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

[Pteriax]

How are you biased? Also, if you are biased, does it also follow that you are "wrong" in what you say?

No. Everyone is biased. Some people are still right and others are wrong.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Indeed; being rational and gathering evidence and drawing correct conclusions from the evidence is not fair!

Both rationalism and empiricism fail as means to obtain truth, they fail on the meta level.

In attempting to defend the faith you will not deny the non-Christian can be rational and interpret evidence, and your method always leaves the back door open to probability. To put it another way, autonomy is no ladder to Theonomy.

Empiracle evidences are not self-interpreting, and rationalism cannot escape subjectivism, not unless we begin with Christ, and for the Christian rationalist, how can the axiom be logic, when logic is grounded in the being of God?

 

[Tzaousios]

No. Everyone is biased. Some people are still right and others are wrong.

Okay, but how specifically are you biased? Also, there were other parts to my question.

 

[Pteriax]

Okay, but how specifically are you biased? Also, there were other parts to my question.

Personal experiences both good and bad, and a study of scripture and various things relating to scripture. Originally in that order, but now scripture first, then the other bits equally in relation to each other (but below scripture).

 

[Tzaousios]

Personal experiences both good and bad, and a study of scripture and various things relating to scripture. Originally in that order, but now scripture first, then the other bits equally in relation to each other (but below scripture).

As do other people. In the end, though, how does your particular set of biases lead you into the right, and others into the wrong, though even they might also study Scripture first?

 

[nephilimiyr]

You would be surprised. It is the "purest of the pure" who are the most belligerent about it. However, a good deal of them hold a pretty strict literalism as the default position.

Yes, I would be surprised, because after I left the Roman Catholic Church, after having been born and raised in it, there was a period of time I went through where I went to several mainline Protestant denominations. I found some to be "belligerant", just like some Catholics I knew, on several of their doctrains and theologies. The difference I found was that the Catholics use alot of extra biblical writtings to base some of their beliefs on, in which they can take as very literal, where the Protestants stick with the Bible. And no, I don't accept any of the apocrypha books as scripture.

They reject the notion that they interpret or that any interpretation is needed.

Sola Scripture is all about scripture interpreting itself, you're misinterpreting what they're/we're saying and doing. That doesn't surprise me though because most, if not all, Catholics/Orthodox simply don't understand the concept.

Yes some do take too much of the Bible too literal, I'm not saying none do. But when a person comes here and basically says that if you don't believe in the Eurcharist in the sameway the Catholics/Orthodox do then you're not following a literal reading of the Bible. LOL, well who now is following a too literal view?

But it isn't about the literal view, it's about how the Bible interprets itself. The NT gives very clear instructions on what one has to do to be Holy Spirit filled, Christ filled, and walking in power and authority over sin and circumstances, none of which includes the breaking of bread and drinking wine together. So you tell me, who's taking this last super story too literal?

They do not pay much attention to genre and whether or not different genres use allegory or metaphor. The mentality seems to be that if any of those things are admitted, then one is somehow "denying" or "relativizing" Scripture as the authority for the Christian faith.

Good grief, yeah, you're right. I've read about some of these obscure Protestant, mostly non-denominational churches going over-board in their literal interpretations, I think we all have. But to paint most, or "many" that do?

I realize that you and alot of your Catholic/Orthodox church members have these opinions about Protestants. Maybe that's why I'm here? To fight against the ignorance.

 

[Pteriax]

As do other people. In the end, though, how does your particular set of biases lead you into the right, and others into the wrong, though even they might also study Scripture first?

They don't. All who are saved are dragged to it by God. People hate truth, and they hate God. But He pulls people to Him daily. And they learn a different way, a way of loving truth and loving God. I seek the truth because I love the truth. People who come to a false conclusion love their sin more than the truth. I am not saying that anyone who disagrees with me is unsaved, I am sure someone would love to make that claim so I am stopping it right here. I was saved long before I had the understanding I have now. Regeneration is a process that takes time, but salvation is instant. I used to love my sin. In fact back then I would have said I hated it, but looking back I can see that I was wrong. One day you might look back on this and see your own wrongness. At least I hope so, but it is really up to God and only God. Of course I am also not saying I know everything. I learn new things every day, and there are so many things to learn that I won't know it all if I live a hundred years. But I do know that the Catholics have it wrong. I used to believe differently, in a time when I simply trusted people and had not read the Bible for myself. As I said before a read through the Bible and the grace of God cured me of that.

 

[Tzaousios]

I realize that you and alot of your Catholic/Orthodox church members have these opinions about Protestants. Maybe that's why I'm here? To fight against the ignorance.

I keep no secrets about my affinity for Eastern Orthodoxy and the church fathers. However, I say all of this as a Christian who spent his entire life in an Evangelical Protestant church and still attends one for certain reasons. I am not Orthodox or Roman Catholic.

 

[Tzaousios]

They don't.

How do you know? You claim to do so and so do they. By fruit inspection?

I seek the truth because I love the truth.

They also claim to do the same. Now what, more fruit inspection?

Regeneration is a process that takes time, but salvation is instant.

Most Calvinists would say that regeneration precedes acceptance of the Gospel and salvation. Why are you different in this regard?

One day you might look back on this and see your own wrongness. At least I hope so, but it is really up to God and only God.

Please tell me what constitutes my wrongness as you observe it and be specific.

I used to believe differently, in a time when I simply trusted people and had not read the Bible for myself.

Now you do what, trust your own particular reading and interpretation of Scripture as filtered through your "right" set of biases?

 

[nephilimiyr]

No. Everyone is biased. Some people are still right and others are wrong.

I don't know if I have the context right in what you two are talking about but I don't think I'm biased, at least not much. I mean, I was born and raised as a Roman Catholic. I'm very thankful for by upbringing in that church. It's where I was taught about the Bible and where I met Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. But I don't have a biased for or against it and likewise towards the Protestant church.

I left the church once I became a legal adult, and I left for reasons that mostly didn't have alot to do arguements on doctrine or theology. At the time it just didn't matter to me much. I do now have arguements about their doctrines and theologies but I rarily discuss them or even think about them. I mainly discuss my difference's with other protestant's and submitt my arguements to them on thier theologies.

 

[nephilimiyr]

I keep no secrets about my affinity for Eastern Orthodoxy and the church fathers. However, I say all of this as a Christian who spent his entire life in an Evangelical Protestant church and still attends one for certain reasons. I am not Orthodox or Roman Catholic.

Ok, but please don't generalize on us Protestants. So you were brought up as an evangelical, I wasn't. I'm not saying your experience isn't valid or your opinions aren't either, they are.

I was brought up in the RCC and had a good experience, my wife, who was also brought up in the RCC had an absolutely terrible experience in the RCC, and she generalises even over some of my protests.

 

[Tzaousios]

Ok, but please don't generalize on us Protestants. So you were brought up as an evangelical, I wasn't. I'm not saying your experience isn't valid or your opinions aren't either, they are.

How was I generalizing, exactly? It was not my purpose to make a point using hyperbole. The methodology for interpreting Scripture that I described has been true across the board for the Evangelical Protestant churches that I have attended or visited throughout my life.

 

[Pteriax]

How do you know? You claim to do so and so do they. By fruit inspection?

That's one way, sure, but it is God who leads to truth not bias.

They also claim to do the same. Now what, more fruit inspection?

Knowing by fruits is in scripture. Or are you suggesting that various denominations all appear to have some fruit or other so the method itself is flawed? Not sure what you are getting at here? Everyone always claims truth. Who in their right mind would say they are living a lie? I have expressed my reasons for believing I know better than Catholics, SDAs, and other similar groups.

Most Calvinists would say that regeneration precedes acceptance of the Gospel and salvation. Why are you different in this regard?

I think I have said before that I strictly five points in my Calvinism. I wouldn't even know, nor would I care what other doctrines they teach. I discovered all five points in Bible study, and there may very well be other things I agree with Calvin on, and I know there are things I would disagree on as well. I do not define myself by Calvinism, I define myself by what I know of scripture and God. Regeneration may very well begin before salvation, but I was saved by God very young and regeneration has been a slow and difficult process in which I placed my sins above God repeatedly and when I finally removed a particular sin it was replaced by another for a long time. This process has accelerated hundredfold lately, but it was quite slow for a while. I really saw God changing me and my life when I finally truly surrendered all to Him. I was saved the moment God saved me though.

Please tell me what constitutes my wrongness as you observe it and be specific.

Okay, I know you are not Catholic, but you routinely defend their heretical doctrines and practices. That would be wrong. This is just what I have observed, anything else would be speculation.

Now you do what, trust your own particular reading and interpretation of Scripture as filtered through your "right" set of biases?

I don't think I would call it that. God teaches me through His Word, through other true believers, and through life experiences. What do you trust?

 

[Pteriax]

I don't know if I have the context right in what you two are talking about but I don't think I'm biased, at least not much. I mean, I was born and raised as a Roman Catholic. I'm very thankful for by upbringing in that church. It's where I was taught about the Bible and where I met Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. But I don't have a biased for or against it and likewise towards the Protestant church.

I left the church once I became a legal adult, and I left for reasons that mostly didn't have alot to do arguements on doctrine or theology. At the time it just didn't matter to me much. I do now have arguements about their doctrines and theologies but I rarily discuss them or even think about them. I mainly discuss my difference's with other protestant's and submitt my arguements to them on thier theologies.

I personally think that everyone has some degree of bias from culture, upbringing, schooling, life experiences, and so forth. How we perceive the world is based on this bias. Some can set aside their bias to a degree, but I am unsure if anyone can truly fully separate themselves from it. That is what I was referring to.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

“The method of reasoning by presupposition may be said to be indirect rather than direct. The issue between believers and non-believers in Christian theism cannot be settled by a direct appeal to “facts” or “laws” whose nature and significance is already agreed upon by both parties to debate. The question is rather as to what is the final reference-point required to make the “facts” and “laws” intelligible. The question is as to what the “facts” and “laws” really are. Are they what the non-Christian methodology assumes that they are? Are they what the Christian theistic methodology presupposes they are?

The answer to this question cannot be finally settled by any direct discussion of “facts.” It must, in the last analysis be settled indirectly. The Christian apologist must place himself upon the position of his opponent, assuming the correctness of his method merely for argument’s sake, in order to show him that on such a position the “facts” are not facts and the “laws” are not laws. He must also ask the non-Christian to place himself upon the Christian position for argument’s sake in order that he may be shown that only upon such a basis do “facts” and “laws” appear intelligible.

To admit one’s own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning. The starting-point, the method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another.” – Dr. Cornelius Van Til from “Apologetics” Chapter 4 Reasoning By Presupposition

I recommend the following:

“Between Scylla and Charybdis: Presuppositionalism, Circular Reasoning, and the Charge of Fideism.”- Presented at the 2009 annual conference of the Evangelical Theological Society.

Presuppositionalism and Circularity…Again? A Response to Paul Copan

Answering Objections to Presuppositionalism by K. Scott Oliphint

Circular Reasoning

Presuppositional Apologetics by John Frame (article in the IVP Dictionary of Apologetics)

Short quote from Frame's article:

"I would say that it is best for presuppositionalists to respond to the question of circularity as follows: (1) As Van Til says, circular argument of a kind is unavoidable when we argue for an ultimate standard of truth. One who believes that human reason is the ultimate standard can argue that view only by appealing to reason. One who believes that the Bible is the ultimate standard can argue only by appealing to the Bible. Since all positions partake equally of circularity at this level, it cannot be a point of criticism against any of them.

(2) Narrowly circular arguments, like “the Bible is God’s Word, because it is God’s Word” can hardly be persuasive. But more broadly circular arguments can be. An example of a more broadly circular argument might be “The Bible is God’s Word, because it makes the following claims…, makes the following predictions that have been fulfilled…, presents these credible accounts of miracles…, is supported by these archaeological discoveries…, etc.” Now this argument is as circular as the last if, in the final analysis, the criteria for evaluating its claims, its predictions, its accounts of miracles, and the data of archaeology are criteria based on a biblical worldview and epistemology. But it is a broader argument in the sense that it presents more data to the non-Christian and challenges him to consider it seriously.

(3) God created our minds to think within the Christian circle: hearing God’s Word obediently and interpreting our experience by means of that Word. That is the only legitimate way to think, and we cannot abandon it to please the unbeliever. A good psychologist will not abandon reality as he perceives it to communicate with a delusional patient; so must it be with apologists.

(4) In the final analysis, saving knowledge of God comes supernaturally. We can be brought from one circle to another only by God’s supernatural grace."

Circular argument: "(1) argument in which the conclusion of an argument is one of its premises; (2) argument assuming something that would ordinarily not be assumed by someone who didn’t believe the conclusion. See Bahnsen, 518ff, Frame, 299 ff." A Van Til Glossary

"A Trinitarian understanding of language requires also a Trinitarian reform of logic. How shall we think about logic? Logic deals with reasoning. Reasoning is a kind of processing of language or thought or both. Shall we focus on language or on thought? As we have already seen, language and thought are analogically related. The same fundamental truths hold for both. But because language is in a sense more “accessible” for public discussion, we continue our focus on language. All the conclusions apply to thought as well as language.

Logic, then, works on pieces of language. Our conception of language thus influences our conception of logic. The supposed character of the pieces of language forms the basis on which logic must work. Hence, pagan misconceptions concerning language and categories are bound to affect pagan conceptions of logic.....

Thus, within Aristotle’s system, syllogisms can operate only with unitarian ontology. Hence syllogistic reasoning is itself tacitly unitarian. Only so can one claim that the reasoning is mechanically valid.

The nineteenth and twentieth centuries have seen the rise of alternative accounts of logic, by Frege, Russell and Whitehead, C. I. Lewis, and Arend Heyting, among others. There are considerable variations. But all formalized logics retain the fundamental Aristotelian approach to categories. In order for the logics to work, the categories must be perfectly stable, in the unitarian sense.11

Do we then throw out logic, and become pure irrationalists? Certainly not. God is faithful and does not lie (Num 23:19). Jesus Christ is the truth (John 14:6) and opposes lying (John 8:44-45). God’s loyalty to himself forms the only foundation for logical consistency. Pagan logics are attractive and plausible because, for all their idolatry, they are parasitic on the self-consistency of God.

Hence, we do not eliminate logic, but we reform it. God’s self-consistency is the foundation for all human consistency. God’s self-consistency is intrinsically Trinitarian in character. Hence reformed logic will be analogically Trinitarian. In this article we can only sketch the basic directions that such a reform may take." John M. Frame from the article "REFORMING ONTOLOGY AND LOGIC IN THE LIGHT OF THE TRINITY"

Finally, check this out: Logic: A God Centered Approach by Vern Poythress

 

[Tzaousios]

That's one way, sure, but it is God who leads to truth not bias.

I know this. However, you have not explained how you, with your own biases, come out in the right while everyone else claiming the same is wrong. Does God lead you every single time to the unbiased truth and that is what you end up expressing?

Knowing by fruits is in scripture. Or are you suggesting that various denominations all appear to have some fruit or other so the method itself is flawed?

No, I was asking if this was the primary method by which you have deduced rightness from wrongness when you assess doctrine, despite having your own set of biases.

I have expressed my reasons for believing I know better than Catholics, SDAs, and other similar groups.

Really? It is difficult to detect.

You have given the impression that you happen to interpret Scripture correctly every single time. Other times you have given the impression that you do not interpret at all. Similarly, you have indicated that somehow the set of biases through which you filter doctrinal information is somehow right over and against other sets of biases which are "wrong." What are your reasons, exactly?

Okay, I know you are not Catholic, but you routinely defend their heretical doctrines and practices. That would be wrong. This is just what I have observed, anything else would be speculation.

No, it is because usually people do not ask me specifically what I think about doctrines they think are Catholic "heresies." It is just at this stage of the game I find more troubling the actual practices and expressions of Evangelical Protestants towards deducing Catholic and Orthodox errors than I do my reasons for disagreeing with certain doctrines.

I don't think I would call it that. God teaches me through His Word, through other true believers, and through life experiences.

What would you call it then since you have already admitted to holding a set of biases? What are "true believers," exactly, only Evangelical Protestants who profess your conception of sola scriptura?

The import of my question remains un-addressed. Since you have admitted to holding a set of biases, and at times admit to interpreting Scripture, is it those interpretations you have actually come to place your trust in?

What do you trust?

I hope that is not a loaded question.

 

[Metal Minister]

Therefore all who do not overcome shall be hurt by the second death . it's related to the corinthians verse . The consuming fire of the lake of fire is the presence of God . so it's not a contradiction . it's just a shift in perception .

Lake of fire =\= purgatory
Lake of fire = hell

 

[nephilimiyr]

How was I generalizing, exactly? It was not my purpose to make a point using hyperbole. The methodology for interpreting Scripture that I described has been true across the board for the Evangelical Protestant churches that I have attended or visited throughout my life.

Here's your post:

You would be surprised. It is the "purest of the pure" who are the most belligerent about it. However, a good deal of them hold a pretty strict literalism as the default position.

They reject the notion that they interpret or that any interpretation is needed. They do not pay much attention to genre and whether or not different genres use allegory or metaphor. The mentality seems to be that if any of those things are admitted, then one is somehow "denying" or "relativizing" Scripture as the authority for the Christian faith.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by "a good deal of them".

If you weren't generalizing, I'm sorry, but I would still say I disagree with your opinion on saying a good deal of them. I've never heard or witnessed in anyway any protestant ever saying that no interpretation is needed, quite the contrary. I don't see a good deal of Protestants not paying attention to genre and not recognizing allegory or metaphor, although some miss it. I see alot of Protestants not paying attention to Church history.

As for that one statement, "Scripture as the authority for the Christian faith", I agree with.

 

[Pteriax]

I know this. However, you have not explained how you, with your own biases, come out in the right while everyone else claiming the same is wrong. Does God lead you every single time to the unbiased truth and that is what you end up expressing?

Not everyone else is wrong. And I am not right 100% of the time either. There are specific truths that I have been expressing however that I do believe God has led me to.

No, I was asking if this was the primary method by which you have deduced rightness from wrongness when you assess doctrine, despite having your own set of biases.

No. Fruit is one way, but so is comparing to history, scripture, and logic among others.

Really? It is difficult to detect.

You have given the impression that you happen to interpret Scripture correctly every single time. Other times you have given the impression that you do not interpret at all. Similarly, you have indicated that somehow the set of biases through which you filter doctrinal information is somehow right over and against other sets of biases which are "wrong." What are your reasons, exactly?

I have said more than once that I am not always right. I tend to focus on issues that I am most confident about when posting here though, so I can see how you would get that impression. I struggle to understand parts of Hebrews, big chunks of the OT, and my interpretation of Revelation keeps changing - I am not really certain of much in Revelation. Does it help to know that I recognize my own weaknesses?
I don't believe I even said I don't interpret, I think it is common sense that everyone interprets.
If I had an absolute reason that would work from every perspective, no one would disagree with me. I am not saying my biases are right, I am saying that God has led me to the truth DESPITE my biases.

No, it is because usually people do not ask me specifically what I think about doctrines they think are Catholic "heresies." It is just at this stage of the game I find more troubling the actual practices and expressions of Evangelical Protestants towards deducing Catholic and Orthodox errors than I do my reasons for disagreeing with certain doctrines.

okay.

What would you call it then since you have already admitted to holding a set of biases? What are "true believers," exactly, only Evangelical Protestants who profess your conception of sola scriptura?

The import of my question remains un-addressed. Since you have admitted to holding a set of biases, and at times admit to interpreting Scripture, is it those interpretations you have actually come to place your trust in?

No, no.. I think there are professing Catholics who are true believers (I.E. saved). Some theologies are more correct than others and will have more followers of that theology saved I think. I think that you have to know a bit about God to believe in Him (such as He exists as a trinity, He is holy, etc), otherwise you could be believing in a false god but using all the Christian terminology so you fool yourself and others into thinking you are saved.

No, I place my trust in God. I believe He has led me to those interpretations.

I hope that is not a loaded question.

No. You asked me, and it made me curious about you.

 

[Tzaousios]

I've never heard or witnessed in anyway any protestant ever saying that no interpretation is needed, quite the contrary.

Okay, but then the question must be asked: do they make interpretation and then refuse to admit it, or perhaps do they conflate interpretation with "what the Bible plainly says"? These things often are manifestations of saying that no interpretation is needed.

I don't see a good deal of Protestants not paying attention to genre and not recognizing allegory or metaphor.

Oh? The waffling between default literalism and allegory/metaphor happens all the time concerning the Evangelical Protestant understanding of the Eucharist. It must be allegory or metaphor in order for their presuppositions about what Catholics believe to be maintained. Then there is the taking of the Song of Songs as a kind of God-permitted sex manual from which rockstar pastors can take all sorts of cues for 60 Day Marital Sex sermon series and so forth.

I see alot of Protestants not paying attention to Church history.

Well, we both agree entirely here.