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

[Knee V]

I think it is very puzzling that Sproul would appeal to Harnack for anything considering some of the unorthodox opinions he held about the deity of Christ and role of Paul in the early church.

And I think it is very puzzling that anyone would appeal to Sproul given his blatantly Nestorian views.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

unorthodox is besttt

Not on CF

http://www.christianforums.com/f130/
Unorthodox Theology A forum to discuss/debate theological doctrines not accepted by mainstream evangelical Christianity (eg. Full Preterism, Unitarianism) Orthodox* and Unorthodox members welcome

UTD Statement of Purpose

Welcome to Unorthodox Theology. UT is a forum for all discussion of unorthodox theology and fellowship. This is a Christian only area, however both orthodox and unorthodox Christians are welcome to post here. This is a statement that identifies the purpose of this forum and delineates how the rules will be applied here.

.

 

[Knee V]

Isn't that being a little "closed minded"?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=...-1YlmZjvMMp-Ydn2JeE2Nsew&ust=1376278630962867

.

I spent my teens and early 20s reading the likes of Sproul and others and accepting their take on pre-Reformation history as gospel truth. Looking at that history myself, and moving beyond the Reformation, I found that those commentators really had little clue what they were talking about.

 

[sonshine234]

Uh, she said yes like six times.....

No, she provided essay's six times not a simple yes or no. On other threads she denied this and even the Trinity as Christian understand it, I would likr to know where she stands

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Isn't that being a little "closed minded"?
​

I spent my teens and early 20s reading the likes of Sproul and others and accepting their take on pre-Reformation history as gospel truth.
Looking at that history myself, and moving beyond the Reformation, I found that those commentators really had little clue what they were talking about.

Perhaps you were too young back then to better understand the Reformation?

http://www.christianforums.com/t2562238/
Was God behind the Reformation? [Poll thread]





.

 

[Rick Otto]

Huh?

First of all, why would you start with video #3 and not video #1?

In any case, contextually, "Esau have I hated" is definitely about the nation of Edom. Read where it was originally said in Malachi, more than 1,000 years after Esau was dead, for context and don't let heretics like Calvin deceive you.

I wasn't ready to devote 50 min. for deliverance from heresy hell, I guess. With that many videos, I had to perform triage & I figured from my experience that 1& 2 were intro & warm up to the meat of detail, so I took a shot, not willing to abruptly dismiss you on account of some loveable bombast about Calvin, lol.

"In any case", you're re-iterating what I agreed to - that Esau & Jacob are about nations, but that whole issue between nations was in the context of the individual destinies. So it is in Paul's instance to back up his assertions of God's sovereignity - over every lump of clay, so to speak.
Malachi's reference in contrast to Paul's, was not about the individuals & their sovereignly concluded destinies, rather Malachi is addressing the sins of the nation (by way of the pristhood) offering defective instead of unblemished animals, etc.
Paul was using the example to point out God's sovereignity in grace & election, which is not limited to nations (which are simply collections of individuals).
Not all views of predestination are incompatible with moral responsibility but in any case, I understand the concern & how it impacts our sense of self, to contemplate the limits of our abilities to control ourselves.

Paul goes on to repeat his point on God's sovereignity with the clay example, voicing the complaint about being held moraly responsible after being molded by God. Paul sais it's a matter of jurisdiction by way of saying we have no standing before God on our own merits ("Who art tho~) & in verses 22&23 explains why God does all this to us who would judge God to be on an ego trip.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

As a general rule, don't listen to the Reformed for an understanding of pre-Reformation history.

I suppose the rule also includes avoiding Church historian Philip Schaff, and his translations of pre-Reformed history, and while we're at it, avoid Jewish history written by Gentiles, and New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament...

We can't truss dem dirty Protestants, the Holy Spirit guideth dem nay into truff. Nay dey couldn't interpret deir way outta a wet paper bag! Dey have impure motives an inferior minds, an lack an ability to distinguish their bias in de process of interpretation! Nay I say!

 

[Johnnz]

Salvation is all about getting into heaven - that is something I no longer hold to.

John
NZ

 

[Knee V]

I suppose the rule also includes avoiding Church historian Philip Schaff, and his translations of pre-Reformed history, and while we're at it, avoid Jewish history written by Gentiles, and New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament...

We can't truss dem dirty Protestants, the Holy Spirit guideth dem nay into truff. Nay dey couldn't interpret deir way outta a wet paper bag! Dey have impure motives an inferior minds, an lack an ability to distinguish their bias in de process of interpretation! Nay I say!

No, it's just a faulty set of presuppositions that get projected onto the early church.

 

[Knee V]

Salvation is all about getting into heaven - that is something I no longer hold to.

John
NZ

Indeed. As if the whole point of Christ coming and dying and rising was to ensure that we have an an eternity of nice stuff.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

No, it's just a faulty set of presuppositions that get projected onto the early church.

Which is why only the Reformed can understand my posts.

 

[Dunban]

Salvation is all about getting into heaven - that is something I no longer hold to.

John
NZ

I agree, though I don't think I ever thought that way. Maybe for a few weeks after first "accepting Christ" and following all the dots and tittles of what it means to be a real Christian.

 

[Knee V]

Which is why only the Reformed can understand my posts.

I grew up Reformed. While I have come to reject the system, I am still well versed in the arguments and proof texts and the frame of mind required to believe in it.

 

[Knee V]

I am off to bed. Good night.

 

[Tzaousios]

I suppose the rule also includes avoiding Church historian Philip Schaff, and his translations of pre-Reformed history, and while we're at it, avoid Jewish history written by Gentiles, and New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament...

God bless Schaff for presiding over such a monumental collection of translations of patristic material, which is still handy to read despite being superseded by more recent translations.

Nevertheless, he was not such a dispassionate "historian." If you look at the footnotes to the translations and the introductions there is all sorts of complaining about "Romanism," "popery," and nefarious "Greek philosophy." As knee-v said, it is projecting Reformed presuppositions onto pre-Reformation material.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

God bless Schaff for presiding over such a monumental collection of translations of patristic material, which is still handy to read despite being superseded by more recent translations.

Nevertheless, he was not such a dispassionate "historian." If you look at the footnotes to the translations and the introductions there is all sorts of complaining about "Romanism," "popery," and nefarious "Greek philosophy." As knee-v said, it is projecting Reformed presuppositions onto pre-Reformation material.

Like any good historian worth their weight in gold, he separated his thoughts, from the translation, although translating history, and putting it into one's own words are two different things. As we know most of the textbooks used in public education do not contain much from primary sources, and yet few will question their accuracy or lack thereof.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I grew up Reformed. While I have come to reject the system, I am still well versed in the arguments and proof texts and the frame of mind required to believe in it.

I've never really been an Atheist (so far as I can remember), but I am well versed in their arguments and frame of mind, the variations of, enough to understand their position and communicate it. Eleven or twelve years ago I spent more than a year discussing and debating with them on nearly a daily basis, I've listened to many debates, etc.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Salvation is all about getting into heaven - that is something I no longer hold to.

John
NZ

Which begs the question:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7653523/
Can a Christian lose their Salvation?

Rev 12:10
And I heard a great voice saying in the heaven "Now did come the Salvation and the power and the reign of our God and the authority of His Christ,
because cast down was the accuser of our brethren, who is accusing them before our God day and night"
Rev 19:1
And after these things I heard a great voice of a great multitude in the heaven, saying "Alleluia! the Salvation, and the glory and the honour and the power, [is] to the Lord our God







.

 

[MamaZ]

No, she provided essay's six times not a simple yes or no. On other threads she denied this and even the Trinity as Christian understand it, I would likr to know where she stands

This is untruth being told here.. I have told you many times over. Even when told you reject it for what you want to hold on to. I stand in Christ. Where do you stand?

 

[MamaZ]

Again, you danced around the question. If the Holy Spirit delivers God's own interpretation to you EVERY TIME you read the Bible, what happens when your interpretation differs from that of another with whom on most other matters it normally agrees?

I dig deeper into the scripture to see the fullness of what the HS inspired men to write. As I read the scripture and trust in my Father God to teach me I take His golden nuggets of truth and they are hidden in my heart and through my life I see them unfold and have answers to my questions.

For this is what John has instucted us and I follow after the scripture as truth..
25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. 27As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him

Others may think another way but as for me I seek what the Lord teaches me and not what men try to teach me.. I take all things to the scripture to see if they line up with what is being said.