Name a doctrine that you used to believe in but dont anymore.

[Knee V]

Simply what the RCC teaches, in Trent and other documents. I understand that you are not Roman Catholic, so perhaps your understanding is different than theirs. I will admit I do not know as much about the other big 'C' denominations as I do the RCC.

Fair enough.

 

[Tzaousios]

Arminian theology vs Calvinist theology. Arminian teaches that You choose to get saved by your own act of faith. Calvinism teaches that God saves you by giving you that faith. So Arminians believe that they help God out a bit in their salvation. I don't believe that is supported scripturally and I do not believe it makes much sense logically.

I understand. However, Eastern Orthodoxy operates within a historical framework that is outside of the Reformation of Western Europe. The Western Church really did not even get into anything close to it until Augustine had to ramp things up against the Pelagians.

Even then, Arminianism ≠ Pelagianism, and Augustinianism ≠ Calvinism, despite however much internet Neocalvinist apologists want to grandfather him in as one and the same.

 

[Knee V]

I understand. However, Eastern Orthodoxy operates within a historical framework that is outside of the Reformation of Western Europe. The Western Church really did not even get into anything close to it until Augustine had to ramp things up against the Pelagians.

Even then, Arminianism ? Pelagianism, and Augustinianism ? Calvinism, despite however much internet Neocalvinist apologists want to grandfather him in as one and the same.

Indeed. Augustine was very "Catholic": sacramentally, ecclesiologically, soteriologically, etc.

The Orthodox are vehementally opposed to Pelagianism, and any attempt to label us as Pelagian is grossly inaccurate (not that anyone on this thread has thus far). We are also patently not semi-Pelagian. However, our reasons for opposing them differ from Augustine's reasons. And since we don't entirely agree with Augustine, we are often accused of agreeing with Pelagius. But we most certainly do not.

 

[Rick Otto]

Perhaps you could do well to turn your blazing sixguns on some of the resident numerologists in the Eschatology subforum.

Now you're tempting me to bring out my roaring howitzers, & my screaming missles.

 

[Knee V]

Indeed. Augustine was very "Catholic": sacramentally, ecclesiologically, soteriologically, etc.

The Orthodox are vehementally opposed to Pelagianism, and any attempt to label us as Pelagian is grossly inaccurate (not that anyone on this thread has thus far). We are also patently not semi-Pelagian. However, our reasons for opposing them differ from Augustine's reasons. And since we don't entirely agree with Augustine, we are often accused of agreeing with Pelagius. But we most certainly do not.

Pelagius' error was teaching that man is able to make certain spiritual achievements apart from God's grace. Augustine's rebuttal was that man needs God's grace because of original sin; that sin put us in a condition where we need God's grace. The problem that the East has with that, particularly as articulated by John Cassian, is that it begs the question: "What if we never sinned? Would we therefore not need God's grace?" The Orthodox reaponse to Pelagius is: all that is not-God requires God's grace for it's very existence, and has nothing of itself and depends on God for everything, whether it acknowledges Him or not. Even if we never sinned we could do nothing apart from God's grace. Thus, to use the Western term, all grace is "prevenient grace".

 

[Rick Otto]

Even then, Arminianism ≠ Pelagianism,

What's the dif? Don't they both posit freedom of the will & faith before regeneration? Doesn't that effectively put man's salvation in his own hands?

 

[Knee V]

I understand. However, Eastern Orthodoxy operates within a historical framework that is outside of the Reformation of Western Europe. The Western Church really did not even get into anything close to it until Augustine had to ramp things up against the Pelagians.

Even then, Arminianism ? Pelagianism, and Augustinianism ? Calvinism, despite however much internet Neocalvinist apologists want to grandfather him in as one and the same.

This is one of the things that brought me to reject the Reformed faith. While paying lip service to the idea that tradition is good for helping develop the proper context for interpreting Scripture, the only link to the hostorical understanding of Scripture is a skewed understanding of selected passages from one theologian (Augustine) in one segment of the Church, and then projecting that understanding onto Scripture, especially onto the Apostle Paul.

 

[Knee V]

What's the dif? Don't they both posit freedom of the will & faith before regeneration? Doesn't that effectively put man's salvation in his own hands?

You believe in one God and that Jesus rose from the dead. So how are you different from the Mormons?

 

[MamaZ]

So you mean that the Holy Spirit delivers the correct, God-sent interpretation for you every single time that you read the Word?

Do you believe man can do any better? The Lord has established His word forever. I believe if one comes to the scriptures wanting to seek and desire after truth that we shall know the truth. For Jesus tells us to continue in His word and we shall know the truth and the truth shall set us free.. John tells us we need no man to teach us. So when I go to the scriptures I go with faith knowing that My Father will teach me His word and the Meaning of His word. I do not need to go to man to learn of my Father and what He wants me to know.. I go to my Father through Christ my Lord and His annointing in me teaches me all things.. Now do you believe men can do any better than that? I am not an orphan begging for a fathers love.. I am a child of the Most awesome I Am and I desire to know what He is trying to teach me..For I want my whole life to mimic His..

 

[Knee V]

What's the dif? Don't they both posit freedom of the will & faith before regeneration? Doesn't that effectively put man's salvation in his own hands?

Pelagianism is a very specific heresy. Arminians are not Pelagians.

 

[MamaZ]

You believe in one God and that Jesus rose from the dead. So how are you different from the Mormons?

Kind of like a pot calling a kettle here. Do you even know mormon doctrine?

 

[Rick Otto]

Pelagius' error was teaching that man is able to make certain spiritual achievements apart from God's grace. Augustine's rebuttal was that man needs God's grace because of original sin; that sin put us in a condition where we need God's grace. The problem that the East has with that, particularly as articulated by John Cassian, is that it begs the question: "What if we never sinned? Would we therefore not need God's grace?" The Orthodox reaponse to Pelagius is: all that is not-God requires God's grace for it's very existence, and has nothing of itself and depends on God for everything, whether it acknowledges Him or not. Even if we never sinned we could do nothing apart from God's grace. Thus, to use the Western term, all grace is "prevenient grace".

And yet not all grace is salvific.
So my answer to John Cassian is that only Jesus could achieve never having sinned.

 

[Tzaousios]

What's the dif? Don't they both posit freedom of the will & faith before regeneration? Doesn't that effectively put man's salvation in his own hands?

In the realm of apologetics, yes, it usually means that it does. However, I do not think that Arminians would affirm that their salvation is ultimately "in their own hands."

 

[Knee V]

Kind of like a pot calling a kettle here. Do you even know mormon doctrine?

It was a rhetorical question.

 

[Rick Otto]

Pelagianism is a very specific heresy. Arminians are not Pelagians.

I hope you didn't intend that as an answer to my question "What's the dif?"

 

[Knee V]

And yet not all grace is salvific.
So my answer to John Cassian is that only Jesus could achieve never having sinned.

We also reject the tendency to compartmentalize grace. Grace is grace, just like water is water. We may use water to do different things, but it's still the aame water. Likewise, God may do different things with His grace, but it's still His grace nonetheless, and not a different kind of grace. The same grace that sustains and disciplines and creates is the same grace that saves.

 

[Knee V]

I hope you didn't intend that as an answer to my question "What's the dif?"

No. My question about being a Mormon was my answer to that.

 

[Rick Otto]

In the realm of apologetics, yes, it usually means that it does. However, I do not think that Arminians would affirm that their salvation is ultimately "in their own hands."

Of course THEY wouldn't overtly, yet they believe they can make or break it by their own behavior. It is the cognitive dissonance essential to the position. It's like Romans claiming they don't worship Mary while their own magesterium defines & endorses "hyper-dulia". It's classic "Emperor's New Clothes - ianism" a term I just coined. Spend it wisely.

 

[Knee V]

Of course THEY wouldn't overtly, yet they believe they can make or break it by their own behavior. It is the cognitive dissonance essential to the position. It's like Romans claiming they don't worship Mary while their own magesterium defines & endorses "hyper-dulia". It's classic "Emperor's New Clothes - ianism" a term I just coined. Spend it wisely.

But I suppose that that doesn't apply to Sola Scriptura and making the individual the final arbiter of truth based on what he thinks the Bible means to him?

 

[Rick Otto]

We also reject the tendency to compartmentalize grace. Grace is grace, just like water is water. We may use water to do different things, but it's still the aame water. Likewise, God may do different things with His grace, but it's still His grace nonetheless, and not a different kind of grace. The same grace that sustains and disciplines and creates is the same grace that saves.

We humans compartmentalize water depending on its purpose.
Grace is grace, but fithy water can kill you. The distinctions between the grace of general providence whereby the world is made liveable, & saving grace that imparts salvation are valid & necessary.
I suggest you compartmentalize.