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

[MoreCoffee]

In the early church, say the first 500 years or so, can you cite any bishop or priest who denied baptismal regeneration?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Thanks.

We still haven't seen the evidence for all the anti-real Presence folks in the centuries immediately following Pentecost. I wonder if we'll ever get it.

No one can prove a negitive. The burden of proof always lies with the one teaching the positive, so no, you'll never get it.

Otherwise, many passages teach that all the benefits that the real presence in the eucharist is taught to bring to the believer in Christ by the pro-real presence folks are seen to be achieved through renewing ones mind in Christ, walking in the Spirit, prayer, etc., etc. There's no reason for the "anti-real presence" folks to go beyond teaching what they believe.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Could you explain please, how someone can live a holy and godly (sin-free) life?

How about we let Paul tell us?

Galatians 5:16-18, So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit is what is contrary to the sinful nature. they are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want, but if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

Gal. 5:24, Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with it's passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.

 

[Pteriax]

On the one hand, it's a long explanation to be told. On the one hand, there's a great passage which explains how we can do this:

2 Peter 1:3-9

God bless you!

That does not mean you would be completely sin free. It is not possible for a human to live without sinning. Think about it, even some thoughts and feelings are sinful. You can't escape that even if you live under a rock. Sure, we can be a lot more sin free than before we were saved, and continue to reduce our sins all our lives, but it is impossible to attain perfection of sinlessness. We are ONLY made perfect through the blood of Christ.

 

[Pteriax]

The point in mentioning statistics for membership was simply and only to falsify the claim that "most christians" do not accept the real presence.

Depends on how you define a Christian, doesn't it?

Or do you suppose that all church members are Christians by virtue of that membership?

 

[Pteriax]

How about we let Paul tell us?

Galatians 5:16-18, So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit is what is contrary to the sinful nature. they are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want, but if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

Gal. 5:24, Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with it's passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.

Yes, this does not mean that you no longer sin though. It means that you are no longer subject to your sins. The body of sin will exist until the day you die, but if you are washed by the blood of Christ, there is no condemnation for that sin.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

How about we let Paul tell us?

Galatians 5:16-18, So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit is what is contrary to the sinful nature. they are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want, but if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

Gal. 5:24, Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with it's passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.

Does this mean that someone who is saved never sins again? That seems to conflict with what John says.

1 John 2:1-2, KJV
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

And Paul also says:

Romans 7:19, KJV
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

These Scriptures seem to say that even after being saved, people sometimes do what they shouldn't, and don't even want to do it because of their new spiritual natures, but they still do it.

Here is exactly why it's not a good idea to get into doctrine wars and throw Scripture-grenades at each other. "The Bible tells us THIS!" (kaboom) "No, it actually tells us THIS!" (more kaboom) "You're both wrong. It says THIS!" (another kaboom, and everything is in ruins.)

And that's why I like what Paul said to Timothy here:

2 Timothy 2:22-23, KJV
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

(Yes, teach doctrine, but do it gently, not argumentatively.)

And to Titus here:

Titus 3:9 KJV
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Don't get caught up in nitpicky points of doctrine. So important, Paul said it twice.

By the way, I am not a KJV-only advocate, but I use it when discussing the Bible on a public forum. That way, even the most staunch ultra-conservative can't accuse me of using the "wrong" version. Well... given previous discussions in this thread, I suppose Catholics can, but is there much difference in these verses from the Douay-Rheims?

 

[Knee V]

Depends on how you define a Christian, doesn't it?

Or do you suppose that all church members are Christians by virtue of that membership?

If we were to apply that principle consistently across the board, then proportionally it works out to be about the same anyway.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Yes, this does not mean that you no longer sin though. It means that you are no longer subject to your sins. The body of sin will exist until the day you die, but if you are washed by the blood of Christ, there is no condemnation for that sin.

I agree with you on that we will always have to fight against the body of sin and wont always be successful, but you asked how someone can live a holy and sinless life. Paul does answer your question directly and to the point, if you live by the Spirit you will not gratify your sinful desires. We wont always be successful in doing so but Paul gives us the method on how to do it. He and God knows we wont always be successful in walking or living in the Spirit, but that doesn't stop them from giveing us the message.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I agree with you on that we will always have to fight against the body of sin and wont always be successful, but you asked how someone can live a holy and sinless life. Paul does answer your question directly and to the point, if you live by the Spirit you will not gratify your sinful desires. We wont always be successful in doing so but Paul gives us the method on how to do it. He and God knows we wont always be successful in walking or living in the Spirit, but that doesn't stop them from giveing us the message.

Now that makes sense.

We've had a lot of people teaching lately that yes, once we are saved, it is impossible to sin because Christ lives in us. That's why I wondered.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Does this mean that someone who is saved never sins again? That seems to conflict with what John says.

No, I think it means exactly what it says, if you live by the Spirit you wont satisfy the desires of the sinful nature. The problem is that not everyone who is saved lives by the Spirit all of the time.

These Scriptures seem to say that even after being saved, people sometimes do what they shouldn't, and don't even want to do it because of their new spiritual natures, but they still do it.

You're under the mistaken impression that I believe we can all acheive sinlessness, I don't.

Here is exactly why it's not a good idea to get into doctrine wars and throw Scripture-grenades at each other. "The Bible tells us THIS!" (kaboom) "No, it actually tells us THIS!" (more kaboom) "You're both wrong. It says THIS!" (another kaboom, and everything is in ruins.)

I don't characterize my use of scripture in my posts as useing "scripture grenades", and I don't use it with anger. Plus, I'd rather read scripture in other peoples posts and see how they interpret it and see their reasoning instead of reading pontification post after pontification. OH, and you did a good job with your's.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Now that makes sense.

We've had a lot of people teaching lately that yes, once we are saved, it is impossible to sin because Christ lives in us. That's why I wondered.

That's kinda like not being honest with themselves isn't it? They must have to ignor all the sins they committ after their conversion in order to see that they no longer sin. And the major problem with that kind of belief is that, if they are honest and see sin in their lives then wouldn't they have to then get the idea that they must not have ever been born again? Do they then go about getting born again, and again, and again? Wow...

 

[Pteriax]

If we were to apply that principle consistently across the board, then proportionally it works out to be about the same anyway.

You're funny

 

[Pteriax]

I agree with you on that we will always have to fight against the body of sin and wont always be successful, but you asked how someone can live a holy and sinless life. Paul does answer your question directly and to the point, if you live by the Spirit you will not gratify your sinful desires. We wont always be successful in doing so but Paul gives us the method on how to do it. He and God knows we wont always be successful in walking or living in the Spirit, but that doesn't stop them from giveing us the message.

Yeah, but my point is that it is impossible. We all know that once saved we still sin. We now hate our sin instead of loving it, and we are no longer bound to it and condemned by it, but it is still there.

Now that makes sense.

We've had a lot of people teaching lately that yes, once we are saved, it is impossible to sin because Christ lives in us. That's why I wondered.

Why on earth would anyone teach that? It is proven false in scripture, Peter sinned and was reprimanded by Paul for example. Unless someone is going to make the claim that Peter was not saved....

 

[Knee V]

You're funny

I try.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Depends on how you define a Christian, doesn't it?

For our purposes in GT Nicene creedal confession is sufficient, I think.

Or do you suppose that all church members are Christians by virtue of that membership?

Christian charity demands that those who confess Christ be considered Christian.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Oh, OK, yeah I guess you're right.

I am doing well this week. I've been right at least twice

 

[Cappadocious]

No one can prove a negitive.

If you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you. So if he claims that there were real presence deniers within the first few centuries whom he would also identify as "real" Christians, he would need to show evidence for that.

 

[nephilimiyr]

If you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you. So if he claims that there were real presence deniers within the first few centuries whom he would also identify as "real" Christians, he would need to show evidence for that.

While Morecoffee has been right twice this week, I haven't been doing as well. Sorry, I though you guys were simply discussing real presence and whether it's true or false.

I agree, if he's making this claim he should show some evidence for it.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I don't characterize my use of scripture in my posts as useing "scripture grenades", and I don't use it with anger. Plus, I'd rather read scripture in other peoples posts and see how they interpret it and see their reasoning instead of reading pontification post after pontification. OH, and you did a good job with your's.

Thank you.

Wasn't specifically referring to you. I've seen a lot of Scripture-grenade-throwing doctrine wars in my time. Not just CF, either.

For example, when I was a Church of Christ member, I sat through a Sunday School class where the entire subject of discussion was: Should Communion be taken from one shared cup, or from individual cups? Like THAT makes a difference in whether or not your soul ends up lost or saved. I'll give them credit for eventually coming to the conclusion that it doesn't matter; Christ blessed the substance, not the vessel, and those who say it does matter are mistaken. But to spend a whole class on it? That could have been pointed out in a sentence or two, under the umbrella topic of, "What acts of worship does Christ ask of us?"