looses some of its power.
Some of the stuff in there is utter crap but its 345 years old, what did you expect. Still i recon its wortha read if any of you are ever in a thological or philosophical mood
well im out of stuff to say so bye
Jack
...
luigitheclanger's LiveJournal popularity rating is 1.33/10.
luigitheclanger is more popular than 52.5% of all LiveJournal users.
luigitheclanger is more popular than 0.0% of their mutual friends.
How popular are you?
LJ Popularity created by thehumangame.
not that its anything to be proud of
In related news i was just reading thearticles of religion in the back of my 1662 Book of commomn prayer (God knows Why?) and i found this which you may find quite interesting ...
Of original or birth-sin
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians vainly talk ;) but It is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered if the offspring of Adam whereby man is very far gone from original rightiousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth away contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world it deserveth Gods wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated ; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek Phronema Sarkos, which some do expond the wisdom, some sensuality, some rhe affection, some the desire of the flesh is not subject to the law of God. And allthough there is no condemnation for them that beleive and are baptized, yet the apostle doth confess, that consupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.
I see this as saying that first, the concept of original sin isn't to be taken literally and second, that the soul should not be held responsible for the lust of the flesh as it is not under gods law but we should confess the sins anyway.
also
Of free will
The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strengh and good works, to faith and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.
There by say that without God we cant do anything properly. And, though we have free will, we neeed God to complete that ree will so the conceptn looses some of its power.
Some of the stuff in there is utter crap but its 345 years old, what did you expect. Still i recon its wortha read if any of you are ever in a thological or philosophical mood
well im out of stuff to say so bye
Jack
...