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

[Gregory Thompson]

Could you translate pouffy for me?

like in a pouuffffff of smoke! hehe

It isn't that I think it's a put-on. I do believe it's real. I wasn't faking it, nor do I think others were. Over-excitement comes closer to the mark. What made me question it, for myself, was that I literally had no control over what came out of my mouth. Someone pointed out that part of the fruit of the Spirit is self-control, and after that, not feeling in control of my tongue or whatever I was saying didn't seem right to me.

Nor do I believe drama is necessary. "Deee-MON, in the NAME of Jesus I COMMAND you..." Just say it. No need to put on a display. The devil flees from the name, not the theatrics. The person who said, "The worst thing you can do to the devil when you meet him is to say, 'pfft, it's only you,'" had a point in my opinion.

I know what you mean i started speaking in tongues not even knowing what it was . and i noticed when i came into contact with the contemporary version it seemed to purposefully ignore all biblical instruction concerning it .

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I think speaking in tounges and the laying on hands and fainting thing in Pentecostal churches are scary tbh...

the trembling bit makes me concerned . considering the scriptures .

which leads me to another doctrine i used to believe but don't anymore

i used to think "slain in the spirit" was a godly thing .. but now i'm not entirely sure .

 

[Metal Minister]

Boy, guess I should toss some out there. Ok, first Arminianism in favor of Calvinism. (Big hat tip to Hammster, Skala, Griff, and CrimsonLeaf for helping me with that!) Second, transubstantiation. (Hope I didn't butcher the spelling too badly!) And thirdly, infant baptism.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Boy, guess I should toss some out there. Ok, first Arminianism in favor of Calvinism. (Big hat tip to Hammster, Skala, Griff, and CrimsonLeaf for helping me with that!) Second, transubstantiation. (Hope I didn't butcher the spelling too badly!) And thirdly, infant baptism.

That reminds me . i used to believe an either or approach to Arminianism or Calvinism was okay . now i believe the premise they're both based on is false .

The eucharist . i understand while taking it both real presence and spiritual presence at the same time . (though i used to think of it as only figurative)

baptism .. i believe Paul said .. i didn't come to baptize but to proclaim the gospel . so i don't put a high emphasis on which is correct .

 

[Metal Minister]

That reminds me . i used to believe an either or approach to Arminianism or Calvinism was okay . now i believe the premise they're both based on is false .

Oh? So which do you believe? Does God already know all who will be saved, or is it up to us?

The eucharist . i understand while taking it both real presence and spiritual presence at the same time . (though i used to think of it as only figurative)

I could post a long winded response, but I'll save that for another thread.

baptism .. i believe Paul said .. i didn't come to baptize but to proclaim the gospel . so i don't put a high emphasis on which is correct .

I am of the opinion, that baptism is an outward declaration of and obedience to, Jesus. Therefore, an infant, who has no idea who Jesus is, cannot declare whether they believe or submit to Jesus, so basically its just getting a baby wet. Lol!

 

[Johnnz]

Originally Posted by Michael Collum

That reminds me . i used to believe an either or approach to Arminianism or Calvinism was okay . now i believe the premise they're both based on is false .
​

Oh? So which do you believe? Does God already know all who will be saved, or is it up to us?

Nowhere is the individual salvation or otherwise of all people taught in the Scriptures.

John
NZ

 

[Gnarwhal]

I guess I could go ahead and give a more in-depth list since this thread is 61 pages in now, heh.

Let's see... Stuff that I used to believe, but now reject:

• Symbolic Eucharist.
• Symbolic Baptism.
• Adult-only Baptism.
• Ecstatic tongues speaking.
• Tongues is some sort of heavenly prayer language and thus private interpretation is acceptable.
• Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria.
• Once Saved, Always Saved.
• That the early church resembled the "four bare walls and a sermon" model that contemporary evangelicalism bases itself on.
• That the church withered away and didn't experience a resurgence until the Reformation.
• Praying for the intercession of the Saints was wrong.
• Confession was unnecessary.
• That all the charismatic stuff is legit.

More to come, maybe...

 

[Metal Minister]

I guess I could go ahead and give a more in-depth list since this thread is 61 pages in now, heh.

Let's see... Stuff that I used to believe, but now reject:

o Symbolic Eucharist.
o Symbolic Baptism.
o Adult-only Baptism.
o Ecstatic tongues speaking.
o Tongues is some sort of heavenly prayer language and thus private interpretation is acceptable.
o Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria.
o Once Saved, Always Saved.
o That the early church resembled the "four bare walls and a sermon" model that contemporary evangelicalism bases itself on.
o That the church withered away and didn't experience a resurgence until the Reformation.
o Praying for the intercession of the Saints was wrong.
o Confession was unnecessary.
o That all the charismatic stuff is legit.

More to come, maybe...

Interesting. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you a few questions regarding some these. First, can you support paedo-baptism scripturally?

 

[sonshine234]

A doctrine I don't believe hmmm...


That Darth Vader was good

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Oh? So which do you believe? Does God already know all who will be saved, or is it up to us?

i believe the premise must be of truth before it can help anyone .

Of course God knows all who will be saved he's omniscient and of course it is up to us that's why he commissioned the apostles

the fact that two things that are equally true are being argued over implies some subversion of the brethren .

I could post a long winded response, but I'll save that for another thread.

sounds like fun .

I am of the opinion, that baptism is an outward declaration of and obedience to, Jesus. Therefore, an infant, who has no idea who Jesus is, cannot declare whether they believe or submit to Jesus, so basically its just getting a baby wet. Lol!

yes . i too used to be of that opinion .

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Originally Posted by Michael Collum

That reminds me . i used to believe an either or approach to Arminianism or Calvinism was okay . now i believe the premise they're both based on is false .
​

Oh? So which do you believe? Does God already know all who will be saved, or is it up to us?

Nowhere is the individual salvation or otherwise of all people taught in the Scriptures.

John
NZ

I used to believe that too . search the scriptures some more

 

[Metal Minister]

i believe the premise must be of truth before it can help anyone .

Of course God knows all who will be saved he's omniscient and of course it is up to us that's why he commissioned the apostles

the fact that two things that are equally true are being argued over implies some subversion of the brethren .

sounds like fun .

yes . i too used to be of that opinion .

You should slide by the soteriology threads then! Or perhaps this one in the "Debate a Calvinist" forum: http://www.christianforums.com/t7765861/ I hope to see you there!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

i hope what i posted was okay . lol

 

[Metal Minister]

i hope what i posted was okay . lol

Oh? What do you mean? I only mentioned the soteriology area so we don't take this thread off topic.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Oh? What do you mean? I only mentioned the soteriology area so we don't take this thread off topic.

i clicked the link and responded . anyway . thanks .

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Here's a can of worms:

I used to believe there was only one true and correct denomination, and all others were false. If you don't find the right one, you might think you're saved, but in the end you'll be lost because you went to the wrong church. Which one was true varied over the years, but I have belonged to three different denominations that make that claim.

 

[Pteriax]

Where's your historical evidence?


Most Christians hold to the real presence or at least are members of faiths that do. So I don't really know what you're talking about, unless this is a no true Scotsman argument.

No they don't. And even if they did, majority does not rule on what is or is not true.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Here's a can of worms:

I used to believe there was only one true and correct denomination, and all others were false. If you don't find the right one, you might think you're saved, but in the end you'll be lost because you went to the wrong church. Which one was true varied over the years, but I have belonged to three different denominations that make that claim.

yeah .. i know, right?

 

[Pteriax]

Here's a can of worms:

I used to believe there was only one true and correct denomination, and all others were false. If you don't find the right one, you might think you're saved, but in the end you'll be lost because you went to the wrong church. Which one was true varied over the years, but I have belonged to three different denominations that make that claim.

Which denominations were they?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Oh yeah the old teaching you need to believe the whole bible to be saved .