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

[Pteriax]

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'm not ready to equate the two.

Thank you. I agree with this assessment.

 

[Pteriax]

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.

The Jews believed in an eternal hell. See Isaiah 30:33 and 33:14.

There are a hundred or so trinity references throughout the Bible, and I believe the CF (and GT and my own) definition of a Christian includes a belief in the trinity. Oneness is recognized here as heretical.

 

[Pteriax]

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?

Some cults claim to believe it just to appear legitimate.

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?

I have studied their doctrines in detail and compared them to the Bible, which I have also studied in detail. I specialize in counter-cult apologetics and spiritual warfare ministry, so it's something I have delved very far into.

 

[Tzaousios]

Some cults claim to believe it just to appear legitimate.

Well, yeah, but a cult could adopt things that you believe in order to appear legitimate to you. So how do you move from appearances to actual legitimacy in the case of a cult that does this to you? What makes what you believe legitimate and what they believe illegitimate, in the end?

I have studied their doctrines in detail and compared them to the Bible, which I have also studied in detail. I specialize in counter-cult apologetics and spiritual warfare ministry, so it's something I have delved very far into.

That's nice and all but it still does not answer the question. With the information that you have provided above, does it then mean that because you have done some research and studied cults that your orthodoxy is proved and their beliefs made unorthodox?

 

[Pteriax]

Well, yeah, but a cult could adopt things that you believe in order to appear legitimate to you. So how do you move from appearances to actual legitimacy in the case of a cult that does this to you? What makes what you believe legitimate and what they believe illegitimate, in the end?

There is only one truth and it is in the Bible.

That's nice and all but it still does not answer the question. With the information that you have provided above, does it then mean that because you have done some research and studied cults that your orthodoxy is proved and their beliefs made unorthodox?

The Bible proves it. In most cases fruit proves it and history proves it as well, but the bottom line is always scripture.

 

[Tzaousios]

There is only one truth and it is in the Bible.

Thus we come back to interpretation. What makes your interpretation better than theirs, in the end?

The Bible proves it. In most cases fruit proves it and history proves it as well, but the bottom line is always scripture.

The Bible proves what, exactly, that your interpretation is better than theirs, your fruit is a little better, what? There are Muslims and Mormons with loads of better fruit than Christians.

 

[Jig]

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

From what I can ascertain, the ECFs that did bring this issue up believed in some form of baptismal regeneration. However, not all of the ECFs brought this issue up. Without knowing for sure what their stance was, its impossible to claim this was a universal belief of the ECFs

 

[Pteriax]

Thus we come back to interpretation. What makes your interpretation better than theirs, in the end?

I do not add to or take away from scripture. I do not re-write the entire Bible to suit a doctrine. I do not hold additional works or prophets ABOVE the Bible. I keep things in context.

The Bible proves what, exactly, that your interpretation is better than theirs, your fruit is a little better, what? There are Muslims and Mormons with loads of better fruit than Christians.

Yes, it does prove that, for the reasons I listed above. Fruit can sometimes be deceptive. Some good looking berries are poisonous.

 

[PaladinValer]

To read is to interpret; this is the very basis of written language.

Tzaousios is correct; the interpretation needs evidence of its historic and orthodox natures, or at least proof of its non-disagreement to them, and also must be true to the facts of the natural world in terms of its literal quality.

Otherwise, all we get is circular reasoning.

 

[Cappadocious]

However, not all of the ECFs brought this issue up. Without knowing for sure what their stance was

Anything is possible, but it's not very likely.

 

[Tzaousios]

I do not add to or take away from scripture. I do not re-write the entire Bible to suit a doctrine. I do not hold additional works or prophets ABOVE the Bible. I keep things in context.

Just because you do these things does not mean you are guaranteed to find the right interpretation. Also, how do you determine the correct context?

Yes, it does prove that, for the reasons I listed above. Fruit can sometimes be deceptive. Some good looking berries are poisonous.

I am not talking about those who willfully deceive and accumulate fruit for selfish gain. Those can be found on both sides. Rather, I am talking about those Muslims and Mormons who bear fruit for the same reasons that Christians do. How do you distinguish between them? Which one is "better" or "correct?"

 

[Pteriax]

delete

 

[Pteriax]

To read is to interpret; this is the very basis of written language.

the interpretation needs evidence of its historic and orthodox natures, or at least proof of its non-disagreement to them, and also must be true to the facts of the natural world in terms of its literal quality.

I actually said that.

 

[Pteriax]

Just because you do these things does not mean you are guaranteed to find the right interpretation. Also, how do you determine the correct context?

I have explained that before, I think it was even in this topic.

I am not talking about those who willfully deceive and accumulate fruit for selfish gain. Those can be found on both sides. Rather, I am talking about those Muslims and Mormons who bear fruit for the same reasons that Christians do. How do you distinguish between them? Which one is "better" or "correct?"

They do not bear the same fruit as Christians at all. Besides that I am not sure what you are getting at, why don't you just say what's on your mind instead of trying to get me to say something. Also this I have already discussed, so I am doubly unsure of what you are getting at.

 

[Tzaousios]

I have explained that before, I think it was even in this topic.

They do not bear the same fruit as Christians at all. Besides that I am not sure what you are getting at, why don't you just say what's on your mind instead of trying to get me to say something. Also this I have already discussed, so I am doubly unsure of what you are getting at.

I have said what I think. It is just that your justifications do not substantiate how you happen to arrive at the correct interpretation every time. Or the interpretation that is better or more legitimate that non-Christians or heretics. I don't understand how you think the process works.

 

[Pteriax]

I have said what I think. It is just that your justifications do not substantiate how you happen to arrive at the correct interpretation every time. Or the interpretation that is better or more legitimate that non-Christians or heretics. I don't understand how you think the process works.

As I have said, I am not correct every time. Some passages in scripture I do not understand very well or at all. Some on the other hand I do, and I tend to focus on what I do know for certain on the forum. As I also said, I specialize in counter-cult apologetics and spiritual warfare, so many of the things I am much more familiar with relate to proving the cults to be just that - non-christian cults. I have a small library of books on cults and occultism, spiritual warfare, and ministries relating to them. I have an entire bookshelf devoted to only Bibles and another for Bible study books like commentaries and atlases. I know you really only have my word to go on, but such is life on the forums. The process works through devoting a huge amount of time and money to studies, and a lot of prayer. It's not simple by any means, but it is what I do.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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?

Which Nicene Creed? First Council of Nicea (325) and or First Council of Constantinople (381)? Constantinople added the line:

"In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Most Protestants, save the Lutherans, may have trouble with the text in bold as it suggests the notion of "baptismal regeneration". However I believe it can be interpreted in other ways, whether or not those would be consistent with the original intention is the question.

 

[Cappadocious]

So the gr34t ap0st4cy occurred between Nicea I and Constantinople I now?

 

[Jig]

Anything is possible, but it's not very likely.

How could you know how likely it is? The Early Church Fathers are known to have differences in theological positions. If a few could be found to have conflicting stances on this issue it would not be considered unbelievably odd. Surely you can find many instances where the majority of ECFs believe in a particular concept while a few (maybe even just one) of the ECFs don't. All we can say for certain is that those ECFs that decided to address the issue of baptismal regeneration appear to agree with the idea. However, even with this generalized agreement there probably could be found some slight diversity in minute details surrounding this event. The early church was in an ongoing process of developing and expanding their theology - and this process is still ongoing!

 

[Cappadocious]

How could you know how likely it is?

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.