What methods do Amish leaders use to deal with inward sins when the youth return after Rumspringa?

4/2/2014 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

You talk about them making a “free choice with full commitment”?

Commitment to what?

Commitment to never ever thinking any sinful thoughts or having sin in their hearts? Or commitment to wearing certain clothes, avoiding modern conveniences, etc? Anyone can commit to only wearing certain clothes, etc. That’s easy.

But the former: Good luck with that. Not gonna happen. As was said before, we are all born with a sinful nature - the “Adamic” nature.

We all have to fight the good fight of faith as the Spirit wars against what Paul called “the flesh.” It ends when we go to be with the Lord.

So, a 15, 16, 17, 18 - all the ay to 65 year-old Amish person - will have to say no to sinful thoughts and desires that are INWARD and “walk in the Spirit” to not “fulfill the lusts of the flesh” as Paul the Apostle said in the New Testament.

Rumspringa or not, walking in the Spirit to not fulfill the lusts of the flesh won’t get any better or worse with a “Rumspringa.”

Rumspringa: a dumb idea whose time to get rid of has come.

[strider44]

Because god cares about your clothes. Yes, he runs the entire universe, but still has time for fashion rules.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

So, define exactly how long is long - when it comes to a woman’s dress?

You can have one Holiness preacher say that it should be so long, another says that it should be one inch longer, another says one inch longer than that.

get my point? Same goes with Amish leaders.

We are to “walk in the Spirit” so that we will not fulfill the “lusts of the flesh,” not “walk in the opinions of your leaders.”

And yes, that will cause differences of opinion, but no one person can say absolutely - with infinite precision - like Amish and others attempt to.

So, let Him, not you or the Amish run things.

[RegulatorCountry]

And yes, that will cause differences of opinion, but no one person can say absolutely - with infinite precision - like Amish and others attempt to.

Like the pope?

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

We belong to God. The Bible says that “we were bought with a price.” The Captain of our salvation - our Lord is Jesus Christ - not some Amish leader who sets himself up to be some potentate.

So no, neither we nor they “belong to the Amish” as you said.

We don’t belong to man - we belong to God, although they would like for them to belong to them no doubt.

Yes, as church leaders, they would be within their scriptural right to preach from the pulpit what they wanted to, As in it is a sin to fornicate, but it would be utter arrogance for one of them to say that since you won’t grow a beard, or wear this particular gown or dress, I (as a deacon, elder, or minister of the Amish, or in this particular Amish community) have a right to cast you out.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

They do follow, to some extent, a works-based form of salvation. It is more than a nefarious set of homeowners rules. It is more like dress this way, live this way, or you will one day most likely end up in hell-fire.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Everyone is tempted and everyone has the potential for evil.

However, it is clear from experience that some people are more open to temptation than others and some are more capable of wickedness than others.

Rumspringa seems to be a good way to get rid of the worst apples.

"True Christians" maybe should want to keep those bad apples in their midst and try to get them back on the one true path and protect them from the temptations of the outside world.

The Amish seem to be doing quite well. The 'English' not so much.

[RegulatorCountry]

They have every right to associate in the manner that suits them. If it’s not for you, fine, form different associations and believe as you will, whether that’s following the dictates of some other earthly leader like the pope or lacking a central authority and being more congregational like Baptists. Their way of life is as much cultural as it is religious. Would you force ultra-Orthodox Jewish men to cut their side curls and dispense with the hats? Why not, if not?

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Yep.

Only God is infinitely absolute and infinitely precise.

The Pope isn’t God.

Ergo: the Pope cannot be infinitely absolute or be infinitely precise.

[RegulatorCountry]

... but he's infallible when speaking ex cathedra according to his church.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

This whole thread has nothing to do with forcing them or anyone else to give up their way of life.

Please don’t “red herring” it that way.

What I have repeatedly emphasized and still do is all about RUMSPRINGA - and that Rumspringa is a joke that can have devastating SPIRITUAL consequences. Spiritual matters count.

It would be like Jesus telling his followers at a certain age or after a certain time following Him, to go “running around” (Rumspringa) for a while.

Jesus would never say that, nor would Paul the Apostle. Jesus would say “No man after having put his hand to the plow and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Paul would say “Press towards the mark.” Now. Keep going.

He wouldn’t say the following: “Press towards the mark -— after Rumspringa is over. Have a good time!”

What are they growing on those farms? Lol.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

You got that right. His church. According to his church.

But are any within his church infallible?

Are any in his church able to say infallibly that the Pope is infallible?

If they say that the Bible says infallibly that the Pope is infallible, how can they say that their interpretation of the Bible which leads them to believe that is infallible?

Yes, I believe in the inerrancy of the Word, and yes there are some things not up for dispute (that Jesus was virgin born, is the Son of God, was raised from the dead, etc) but some things (like this) are far from settled -— as the Pope is NOT Jesus.

[RegulatorCountry]

Their ways are their ways, admirable in some, difficult to understand for outsiders in others. Would I be able to adhere to their standards, which are severe to modern eyes and ears? I don’t know. They intentionally set themselves apart. How they handle their affairs is their business and not mine. They are Brothers and sisters in Christ and as such I’ll leave them in peace and not undermine them, unless there is some indication that they’re preaching another gospel and leading souls astray. I have no indication that that’s the case.

[Boogieman]

“It is more like dress this way, live this way, or you will one day most likely end up in hell-fire.”

Well, if that’s the case, then they are mistaken.

[vladimir998]

And you’re still wrong.

[RegulatorCountry]

At least I’m not obligated to pretend an Old Testament Patriarch had horns.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Commitment to what?

The Amish church.

“Rumspringa or not, walking in the Spirit to not fulfill the lusts of the flesh won’t get any better or worse with a “Rumspringa.”

I agree, but you are confusing Amish legalism with Christianity.

“Rumspringa: a dumb idea whose time to get rid of has come.

Can’t wait to see you change the Amish!

[vladimir998]

"At least I’m not obligated to pretend an Old Testament Patriarch had horns." I'm not obligated nor do I pretend: His face had horns of light - just like the Hebrew text and the Latin text say. The text in question, in the Vulgate, doesn't say "head". It says "face": "et ignorabat quod cornuta esset facies". To paraphrase an online article: The issue is with the Hebrew original. The Hebrew verb in question is qāran. The noun form of qāran, qeren, has as its primary meaning, 'horn,' just like you would find on an animals head. The problem is that the word can refer to horns or horn like objects or rays of light. Compare 1 Kings 1:50 and Habakkuk 3:4. It's easy to see why St. Jerome made the choice he did. His choice was no worse than that of the KJV translators in getting Luke 2:14 wrong. http://www.gracesacramento.org/sermon-resources/pastors-blog/111-bible-translation-and-art Now, the fact that Jerome said "face" and not "head" leads me to believe Jerome was actually getting it right - that he was trying to express rays of light and not horns. As the Protestant editor of Jerome wrote in a footnote: 5236 Cornuta fronte. Literally, “with horned brow.” The allusion is to the rays of light which beamed from the face of Moses, the Hebrew word bearing both meanings, ray and horn. Hence the portraiture of him with horns. and that was in regard to this passage from Jerome: "And yet, perhaps, with your customary humility, you make your boast that the Lord Himself, Who teaches all knowledge, was your master, and that, like Moses in the cloud and darkness, face to face, you hear the words of God, and so, with the 5236 halo round your head, take the lead of us." So, a "halo" was a "horned brow". Get it? http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.pdf There's also this: That Jerome did not mean anything that we would call "horns" is usually demonstrated by a passage from his Commentary on Ezechial: "denique post quadraginta dies, vultum Moysi vulgus ignobile caliganttibus oculis non videbat, quia 'glorificata erat,' sive, ut in hebraico continetur, 'cornuta', facies Moysi". See Mellinkoff, pp. 77-87, for a discussion of the horns from the perspective of translators and commentators. Süring (page 428) points out the improbability of Moses' being ignorant of horns, which, as she also remarks, are said to come not from the forehead, but from the face.] http://penelope.uchicago.edu/pseudodoxia/pseudo59.html Maybe you don't know as much as you think you know.