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

[PaladinValer]

1. We have examples of ECF's affirming baptismal regeneration.
2. We have no examples of ECF's denying baptismal regeneration.

"ECF's affirmed baptismal regeneration" is more likely to be true than "ECF's affirmed baptismal regeneration, but there was also an unrecorded group of ECF's who did not". It is more likely because the former requires fewer unproven assumptions than the latter.

The latter is possible, but not very likely.

Also, given the facts of your numbered statements, if this represents all the available evidence, then it is logical to assume that, because none denied it and we have several who did from across the Christian area, then baptismal regeneration was the norm.

In addition, since dogma was only declared when there was a serious issue, then its non-dogmatization is evidence of not its unimportance but that there was no serious disagreement. The only disagreement we have was not about baptismal regeneration but whether those who sinned after baptism could still be saved. That in and of itself shows that is was agreed upon by both the orthodox and unorthodox.

 

[Jig]

1. We have examples of ECF's affirming baptismal regeneration.

Who denied this? It's true that we, also, have examples of ECFs with contrasting views on various theological issues.

2. We have no examples of ECF's denying baptismal regeneration.

This doesn't prove anything. It would be a fallacy (argument from silence) to use this line of reasoning.

"ECF's affirmed baptismal regeneration" is more likely to be true than "ECF's affirmed baptismal regeneration, but there was also an unrecorded group of ECF's who did not". It is more likely because the former requires fewer unproven assumptions than the latter.

The latter is possible, but not very likely.

I'm not stating it is likely or unlikely. All I am saying is there is no way to know what those who have stayed silent on this topic knew. And based on the fact that it is not uncommon for the ECFs to have differing theological ideas, it is a realistic possibility that baptismal regeneration is not a universally accepted doctrine of the ECFs.

 

[kellhus]

That Christians must support Israel.

Creationism

Symbolic view of the Eucharist

 

[Jig]

Also, given the facts of your numbered statements, if this represents all the available evidence, then it is logical to assume that, because none denied it and we have several who did from across the Christian area, then baptismal regeneration was the norm.

You must remember that I do not build my doctrine on fallible tradition. I might find it historically interesting that a group of ECFs believed in baptismal regeneration, but it doesn't matter what was the "norm" or not. Just because something is widely accepted doesn't mean it is correct. To claim it is would be an appeal to popularity - a logical fallacy.

And again, you cannot build on argument on silence. Why are you so concerned with those who have not denied it? This tells us nothing.

In addition, since dogma was only declared when there was a serious issue, then its non-dogmatization is evidence of not its unimportance but that there was no serious disagreement. The only disagreement we have was not about baptismal regeneration but whether those who sinned after baptism could still be saved. That in and of itself shows that is was agreed upon by both the orthodox and unorthodox.

Nice, you have made an opinion based on an assumed implication. That's rock solid.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

"we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;"

One Holy Spirit baptism, is all that need be understood for universal (catholic) agreement. None I have ever known would argue that water has intrinsic magical like power in itself to forgive sins, nor that any other than the Son of Man has the power to forgive sins.

 

[Knee V]

"we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;"

One Holy Spirit baptism, is all that need be understood for universal (catholic) agreement. None I have ever known would argue that water has intrinsic magical like power in itself to forgive sins, nor that any other than the Son of Man has the power to forgive sins.

None of us believe in magic. Rather, God works in and through and with creation to bring about its restoration and salvation.

 

[Cappadocious]

This doesn't prove anything. It would be a fallacy (argument from silence) to use this line of reasoning.

No, no, it's not actually not.

See, the former possibility is more likely than the latter possibility. You haven't invalidated the logical progression there.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Methodists do not. And besides that the majority is often wrong.

Traditional Methodist theology affirms the Real Presence, the writings of John Wesley as well as general, official, Methodist statements of faith affirm it:

"Jesus Christ, who “is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being” (Hebrews 1:3), is truly present in Holy Communion. Through Jesus Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit, God meets us at the Table. God, who has given the sacraments to the church, acts in and through Holy Communion. Christ is present through the community gathered in Jesus’ name (Matthew 18:20), through the Word proclaimed and enacted, and through the elements of bread and wine shared (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). The divine presence is a living reality and can be experienced by participants; it is not a remembrance of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion only."

Further:

"Christ’s presence in the sacrament is a promise to the church and is not dependent upon recognition of this presence by individual members of the congregation. Holy Communion always offers grace. We are reminded of what God has done for us in the past, experience what God is doing now as we partake, and anticipate what God will do in the future work of salvation. “We await the final moment of grace, when Christ comes in victory at the end of the age to bring all who are in Christ into the glory of that victory” (By Water and the Spirit: A United Methodist Understanding of Baptism, in BOR; page 875), and we join in feasting at the heavenly banquet table (Luke 22:14-18; Revelation 19:9).

The Christian church has struggled through the centuries to understand just how Christ is present in the Eucharist. Arguments and divisions have occurred over the matter. The Wesleyan tradition affirms the reality of Christ’s presence, although it does not claim to be able to explain it fully. John and Charles Wesley’s 166 Hymns on the Lord’s Supper are our richest resource for study in order to appreciate the Wesleyan understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. One of these hymns expresses well both the reality and the mystery: “O the Depth of Love Divine,” stanzas 1 and 4 (The United Methodist Hymnal, 627):

O the depth of love divine,
the unfathomable grace!
Who shall say how bread and wine
God into us conveys!
How the bread his flesh imparts,
how the wine transmits his blood,
fills his faithful people’s hearts
with all the life of God!
Sure and real is the grace,
the manner be unknown;
only meet us in thy ways
and perfect us in one.
Let us taste the heavenly powers,
Lord, we ask for nothing more.
Thine to bless, ’tis only ours
to wonder and adore.

Article XVI of The Articles of Religion of The Methodist Church describes the sacraments as “certain signs of grace, and God’s good will toward us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him” (BOD; page 63).

Article XVIII describes the Lord’s Supper as “a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ” (BOD; page 64). (See section “The Communion Elements” in this paper for related material.)

Article VI of The Confession of Faith of The Evangelical United Brethren Church speaks similarly of the sacraments: “They are means of grace by which God works invisibly in us, quickening, strengthening and confirming our faith in him. . . . Those who rightly, worthily and in faith eat the broken bread and drink the blessed cup partake of the body and blood of Christ in a spiritual manner until he comes” (BOD; page 68)." - This Holy Mystery, Part Two, UMC.org

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

Hehe. That was the among the first doctrines I embraced when I became a Christian. My church had rejected the Bible fairly thoroughly.

My history is something like that. I was raised NOT to be particularly concerned with the Bible since "the Church" had all the answers. But in time, I realized that Scripture is the sole connection we have to truth. Either it is false, nothing but old Hebrews musing over confusing spiritual ideas OR ELSE it is God's word and unsurpassable.

If it is the former, we might as well all just forget about spirituality; there'd be nothing to hold onto. But if it's true (which is all that Sola Scriptura says), then it is our guidebook, period. There's nothing in between.

 

[Jig]

No, no, it's not actually not.

See, the former possibility is more likely than the latter possibility. You haven't invalidated the logical progression there.

There was no logical progression. His second line of reasoning neither proves nor disproves his conclusion.

 

[Knee V]

My history is something like that. I was raised NOT to be particularly concerned with the Bible since "the Church" had all the answers. But in time, I realized that Scripture is the sole connection we have to truth. Either it is false, nothing but old Hebrews musing over confusing spiritual ideas OR ELSE it is God's word and unsurpassable.

If it is the former, we might as well all just forget about spirituality; there'd be nothing to hold onto. But if it's true (which is all that Sola Scriptura says), then it is our guidebook, period. There's nothing in between.

Why can't there be anything in between? Just because it is true doesn't prove that God intended to give it to us as the ultimate guidebook to which all of our knowledge of spiritual truth is bound. That is just as much an assumption as anything else.

 

[Jig]

Just because it is true doesn't prove that God intended to give it to us as the ultimate guidebook to which all of our knowledge of spiritual truth is bound.

In that case, what is it's purpose? To provide incomplete truth?

 

[Albion]

Why can't there be anything in between? Just because it is true doesn't prove that God intended to give it to us as the ultimate guidebook to which all of our knowledge of spiritual truth is bound. That is just as much an assumption as anything else.

Nope. I can't agree. If you have another POV, that's fine and you have to be true to your conscience just as I am to mine. But speaking for myself, there is nothing in between. Those are the choices if we are going to be serious about this.

The reason why is that to accept the Bible as the word of God--which just about every denomination does--is automatically to accept it as complete and true. You cannot logically say that the Bible is the word of God, i.e. revelation, but it's half baked or half done. That is exactly what some communions do. They say that they accept the Bible and that they consider it the word of God....but....they then proceed to poke numerous holes in it and say we need something more, something else, etc. That cannot be squared with deeming it to be the word of God because to do this means saying that God botched the job of revealing to us what he used Scripture to accomplish.

The one exception to that would be IF the Bible itself identified any other source like, say, the Book of Mormon. But it does not do that, and even the people who think they can justify penciling in St. Somebody's theories under the permission of the Bible are just fooling themselves IMO because that's not in the Bible.

Worse yet is the game with words that says "Where in the Bible does it say NOT to seek other guidance?" That is simply insulting, if you ask me. God gives us his word and we are at ease saying that anything he didn't reveal the church is at liberty to do for him?! I don't consider that to be even close to credible.

So, no, there are really no alternatives to believing Divine Revelation or abandoning the whole business.

 

[Knee V]

In that case, what is it's purpose? To provide incomplete truth?

The Scriptures are the written legacy of the Prophets and Apostles. That is their purpose, and that is why God's people, guided by the Holy Spirit, have preserved them and read from them.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Scriptures are the written legacy of the Prophets and Apostles. That is their purpose, and that is why God's people, guided by the Holy Spirit, have preserved them and read from them.

Sometimes the obvious is hardest to see.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nope. I can't agree. If you have another POV, that's fine and you have to be true to your conscience just as I am to mine. But speaking for myself, there is nothing in between. Those are the choices if we are going to be serious about this

Isn't the above a proposal advocating a kind of relativism? You have your POV I have mine and so we have my truth and your truth but they are opposites on the question that's on the table. One or both will be untrue. Both cannot be true.

 

[Albion]

The Scriptures are the written legacy of the Prophets and Apostles. That is their purpose, and that is why God's people, guided by the Holy Spirit, have preserved them and read from them.

I don't see anything there to disagree with, but neither do I see anything there that conflicts with what I wrote before.

 

[Metal Minister]

Isn't the above a proposal advocating a kind of relativism? You have your POV I have mine and so we have my truth and your truth but they are opposites on the question that's on the table. One or both will be untrue. Both cannot be true.

I'd lean towards the one that more closely embraces the words given us by our Creator.

 

[Knee V]

Nope. I can't agree. If you have another POV, that's fine and you have to be true to your conscience just as I am to mine. But speaking for myself, there is nothing in between. Those are the choices if we are going to be serious about this.

The reason why is that to accept the Bible as the word of God--which just about every denomination does--is automatically to accept it as complete and true. You cannot logically say that the Bible is the word of God, i.e. revelation, but it's half baked or half done. That is exactly what some communions do. They say that they accept the Bible and that they consider it the word of God....but....they then proceed to poke numerous holes in it and say we need something more, something else, etc. That cannot be squared with deeming it to be the word of God because to do this means saying that God botched the job of revealing to us what he used Scripture to accomplish.

The one exception to that would be IF the Bible itself identified any other source like, say, the Book of Mormon. But it does not do that, and even the people who think they can justify penciling in St. Somebody's theories under the permission of the Bible are just fooling themselves IMO because that's not in the Bible.

Worse yet is the game with words that says "Where in the Bible does it say NOT to seek other guidance?" That is simply insulting, if you ask me. God gives us his word and we are at ease saying that anything he didn't reveal the church is at liberty to do for him?! I don't consider that to be even close to credible.

So, no, there are really no alternatives to believing Divine Revelation or abandoning the whole business.

This argument assumes that the Bible is a certain thing and that it is supposed to accomplish a certain thing. God did not use Scripture to reveal anything to us. That is not what it is. God's revelation to us is the act of showing Himself to us. That revelation is complete because Christ is complete. The Scriptures, on the other hand, are the record of some of the encounters that man has had with God's revelation. The prophets encountered God and His revelation of Himself. That encounter was the revelation. They subsequently wrote about that revelation, but the written account of God's revelation is not the revelation. And it's the same with the New Testament. God's full revelation of Himself is the person of Jesus. People encountered Him and subsequently wrote about it, and now we have the New Testament. But it is the act of appearing to us which is the revelation, not the subsequent writings that bare witness to it.

 

[Knee V]

I don't see anything there to disagree with, but neither do I see anything there that conflicts with what I wrote before.

The entire life of God's people guided by the Holy Spirit is our basis for knowing Truth. The Scriptures are certainly part of that experience.