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

[emmyan]

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.

I'm not here to argue but you're saying the same things that an unbeliever would say...If you carefully read the Word you'll maybe find out that your belief is false and it doesn't have any real Biblical foundation...I'm telling you this not because I want to offend or hurt you. I'm telling you this 'cause I too believed in Calvinistic things and by God's grace I found out these were so untrue...
Then I read one book which made me understand some things deeper.
You can find it here for example:
The Believer's Conditional Security : Eternal Security Refuted: Daniel D. Corner: 9780963907684: Amazon.com: Books

Well, this book was a real blessing and I offer you to read it (of course if you want) and to let God do His work through the Holy Spirit.

Jesus bless you!

 

[NorrinRadd]

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?

It appears the English translation of choice at the Vatican Web site is the NAB.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=emmyan; I'm not here to argue but you're saying the same things that an unbeliever would say...If you carefully read the Word you'll maybe find out that your belief is false and it doesn't have any real Biblical foundation...I'm telling you this not because I want to offend or hurt you. I'm telling you this 'cause I too believed in Calvinistic things and by God's grace I found out these were so untrue...

My reading hasn't been careless, & tho you may not want to offend, merely stating so while being offensive doesn't fix your offense. Instead of telling a person their beliefs are false & unbiblical, it would behoove you to be more specific & articulate the problems in a digestibly simple way.
It isn't a lot to ask seeing as how there are basicaly only 5 points to refute. Even picking just one & addressing it more responsibly would suffice as an introduction to this book you've found impressive.

... I offer you to read it (of course if you want) and to let God do His work through the Holy Spirit.

I'm not ready to equate the two.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

It appears the English translation of choice at the Vatican Web site is the NAB.

Good to know, for education purposes. Thanks.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Pteriax

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

Originally Posted by nephilimiyr

How about we let Paul tell us?
​

Originally Posted by LovebirdsFlying

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

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd

It appears the English translation of choice at the Vatican Web site is the NAB.
​

Good to know, for education purposes. Thanks.

One can also go to this great site to see 5 of the Greek texts along with a dozen Bible versions.

Greek New Testament - Parallel Greek New Testament by John Hurt

King James Version
1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

John 1:1

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV
Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV

Byzantine Majority
en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV

Alexandrian
en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV

Hort and Westcott
en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV


.

 

[emmyan]

My reading hasn't been careless, & tho you may not want to offend, merely stating so while being offensive doesn't fix your offense. Instead of telling a person their beliefs are false & unbiblical, it would behoove you to be more specific & articulate the problems in a digestibly simple way.
It isn't a lot to ask seeing as how there are basicaly only 5 points to refute. Even picking just one & addressing it more responsibly would suffice as an introduction to this book you've found impressive.

Well, maybe I was harsh...Anyway, I think there's a better way to explain what and why is wrong here...And there're not just only five points (though they're 5 main ones), there're lots of more things to be understood uncorrectly, if one believes in these 5 points...And the better way is to read this book carefully with an opened heart, because brother Dan explains it in detail. Step by step. Of course with historical facts and documentaries with references.
You see, I don't have such ability to explain as this brother does...

Anyway, thank you for the post, I appreciate that

I'm not ready to equate the two.

Well...I'm not equating, am I?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Thekla

Hope it's not intrusive, but thought to jump in with personal experience:

Christians read and re-read the Scriptures, and I would think all do so because of the spiritual benefit, and thus they deem it necessary to do so.
(Even John Chrysostom exhorts on the necessity of reading the Holy Scriptures, well over a thousand years ago).

Some Christians can't read - whether a temporary or permanent condition.
The written text requires certain biologically based skill-sets (having developed the ability to walk, sight, short-term visual memory, etc.) to decipher; it builds one concept at a time (word) to more and more complex concept clusters (phrases, sentences, paragraphs, etc.)

Our son has Schizoaffective disorder; for a long time his brain was so affected, he could not recall the previous sentence when reading the next sentence; with more complex concepts the problem would occur phrase to phrase. We could only speak with him in the shortest amount of information possible, else the whole conveyance would be lost. Even when he did "get" what we said, his understanding was often 'garbled' (distorted). But show him an icon of a Biblical event, or Christ, or a Saint he knew of -- then, he could tell us a great deal of information about what was depicted. Certainly more than he could have done by hearing or reading of the same.

Pictorial representation does not convey information by building in a linear, logical fashion. The pictorial denotes a "simultaneous delivery" which sources different parts of the brain than does reading. Information can be added through verbal means, including question and answer -- in small bites if needed, but even then the pictorial provides a mnemonic template for association and retrieval of information.

Even for readers, the icon presents information in a different but rich form.
As the icon is typically heavily stylized, it is not easily mistaken for secular art forms and subjects. Its symbolism can be easily explained with few words.


Christ is for all people - including those who cannot (or cannot yet) read.

The Church thus serves all - readers and non-readers, all intellectual abilities, learning styles ...
​

Great post sis!

Hi Thekla, you intrusive? Never, I always look forward for your input! Yeah I think I'm understanding you guys better now.
At first the message I was getting was that icons can be used to base your faith on, but Rev Randy has got me understanding it in a way I can agree on. Like he said, we all use something to get us into that frame of mind to honestly and truely worship God. I am not against anything used that will help you out in doing so.

I suppose that can be used as a neuter




.

 

[nephilimiyr]

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.

I just want to point out here that the NT, specifically the epistles, doesn't teach real presence as a specific doctrine. That is, nowhere in the NT is it written that believers believed in real presence. It therefore stands to reason that the evidence that Cappodocious is requiring is actually the lack of evidence that groups of Christians were believeing in real presence.

I think we can all agree here that the doctrine of real presence in the Eucharist is a major doctrine in the RCC and Orthodox churches. Therefore the evidence of this belief is well written and recorded, true? So, if there's a group of believers from the early church that doesn't have any record of believing in the real presence then that would be the evidence for a non-belief in it, correct? So what we're looking for isn't evidence of writtings that dismiss the doctrine of real presence but simply their lack of teaching it, correct?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Great post sis!


I suppose that can be used as a neuter




.

Actually, I was neutered over 20 years ago after my 4th child.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Great post sis!


I suppose that can be used as a neuter
​

Actually, I was neutered over 20 years ago after my 4th child.

That may or may not help.

Remember the virgin Mary?

 

[nephilimiyr]

That may or may not help.

Remember the virgin Mary?

Not to insult my wife here, but trust me, my wife could never be compared to the virgin mother, and that's what would have to happen in your scenario.


And if she ever saw me write such a thing she might try to neuter me again! :o

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Not to insult my wife here, but trust me, my wife could never be compared to the virgin mother, and that's what would have to happen in your scenario.



And if she ever saw me write such a thing she might try to neuter me again! :o

Your wife neutered you!



.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Your wife neutered you!



.

LOL, no, but she put me up to it. Even my devout Catholic mother talked me into it. I was like, but ma, aren't you supposed to believe in no birth control? Absolutely no one was on my side...

 

[letsbefriends]

i have rejected the doctrine of hell. i don't believe in hell because i kind of go for the jewish explanation. i like Judaism even though i am not jewish. i like the fact that they believe in everyone gets to go to heaven as long as they follow the noahide laws(that is for gentiles). isn't that ideal? i feel like hell is just too cruel. it makes me think that since i am going to be separated from my nonchristian friends, what's the point of my befriending them? that's so weird.
i have once rejected the trinity. i believe that jesus is God and that he is one. i think the trinity is just too complicated to explain to others.

 

[nephilimiyr]

i have rejected the doctrine of hell. i don't believe in hell because i kind of go for the jewish explanation. i like Judaism even though i am not jewish. i like the fact that they believe in everyone gets to go to heaven as long as they follow the noahide laws(that is for gentiles). isn't that ideal? i feel like hell is just too cruel. it makes me think that since i am going to be separated from my nonchristian friends, what's the point of my befriending them? that's so weird.

The point of befriending your friends is to show them the love and compassion of Jesus. When they see you they should also see Jesus working in you. The Kingdom of God is all about changed lives, power, and authority, and they should see that evidence in you. This is how his gospel is spread, not just in word but in evidence.

i have once rejected the trinity. i believe that jesus is God and that he is one. i think the trinity is just too complicated to explain to others.

You're not unlike alot of other christians in their feelings of awkwardness when trying to discribe the trinity to non-believers. The way I do it is by first discribeing ourselves on how we're three part beings made of body, soul, and spirit. The body being our physical shell, the soul being our mind, and the spirit being our life force. The trinity is similar; the body is Jesus Christ the Son, the soul is the Father, and the life force is the Holy Spirit. The three make up three different persons although all being one in the same. Hope this helps.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

i have rejected the doctrine of hell. i don't believe in hell because i kind of go for the jewish explanation.
i like Judaism even though i am not jewish. i like the fact that they believe in everyone gets to go to heaven as long as they follow the noahide laws(that is for gentiles). isn't that ideal? i feel like hell is just too cruel.

Then you and/or others may be interested in this covenantle "Jewish" parable in Luke 16, the only place that shows a person suffering in "hell".

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary
JESUS VS THE PHARISEES

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man has been the foundation for many of the erroneous beliefs about "hell" within traditional Christianity. Some have viewed it not as a parable, but as a true story Yeshua told to give details about the punishment of sinners in hell.
Yet a thorough, unbiased examination of this story will show that the generally accepted interpretations of this passage of Scripture are erroneous and misleading. In this article, we will go through the parable verse by verse to determine what the Messiah was truly teaching.




.

 

[MamaZ]

Your wife neutered you!



.

lol I laughed so hard at this.. I need that. Thank you brothers for the blessing of laughter..The Lord never forgets to give us what we need..

 

[Pteriax]

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

My hands are kind of tied there, now aren't they? But they have to honestly and genuinely believe it.

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

No, it does not. Or are you willing to consider JWs and Mormons to be Christians? They both confess Christ. Heck, even Muslimbs do. No, confessing Christ alone does not a Christian make. Confessing a lie does not make truth.

 

[Tzaousios]

My hands are kind of tied there, now aren't they? But they have to honestly and genuinely believe it.

Why would your hands be tied since confessing the Nicene Creed has been the measure of Christian orthodoxy that the church has accepted throughout history?

No, it does not. Or are you willing to consider JWs and Mormons to be Christians? They both confess Christ. Heck, even Muslimbs do. No, confessing Christ alone does not a Christian make. Confessing a lie does not make truth.

It is interesting that you should bring this up. So how do you determine that these groups are unorthodox and that you are orthodox and confess the truth? Did you somehow fall upon the correct interpretation of Scripture, bear a little better fruit than them, or what?

 

[Pteriax]

I'm not here to argue but you're saying the same things that an unbeliever would say...If you carefully read the Word you'll maybe find out that your belief is false and it doesn't have any real Biblical foundation...I'm telling you this not because I want to offend or hurt you. I'm telling you this 'cause I too believed in Calvinistic things and by God's grace I found out these were so untrue...
Then I read one book which made me understand some things deeper.
You can find it here for example:
The Believer's Conditional Security : Eternal Security Refuted: Daniel D. Corner: 9780963907684: Amazon.com: Books

Well, this book was a real blessing and I offer you to read it (of course if you want) and to let God do His work through the Holy Spirit.

Jesus bless you!

I could say the same of you. And I could recommend a book on the five points too, though I think you could find one on your own if you were interested. Even when I was a Methodist I always understood the Biblical doctrine of total depravity however. It is apparent in life and in scripture. As long as your soul dwells in a body of sin, you will sin, saved or not. Simple as that.