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

Pteriax said:

Mormons don't believe in one god.

Click to expand...

Not to mention a host of other differences. Why the question was asked in the first place, I'll never know.

bornofGod888 said:

"Orthodox" basically means "conforming to established doctrine" and I have no problem with that definition but my point was "whose established doctrine" and from whence was it established? For me, the scriptures are the source of "true orthodoxy" and not the opinions of men, no matter how popular or accepted they may be.

Click to expand...

The source is Christ and the Apostolic witness, guided and preserved by the Holy Spirit through time.

Tzaousios said:

Because, with your continued cryptic responses to me, it appears that you attempted to lump Eastern Orthodoxy, and probably Roman Catholicism, in with "Arminianism." That might be convenient for apologetical purposes, but it pays no attention to history. That's why.

Click to expand...

No I didn't. I answered a specific question by someone other than you. In fact I was not addressing you or quoting you at the time. Bye.

Apologetic_Warrior said:

Not to mention a host of other differences. Why the question was asked in the first place, I'll never know.

Click to expand...

The point was one of false equivocation. It was alleged that the Arminians are semi-Pelagians because they believe things that the semi-Pelagians might believe, but which have nothing to do with the specific heresy of semi-Pelagianism. That would be just like saying that because you believe something in common with the Mormons you must be a Mormon, even if those things have nothing to do with what makes them uniquely Mormon.

Pteriax said:

No I didn't. I answered a specific question by someone other than you. In fact I was not addressing you or quoting you at the time. Bye.

Click to expand...

Dismissive hand-waving does not do you any favors. I can ask questions or address what people post if I wish. It was a legitimate question that I asked of you. Why don't you lump them all into the "Arminian" category, by the way?

Tzaousios said:

What is the difference between interpretation/exegesis, opinions of men, and Scripture as the source? Also, how do you distinguish between them?

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that difference be about 7 books?
I'm pretty sure critiques of each book both pro & con could be found online, if you mean speciific differences, but larger problems tend to crowd out the attention like aguing over lexicons & parsing Greek when core doctrines are in contention.

A good example of seeing scripture right next to a man's opinion is to look at a line by line commentary.
Just because something is a man's opinion it's automaticaly wrong? Is that what you're thinking? I wouldn't agree because exegesis is simply a method for forming an objective opinion, I'm thinking.

Anyway, since you asked, I think it's fair to ask you the same question... how do you tell the difference?

Rick Otto said:

Wouldn't that difference be about 7 books?
I'm pretty sure critiques of each book both pro & con could be found online, if you mean speciific differences, but larger problems tend to crowd out the attention like aguing over lexicons & parsing Greek when core doctrines are in contention.

Click to expand...

Right, but I am really wondering how bornofGod888 distinguishes them, because they always seemed to be assumed and lumped together when mentioned.

Tzaousios said:

Dismissive hand-waving does not do you any favors. I can ask questions or address what people post if I wish. It was a legitimate question that I asked of you. Why don't you lump them all into the "Arminian" category, by the way?

Click to expand...

You don't even know who or what I was responding to when I posted it, you assumed I was saying something I was not because you ignored the context of what I was responding to and tried to put words in my mouth in so doing. Sure, you can ask questions of anyone you like, but when you rip things out of context and make assumptions, you will get answers like this. And it wasn't a "legitimate" question in the first place for the above reasons. This is the fourth time you have attempted to twist my words to mean something other than what I said. Again, I hope you do not treat scripture in the same fashion.

Pteriax said:

You don't even know who or what I was responding to when I posted it, you assumed I was saying something I was not because you ignored the context of what I was responding to and tried to put words in my mouth in so doing. Sure, you can ask questions of anyone you like, but when you rip things out of context and make assumptions, you will get answers like this. And it wasn't a "legitimate" question in the first place for the above reasons. This is the fourth time you have attempted to twist my words to mean something other than what I said. Again, I hope you do not treat scripture in the same fashion.

Click to expand...

However you wish to rationalize it, why don't you lump them all into the "Arminian" category?

Isn't this thread about doctrines that thread participants used to believe but no longer believe?

It looks like folk are diverting the thread into fights about particular doctrines that are no longer believed by one or another person who contributed an answer. That's not right.

Pteriax said:

And it wasn't a "legitimate" question in the first place for the above reasons. This is the fourth time you have attempted to twist my words to mean something other than what I said. Again, I hope you do not treat scripture in the same fashion.

Click to expand...

Still, though, I don't know what ignoring of context you are appealing to, since you answered in replies to me, and knee-v had the same impression that I did. Like I said, whatever your rational is.

Tzaousios said:

However you wish to rationalize it, why don't you lump them all into the "Arminian" category?

Click to expand...

I answered that. Feel free to read that answer at your leisure.

MoreCoffee said:

Isn't this thread about doctrines that thread participants used to believe but no longer believe?

It looks like folk are diverting the thread into fights about particular doctrines that are no longer believed by one or another person who contributed an answer. That's not right.

Click to expand...

This thread is asking a question that by its very nature gives people open room to point the finger at other denominations and call them heretical.

Pteriax said:

I answered that. Feel free to read that answer at your leisure.

Click to expand...

What, the part about "Arminians" helping out in their salvation, and that being "unbiblical?" Yes, I saw that. However, your answer included nothing about why you claim not to lump in Orthodox and Catholic Christians into the anachronistic "Arminian" category.

Pteriax said:

This thread is asking a question that by its very nature gives people open room to point the finger at other denominations and call them heretical.

Click to expand...

And that is a bad thing?

MoreCoffee said:

And that is a bad thing?

Click to expand...

Only when it's my denomination that is being criticized. When it's yours, that's okay.

After all, I'm just a Christian who simply believes what the Bible says. Everyone else on the other hand are weirdos following man-made traditions.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

MoreCoffee said:

Pteriax said:

This thread is asking a question that by its very nature gives people open room to point the finger at other denominations and call them heretical.

Click to expand...

And that is a bad thing?

Click to expand...

Only when it's my denomination that is being criticized. When it's yours, that's okay.

After all, I'm just a Christian who simply believes what the Bible says. Everyone else on the other hand are weirdos following man-made traditions.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

You are a wise man my friend; you spotted the problem in his argument immediately.

ViaCrucis said:

Only when it's my denomination that is being criticized. When it's yours, that's okay.

After all, I'm just a Christian who simply believes what the Bible says. Everyone else on the other hand are weirdos following man-made traditions.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Such as demon hunting...?

ViaCrucis said:

Only when it's my denomination that is being criticized. When it's yours, that's okay.

After all, I'm just a Christian who simply believes what the Bible says. Everyone else on the other hand are weirdos following man-made traditions.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Hilarious! You have summed it up brilliantly, my friend.

knee-v said:

It was alleged that the Arminians are semi-Pelagians because they believe things that the semi-Pelagians might believe, but which have nothing to do with the specific heresy of semi-Pelagianism.

Click to expand...

To properly address your comment above, a person could write a small book. R.C. Sproul wrote a book years ago dealing with history behind the free will debate entitled: "Willing to Believe".

The term "Arminian" can and is used in a variety of ways. Most "Arminians" are not classical Arminians in the sense of holding the same beliefs as the man Arminus behind the term. There are so many shades of Arminianism that it's not even funny, but they all have something in common, they all deny "total inability". They all affirm reguardless of position on original sin, even depravity, that all humans are capable, within the will, of responding to God with faith. The semi-palagian position could be described as cooperating with the Grace of God, while the Arminian position could be described as free to believe, or visa versa. I agree with Dr. Sproul's analysis:

"Though the Pelagian controversy ended with the condemnation of Pelagius and his followers, the views of Augustine were not universally accepted in all their details. At first, opposition arose to some elements of Augustine’s thought in North Africa. Some monks from the monastery of Adrumetum in North Africa objected to Augustine’s view of predestination and to his view that fallen man is morally unable to incline himself to the grace of God. Questions arising from this debate prompted Augustine to write On Grace and Free Will and On Rebuke and Grace. These works were answered by the abbot of the monastery, Valentinus, in a cordial and respectful manner.

As discussion continued in North Africa, a more violent opposition to Augustine’s views erupted in France, particularly in the south at Massilia. Friends of Augustine, Hilary and Prosper, reported to him this opposition and urged him to write a response. Augustine did so in his final two works, On the Predestination of the Saints and On the Gift of Perseverance. In these works Augustine dealt more gently with his critics than he did with Pelagius, regarding them as brothers in the faith. This attitude anticipates the aura of future controversies. In the main, both Augustinians and semi-Pelagians tend to regard Pelagianism as a heresy so serious that it is non-Christian, while the on-going controversy between Augustinianism and semi-Pelagianism is an intramural debate among believers. Though the issues involved are deemed to be quite serious by both sides, they are not regarded to be so serious as to be essential to Christian faith." - Sproul, R. (1997). Willing to believe: The controversy over free will (electronic ed.) (69–70). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

and further into the book...

"Repeatedly the Synod of Dort charges the Remonstrants with teaching the doctrines of Pelagianism. Is not this charge overly severe and unfair? Both Arminius and the Remonstrants sought to distance themselves from pure Pelagianism. Arminianism is often said to be semi-Pelagian, but not, strictly speaking, Pelagian. What the fathers of Dort probably had in mind is the link between semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism that renders the semi-Pelagian unable to escape the fundamental thesis of Pelagianism." - Sproul, R. (1997). Willing to believe: The controversy over free will (electronic ed.) (140). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

knee-v said:

The point was one of false equivocation. It was alleged that the Arminians are semi-Pelagians because they believe things that the semi-Pelagians might believe, but which have nothing to do with the specific heresy of semi-Pelagianism. That would be just like saying that because you believe something in common with the Mormons you must be a Mormon, even if those things have nothing to do with what makes them uniquely Mormon.

Click to expand...

Sorry I fell behind, I had to run some errands. Did you already state what that specific heresy is, so we can tell the difference as well as you?
I need to know because I generaly equate the two, accepting that individuals may have minor exceptions to details.
I'm under the impression that Pelagius first asserted that mankind retained the redeeming quality of free will, which is required to exercise faith & thus attain salvation.
I don't believe it defies predestination, it just doesn't grasp predestination as a necessary product of omniscience & omnipotence - the foreknowlege & sovereignity of God.
It's where the idea of men being able to resist saving grace is falsely equated with simply grieving The Holy Spirit, in my opinion.
Thanks for educating me if that's possible.