# Whats the last 'belief' you dismissed and now embrace.



## Amazing Grace (Jan 23, 2010)

This is not for debate. Just curious what we have changed our minds on last.


My last 'change' was 100% works assurance. Now I am more in line with the marrow men saying Assurance is the essence of faith not satiated with works.


----------



## Jon Peters (Jan 23, 2010)

This is a really good question and hits close to home for me. I've done a lot of changing over the past few years. Here's list of my most recent changes in order beginning with the most recent change:

1. From 6/24 hour creation to framework (also from yec to oec)
2. Small "t" theonomic to a two kingdom view (I like Kline now; I used to dismiss him)
3. From postmillennial to amillennial
4. Psalms only to psalms and hymns


----------



## Jake (Jan 23, 2010)

Jon Peters said:


> This is a really good question and hits close to home for me. I've done a lot of changing over the past few years. Here's list of my most recent changes in order beginning with the most recent change:
> 
> 1. From 6/24 hour creation to framework (also from yec to oec)
> 2. Small "t" theonomic to a two kingdom view (I like Kline now; I used to dismiss him)
> 4. Psalms only to psalms and hymns


 
I think you're going backwards!  

For me the main ones have been paedobaptism from credobaptism and accepting God does have a love in some sense for the non-elect.


----------



## JBaldwin (Jan 23, 2010)

I changed from a big ? to amillennial. I said goodbye to the dispensational view years ago, but never really came to hold to another view until very recently.


----------



## dudley (Jan 23, 2010)

My religious beliefs changed dramatically since 2006. I left Roman catholicism in 2006 because I no longer accepted papal authority. I was an Episcapalian for a brief time then met through the study of Protestantism the Reformed theology of John Calvin. I experienced like Calvin described a "true Protestant Conversion" and in 2007 renounced roman catholicism entirely, her pope and her teachings. I became a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian in 2007.


----------



## Jon Peters (Jan 23, 2010)

Jake said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> > This is a really good question and hits close to home for me. I've done a lot of changing over the past few years. Here's list of my most recent changes in order beginning with the most recent change:
> ...


 
No. It's called progressive sanctification!


----------



## ubermadchen (Jan 23, 2010)

Headcoverings. I literally woke up on Friday and thought to myself, "Hm. Can't avoid it any longer."


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 23, 2010)

I've considered myself postmillennial for quite some time, but in the last couple of years I've found myself more in line with an amillennial position.

But let's just say it's an extremely optimistic amil position.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 23, 2010)

Premil to Amil
4pt to 5pt - few years ago
Bow ties (Nate's fault) - 18 months ago
Credo to . . . [not yet!]


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 23, 2010)

Oh, and I almost forgot: snake handling.


----------



## Sven (Jan 24, 2010)

I can't remember if it was the Covenant of Works or Common Grace or both at the same time. For a while I was enamoured with the theology of Herman Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed Churches, but thankfully I was delivered from that error, and now wholeheartedly affirm both of these historic Reformed doctrines. This took place maybe 7 years ago or so.


----------



## INsearch (Jan 24, 2010)

hmmm..

Reformed Theology in general, as a person who had struggled and despaired his whole life (spiritually) Reformed Theology was SCARY here I was in a constant state of being "Backsliden" and my father was beginning to pick up on a Theology that could possibly tell me I was never meant to be with the Lord, and my spiritual distress was for nill because I was not to be saved...that was my most recent belief change..probably my biggest!! heck...I was starting to try and get into Arminianism, and I remember my first esposure to this board was reading threads on him  so anything oposite of Reformed Theology...I changed my beliefs on that.


----------



## Blue Tick (Jan 24, 2010)

No real order of progression...

Amillennial to postmillennial.

What's a head covering? Believe head coverings should be worn.

What's a theonomist? Ruled by God's law, that makes sense.

Hymns are nice. Psalms are God's hymnal.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jan 24, 2010)

Let's see, in the last two years....

From before to after marriage: Marriage is wonderful and easy ----> Marriage is wonderful and hard.

Understanding self: My biggest problems are these annoying sins ---> My biggest problem is my constant bent toward self-righteousness

On higher ed.: Professors are magically gifted people ---> Professors are people who work unbelievably hard

On languages: Hebrew is bad because it isn't Greek ---> There's room in my heart for more than one ancient language

On poker: Bluff a lot ---> play good cards

On neonatal circumcision: everybody does it ---> highly questionable practice

On baptism: yeah, i went paedo-

On reading: quantity ---> quantity and quality


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jan 24, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> Oh, and I almost forgot: snake handling.


 
Is you for it or a'gin it?!


----------



## Berean (Jan 24, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> Oh, and I almost forgot: snake handling.


 
I'll bet that draws a lot of visitors to Midlane Park Presbyterian!


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 24, 2010)

OEC to YEC (5 yrs ago or so)
Broad evangelicalism to refoming Baptist
CT (everybody else is an absolute idiot) to ??? (new respect for Byzantine texts while still using CT)
NIV to ESV/NKJV
Guns are only for hicks, nuts, and wackos to can someone please turn a weapon on the snake handlers? 
Dog people are just plain WEIRD to having two dogs sleep with my wife and me


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 24, 2010)

From believing that ordinarily, eating out on the Lord's Day as long as one tries to focus on the Lord while doing it comports with fourth commandment 

to

Eating out the Lord's Day, ordinarily is against the fourth commandment because it causes people to have to ordinarily work on the Lord's Day to earn their living.


----------



## T.A.G. (Jan 24, 2010)

Fun thread

Progressive Disspy to leaning NC and leaning Post-Mill (though still not positive)
Progressive approach to Canonical Approach
dual prophecy/sensus plenior to direct fulfillment 
evidentialism to pressup or T.A.G
and like my brother said, credo to...still credo


----------



## lynnie (Jan 24, 2010)

Accepting impassibility. Probably the hardest doctrine I ever resisted. Ironically though, now that my old emotional God got buried under orthodoxy, I am more aware than ever in my life that God is love, and God is sooo good.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 24, 2010)

lynnie said:


> Accepting impassibility. Probably the hardest doctrine I ever resisted. Ironically though, now that my old emotional God got buried under orthodoxy, I am more aware than ever in my life that God is love, and God is sooo good.


 
That doesn't seem ironical at all. Every gain in clarity in our understanding of the doctrine of God should serve to deepen our apprehension of other aspects. Understanding impassibility was very helpful to Heidi and me as well.


----------



## MW (Jan 24, 2010)

Amazing Grace said:


> My last 'change' was 100% works assurance. Now I am more in line with the marrow men saying Assurance is the essence of faith not satiated with works.


 
The marrow men took great pains to clear themselves from the false charge that they taught assurance is of the essence of faith.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 24, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > My last 'change' was 100% works assurance. Now I am more in line with the marrow men saying Assurance is the essence of faith not satiated with works.
> ...


 

We had this conversation in the past Matthew. I disagree with your hypothesis still as I did then. It was not a false charge and they did nothing to clear themselves from any of it. They were rightly charged with teaching this, because they did. I see no reason to revise the history when it is a truth they taught. The essence of assurance, the heart of assurance is Faith alone unsatiated with any works. If you would like to start another thread, go ahead.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 24, 2010)

Amazing Grace said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing Grace said:
> ...


 
Just for the record, so others do not think I am imagining what the Marrow taught, and I am not the one revising history, here are some of their own words during that time:

Evan. I would not have you to make any question of it, since you have grounded your faith upon such a firm foundation as will never fail you; for the promise of God in Christ is of a tried truth, and never yet failed any man, nor ever will. 1 Therefore I would have you to close with Christ in the promise, without making any question whether you are in the faith or no; for there is an assurance which rises from the exercise of faith by a direct act, and that is, when a man, by faith, directly lays hold upon Christ, and concludes assurance from thence.

The assurance of Christ's righteousness is a direct act of faith, apprehending imputed righteousness: the evidence of our justification we now speak of, is the reflex light, not by which we are justified, but by which we know that we are justified." Rutherford's Christ Dying and Drawing, p. 111.—"We had never a question with Antinomians touching the first assurance of justification, such as is proper to the light of faith. He might have spared all his arguments to prove, that we are first assured of our justification by faith, not by good works, for we grant the arguments of one sort of assurance, which is proper to faith; and they prove nothing against another sort of assurance, by signs and effects, which is also divine." Ibid. p. 110. 

However, we are fully satisfied this is what our fathers and the body of Protestant divines, speaking with the Scriptures called "the assurance of faith." That once burning and shining light of this church, Mr. John Davidson, though in his Catechism he defines faith by a "hearty assurance" that our sins are freely forgiven us in Christ; or, a sure persuasion of the heart that Christ by his death and resurrection has taken away our sins, and clothing us with his own perfect righteousness, has thoroughly restored us to the favour of God; which he reckoned all one with a "Hearty receiving of Christ offered in the gospel for the remission of sins"; yet in a former part of the same Catechism he gives us to understand what sort of assurance and persuasion it was he meant, as follows: "And certain it is," he says, "that both the enlightening of the mind to acknowledge the truth of the promise of salvation to us in Christ, and the sealing up of the certainty thereof in our hearts and minds, [of the which two parts, as it were, faith consists,] are the works and effects of the Spirit of God." In like manner, in our first Confession of Faith, Art. 3, 12, it is called, "An assured faith in the promise of God revealed to us in his word; by which faith we apprehend Christ Jesus, with the graces and benefits promised in him."—"This faith, and the assurance of the same, proceeds not from flesh and blood."

From all which it is evident, they held, that a belief of the promises of the gospel, with application to oneself, or a confidence in a crucified Saviour, for a man's own salvation, is the very essence of justifying faith; or, that we become actually possessed of Christ, remission of sins, &c., in and by the act of believing, or confidence in him, as above explained. And this with them was the assurance of faith, which widely differs from the Antinomian sense of the assurance or persuasion of faith which is, that Christ, and pardon of sin, are ours, no less before believing than after; a sense which we heartily disclaim. 

Appendix


----------



## MW (Jan 24, 2010)

Marrowman Thomas Boston's explanation of the Marrow includes an explicit rejection of Robert's understanding of assurance being of the essence of faith:



> (1.) *He doth not here teach that assurance of faith whereby believers are certainly assured that they are in the state of grace*, *the which is founded upon the evidence of grace*, of which kind of assurance the Westminster Confession expressly treats, chap. 18, art. 1-3; but an assurance which is in faith, in the direct acts thereof, founded upon the word allenarly, (Mark 16:15,16, John 3:16); and this is nothing else but a fiducial appropriating persuasion. (2.) He doth not determine this assurance or persuasion to be full, or to exclude doubting: he says not, be fully persuaded, but, be verily persuaded, which speaks only the reality of the persuasion, and doth not at all concern the degree of it. And it is manifest, from his distinguishing between faith of adherence, and faith of evidence, [p. 99,] that, according to him, saving faith may be without evidence. *And so one may have this assurance or persuasion*, *and yet not know assuredly that he hath it*, *but need marks to discover it by*; for though a man cannot but be conscious of an act of his own soul as to the substance of the act, yet he may be in the dark as to the specifical nature of it, than which nothing is more ordinary among serious Christians. And thus, as a real saint is conscious of his own heart's moving in affection towards God, yet sometimes doth not assuredly know it to be the true love of God in him, but fears it to be an hypocritical flash of affection; so he may be conscious of his persuasion, and yet doubt if it is the true persuasion of faith, and not that of the hypocrite.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 25, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Marrowman Thomas Boston's explanation of the Marrow includes an explicit rejection of Robert's understanding of assurance being of the essence of faith:
> 
> 
> 
> > (1.) *He doth not here teach that assurance of faith whereby believers are certainly assured that they are in the state of grace*, *the which is founded upon the evidence of grace*, of which kind of assurance the Westminster Confession expressly treats, chap. 18, art. 1-3; but an assurance which is in faith, in the direct acts thereof, founded upon the word allenarly, (Mark 16:15,16, John 3:16); and this is nothing else but a fiducial appropriating persuasion. (2.) He doth not determine this assurance or persuasion to be full, or to exclude doubting: he says not, be fully persuaded, but, be verily persuaded, which speaks only the reality of the persuasion, and doth not at all concern the degree of it. And it is manifest, from his distinguishing between faith of adherence, and faith of evidence, [p. 99,] that, according to him, saving faith may be without evidence. *And so one may have this assurance or persuasion*, *and yet not know assuredly that he hath it*, *but need marks to discover it by*; for though a man cannot but be conscious of an act of his own soul as to the substance of the act, yet he may be in the dark as to the specifical nature of it, than which nothing is more ordinary among serious Christians. And thus, as a real saint is conscious of his own heart's moving in affection towards God, yet sometimes doth not assuredly know it to be the true love of God in him, but fears it to be an hypocritical flash of affection; so he may be conscious of his persuasion, and yet doubt if it is the true persuasion of faith, and not that of the hypocrite.


 

The Marrow controversy was not settled with the last word's of Boston. It only distinguished between assurance of faith vs assurance of sense. Taken from his own words:

It must be owned, that saints do not all die in one and the same manner; there is a diversity among them, as well as among the wicked; yet the worst case of a dying saint is indeed a hopeful one. Some die triumphantly, in a fnli assurance of faith. 2 Timothy 4:6-8, "The time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness." They get a taste of the joys of heaven, while here on earth; and begin the songs of Zion, while yet in a strange land.

Others die in a solid dependence of faith on their Lord and Savior– though they cannot sing triumphantly, yet they can, and will say confidently, "The Lord is their God." Though they cannot triumph over death, with old Simeon, having Christ in his arms, and saying, "Lord now let your servant depart in peace, according to your word– for my eyes have seen your salvation," Luke 2:29, 30; yet they can say with dying Jacob, "I have waited for your salvation, Lord," Gen. 49:18. His left hand is under their head, to support them, though his right hand does not embrace them– they firmly believe, though they are not filled with joy in believing. They can plead the covenant, and hang by the promise, although their house is not so with God as they could wish. 

In a section entitled “On Faith,” Ebenezer Erskine wrote, “Its appropriation or assurance. (1.) The ground of this. A particular application is grounded on the word, for faith relates to testimony, believing on a word to be believed.” For Erskine, the testimony of God was the only assurance that one could have of his justification. Erskine wrote in his memoirs: "Because it is charged on us [The Marrow Men] as an error, that we preach assurance to be of the essence of faith, I design to publish the substance of some sermons on that subject from Heb. 10:22; from which I hope it will appear, that our principles on that head are agreeable unto the scriptures of truth and the ancient and modern standards of truth in this church."

Matthew. Boston does not reject the notion at all. In fact, the same words you 'think' do such, are actually used to prove he also believed in an objective assurance.


----------



## MW (Jan 25, 2010)

Amazing Grace said:


> Matthew. Boston does not reject the notion at all. In fact, the same words you 'think' do such, are actually used to prove he also believed in an objective assurance.


 
All acknowledge that the objective truth of salvation must be assuredly believed. When assurance is denied as being of the essence of faith it is the subjective realisation that one is in a state of grace which is being referred to.


----------



## MW (Jan 25, 2010)

Amazing Grace said:


> For Erskine, the testimony of God was the only assurance that one could have of his justification.


 
Erskine's position is clearly stated (Works, 1:141): "Works are not a ground of confidence, but an *evidence*; they are not the foundation of faith, but the *fruits* of it: and the believer's comfort may be increased *by the sight of good works*, though it is not built on them. In a word, they *manifest* our claim and title to the crown, but do not at all found or merit the same."

The Marrowmen were not Antinomians; they distinguished but did not separate justification and sanctification, and they always urged the necessity of good works as the fruit and evidence of a true and lively faith, in accord with the teaching of the Westminster Standards.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Jan 25, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > For Erskine, the testimony of God was the only assurance that one could have of his justification.
> ...


 

I agree they were not Antinomians. Yet to claim the truth of scripture as they did, assurance is the essence of faith, does not make them, nor anyone else who agrees with this an antinomian. The WCF spoke more form a subjective assurance, vs what these men taught as an objective assurance of faith. I see no issue in either of them. Only when an objective assurance of faith is satiated with works of which I do not know what works are meant by this, does assurance get muddied and cross into neonomianism. The marrow men were correct in playing between both poles of error. 

Also, I am not going to tennis match various quotes from the MM. There is plenty of evidence and historical documentation they they believe assurance is the essence of faith. Faith in the promises of Christ. Even if one cannot see the blood on the lintel, we can be assured by faith that God sees it and it matters little if I see it. He will pass over my house. Why? Because He promised He would. This is why a subjective works assurance is a dangerous road to spend much time on. 

By the way, what works do people mean when they speak of works assurance? It cannot be any type of works an impostor can mimic. Therefore they ONLY distinguishing element is faith.


----------



## MW (Jan 25, 2010)

Amazing Grace said:


> I agree they were not Antinomians. Yet to claim the truth of scripture as they did, assurance is the essence of faith, does not make them, nor anyone else who agrees with this an antinomian.


 
Historically, to make the assurance of being in a state of grace to belong to the essence of faith is an Antinomian belief. Yes, the Marrowmen were not Antinomian. This is proved by the fact that they recommended "evidence of grace" in order to arrive at the proper assurance that one is in a state of grace.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 26, 2010)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and I almost forgot: snake handling.
> ...





Berean said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and I almost forgot: snake handling.
> ...


 
Only on 5th Sundays


----------



## TexanRose (Jan 26, 2010)

In the last year, I went from "the regulative principle is nice, but not necessary" to "the regulative principle is both nice AND most pleasing to God."

Oh yeah, and I went from being a credo-baptist to a paedo-baptist. 

Both thanks in part to a membership class at an RPCNA (which I went into thinking I already had it all figured out).


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 26, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> I've considered myself postmillennial for quite some time, but in the last couple of years I've found myself more in line with an amillennial position.
> 
> But let's just say it's an extremely optimistic amil position.


 
That's strange, Tim. I'm becoming more postmillenial, but it's a _pessimistic_ sort of postmil. . . .


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Jan 26, 2010)

From Apostolic Authority and Tradition to Sola Scriptura. That was a major one for me.


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 26, 2010)

Semi-Emergent to Puritan.


----------



## LadyCalvinist (Jan 26, 2010)

Hymns - Psalms only 
Non-head covering to head covering


----------



## Kiffin (Jan 26, 2010)

Sometime within the past few years:

1. BAPTIST to baptist
2. 4 pointer to 5 pointer
3. Dispensational Premil to amillennial/Covenantal
4. teetotaller to moderation


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 26, 2010)

TexanRose said:


> In the last year, I went from "the regulative principle is nice, but not necessary" to "the regulative principle is both nice AND most pleasing to God."
> 
> Oh yeah, and I went from being a credo-baptist to a paedo-baptist.
> 
> Both thanks in part to a membership class at an RPCNA (which I went into thinking I already had it all figured out).



I went through a very indepth class in the RPCNA years ago. Well, it has been since the late 80's. I guess that might be a long time ago to some. I will say this, the RPCNA richly helped me understand the Regulative Principle of Worship. I am not a holder to Exclusive Psalmody but would say it is closer to the RPW than 99% of what goes on in Worship today. Yes, I believe in hyperbole. 

I have come close to becoming a paedo baptist some years ago but couldn't for conscience sake because of my understanding of Covenant Theology and Progressive Revelation. Especially considering who is in Christ and who isn't. Also considering who are defined as his covenant children in the New Testament and who aren't? I so wanted to become a Paedo Baptist. I would fit in better some places that I would like to hang. 

I can't say that I have changed much theologically since I became a Christian. I was born a Calvinist unlike many. I read John 15:16 and just believed it. In fact, I didn't even know I was a Calvinist until someone told me about a year or two after my conversion that I was. I don't think I was ever a dispensationalist. I was surrounded by them but didn't agree with them that the Church and Israel were two separate identifiable people. The terminology was just to similar. As I grew in my faith I became an optimistic Amil. Amil is a rather new term. Post mil should be considered synonymously in my opinion. A good book on that is by Cornelious P. Venema called The Future Hope. 

I guess I did vary on my opinion on the operations of the Holy Spirit a bit. And have surely come down on the side of non-cessationist while I believe God can still move and do whatever he wants to do. 

But pretty much I haven't been one who slides from one position to another very much. I have grown in grace and knowledge and consider it a mercy by His grace.


----------



## TexanRose (Jan 26, 2010)

LadyCalvinist said:


> ...snip
> Non-head covering to head covering



Oh, I forgot to add this one. I just came around on head coverings a couple of weeks ago, actually (though I'd been wearing them already out of respect for the views of my church). 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> TexanRose said:
> 
> 
> > In the last year, I went from "the regulative principle is nice, but not necessary" to "the regulative principle is both nice AND most pleasing to God."
> ...


 
I used to feel exactly the same way...until I read a little booklet by Peter Bloomfield entitled "Covenant Baptism" and had one fantastic "aha" moment. All the pieces just came together at once and it all suddenly made sense. May you have the same experience.


----------



## puritanhope (Jan 26, 2010)

The only recent change would be my view towards the Christian and theater. Up until fairly recently I viewed drama as an issue of Christian Liberty (so long as it wasn't films like The Passion, which are obviously indefensible) and I have recently been persuaded that drama is sinful. I would, perhaps, be willing to make an exception for a film where there is not one use of profanity, one immoral act, or sin.... but an honest, God fearing person, would be hard-pressed to find one film where at least one of God's commandments are not broken by at least one of the actors within it.

Not to say I don't enjoy a good documentary from time to time!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 27, 2010)

TexanRose said:


> May you have the same experience.



Only if it is from God. As others as studied this and seen my blogs here, they probably would know that that will not happen.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/ 

I wanted that aha moment but it didn't come. I emotionally wanted it.


----------



## KMK (Jan 27, 2010)

My belief that people from places like 'Speedway' and 'Texarkana' were a few beers short of a six-pack.


----------



## Confessor (Jan 27, 2010)

From presuppositionalism to classical apologetics.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Jan 27, 2010)

Premil to amil/partial preterist
credo to paedo
Dispensational to covenant
contemporary worship to EP
continuationist to cessationist


----------



## Christoffer (Jan 27, 2010)

My views on government and public school


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 27, 2010)

VictorBravo said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > I've considered myself postmillennial for quite some time, but in the last couple of years I've found myself more in line with an amillennial position.
> ...


 
Gentlemen,

You might be comforted to know GI Williamson says in his Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, he may be described as either:

1)Non-utopian postmillennialist

or

2) Optimistic amillennialist


----------



## Ivan (Jan 27, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> Oh, and I almost forgot: snake handling.



What do you feed them?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jan 27, 2010)

Great thread, and I've enjoyed the responses so far. My changes would be:

1. Anti-deaconess (or at least on the fence) to pro-deaconess

2. Non-Sabbatarian to Sabbatarian

3. Young earth creationist to Old earth creationist (though still reject Darwinian Evolution)

4. More of a political topic, but I now oppose the death penalty. I'm not sure if it's sinful, but it is unnecessary, in my opinion


----------



## Tripel (Jan 27, 2010)

I'm sure there are several, but three immediately come to mind

1) I'm leaning heavily towards a old earth creation now
2) Was pro-Iraq war for several years, but then became anti-Iraq war
3) I've taken a more liberal view on government allowing same-sex marriage.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 27, 2010)

Ivan said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and I almost forgot: snake handling.
> ...


 
Emergent-types and Federal Visionists


----------



## Ne Oublie (Jan 27, 2010)

> Emergent-types and Federal Visionists



From anti-snake handlers to pro-snake handlers!


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jan 27, 2010)

I was a paedo-baptist for about 20 minutes at one point.....I am again a credo-baptist.


----------



## Curt (Jan 27, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Yes, I believe in hyperbole.


 
When and how did you convert to hyperbole?


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 27, 2010)

Unashamed 116 said:


> I was a paedo-baptist for about 20 minutes at one point.....I am again a credo-baptist.


 
Brother, you just might be the Bret Favre of theology!

J/K


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jan 27, 2010)

Only singing hymns by dead people and no psalms...to.... singing hymns that are good whether the authors are on earth or in heaven, AND singing psalms

Believing that Alcohol consumption is inherently sinful...to...consuming occasional alcohol.

Other than that, which is fundie-type stuff, nothing, as I was born in a church holding to the 1689 and gave my assent to the same when joining said church in my teenage years.

---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------




Unashamed 116 said:


> I was a paedo-baptist for about 20 minutes at one point.....I am again a credo-baptist.


 
I had a similar experience actually. I really thought it was happening. It was exciting and scary. Then I woke up.  No, no, I was awake and reading the Bible.


----------



## Jon Peters (Jan 27, 2010)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Great thread, and I've enjoyed the responses so far. My changes would be:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I've become more sympathetic to the idea that the death penalty as applied is unfair and possibly racist.

On OEC, I'd be interested to hear what motivated the change. I've recently undergone a similar one. Feel free to PM me.


----------



## tmckinney (Jan 27, 2010)

Arminian to Calvinist. Thanks to the Holy Spirit, Spurgeon, James White, and R.C. Sproul.


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 27, 2010)

From near-paedo-communion to the WCF view of communion.

From an individualistic low view of Church membership that made submission to her Officers optional to a high view of same that sees submission as necessary unless doing so would be sin.

From a rejection of the PCA as bordering apostasy to actually having hope for her rescue from the brink.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 27, 2010)

> *ColdSilverMoon*
> 2. Non-Sabbatarian to Sabbatarian



Fantastic! 

(And don't accept the term "sabbatarian" any more than one who tries to keep the tenth, a "covetarian." It's simply about, by God's grace, trying to obey all ten commandments as a rule for life to please our God and bring honor and glory to His name)

May you come to experience the blessing that comes from obedience in this, and know the sabbath for what it is... A DELIGHT!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 27, 2010)

Curt said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I believe in hyperbole.
> ...


I am not sure I was converted. I have always been a hyperbolist. I have always loved Hyperbole ever since I can remember. LOL


----------



## Susanna (Jan 27, 2010)

Premill to Amill (but that was a long time ago) - I had heard clear preaching by Pastors Sam Waldron, Greg Nichols, Merick, Martin, Chanski and probably more. I became a member at my former RB church holding pretty tightly to that one issue until I worked at the Muskegon Rescue Mission and a woman came in detoxing from a drug she had in her, babbling she just wanted someone to explain Revelation"s" to her. She kept repeating that over and over again. That's when it hit me (after all the good preaching "seemed" to have missed its mark). She didn't need to know about bowls, or trumpets, or lampstands. She didn't need to know when or how. She only needed to know Christ. It sure was a relief to answer every unintelligible, repeated, desperate question without having to imagine some complicated timeline or chart in my head by just softly pointing her to Christ ("It means we need to 'repent' & 'believe'" ... "but what about the..."... "that's just another church, it's the same message though, the same message we all need..."). 

It's been a long time since I've switch any doctrines honestly. I suppose in the last 5 years I've become less strict as a sabbatarian. I keep going back to "to what degree". Also, I used to really be "it's a RBC for me" and "RPW w/ no choirs or "strange" instruments..." but again that question "to what degree" (especially as I've gotten away from the RBC I still cherish to see God's light in the least likely of places). 

In fact, I suspect that if God were to send me to China to join up with a church with only 5 women (one teaching and prepping others to go and teach), one page from the Bible, or a corner with just John 3:16 on it, to worship on a Saturday evening, and where most whispered in tongues as someone prayed I'd find myself (GOD WILLING) joyful and grateful. Or, should I end up in PoP Haiti, on the street, sitting on some newspapers, surrounded by the dead, and rotting and lawless, hopeless, stunned men and women walking past us with orange peels up their noses on account of the stench, should anyone want to praise and worship Christ with or without an instrument, hands raised or not, heads bowed or not, in a foreign language or not, with emotive songs or not, considering if Christ has already come or not and when exactly did or will God actually save, call or elect me personally ... I don't care. I'd be THERE ... kindredly.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 28, 2010)

Joshua H. said:


> My views on "secular" governments, war, and the state.


 
I like your curlers, Josh.


----------



## buggy (Jan 28, 2010)

I rejected Dispensationalism and am a step closer to Covenant theology! 

That having being said, I find advantages both in the A-mil and Post-mil stances. 
Although the Pre-mils can argue that they are right since the Middle East is quite messy now...


----------



## TexanRose (Jan 28, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> TexanRose said:
> 
> 
> > May you have the same experience.
> ...


 
But of course!

I didn't mean to be flippant with you--I read your posts and blogs about baptism last year when I was studying the issue in-depth. I know that you have thought quite a bit about the subject, and I appreciate your graciousness in defending the credo-baptist view.


----------



## Webservant (Jan 29, 2010)

*Politics:*
The state enforces and legislates morailty => the state reflects the morality of its citizens.
We have a responsibility to protect freedom in the world => we have a need to restore freedom here.
God's Own Party is the key to restoration => 2 Chronicles 7:14

*Beliefs:*
God wants me to make sure everyone is behaving => Luke 6:42
Young Earth creationist with no evolution => leaning towards Old Earth, animals evolve to adapt to changing environments, while Man just changes his environment.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 29, 2010)

I have recently been convicted of a more conservative view of what is acceptable on the Lord's Day.


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 29, 2010)

Webservant said:


> *Politics:*
> The state enforces and legislates morailty => the state reflects the morality of its citizens.
> We have a responsibility to protect freedom in the world => we have a need to restore freedom here.
> God's Own Party is the key to restoration => 2 Chronicles 7:14
> ...


 
I like how some of your views have changed to Bible verses.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 29, 2010)

About six years after I believe I was converted I moved, by God's grace, from having very little assurance to being assured.

I grew up in a Presbyterian and Reformed church where tithing didn't seem to be emphasised. After reading a booklet by A.W. Pink and doing further study I started tithing, about (?) ten years ago.

I studied theonomy quite closely but never embraced it. I believe there are many lessons that ecclesiastical and civil government need to learn from the Law of Moses, but sometimes not in the way the theonomists imagine, because they rip the criminal and penal law of Moses out of its context with little adjustment.

I studied Van Til quite closely. Alot of useful material. I believe apologetic material should be woven into preaching and evangelism. The Holy Spirit can bless "evidential" arguments too. Christ is making a display of all false gods and worldviews in history, by His Church, Word, Spirit and Providence (Revelation 19).

I've come to believe in the importance of a full-orbed Christian education for the covenant children, coming from a background that didn't emphasise it.


----------



## Bald_Brother (Jan 30, 2010)

Right there with you. A "conversion" I've made in the past two years, though I make the occasional (two or three Sundays last year) concession to my parents when I visit home. 



Scott1 said:


> From believing that ordinarily, eating out on the Lord's Day as long as one tries to focus on the Lord while doing it comports with fourth commandment
> 
> to
> 
> Eating out the Lord's Day, ordinarily is against the fourth commandment because it causes people to have to ordinarily work on the Lord's Day to earn their living.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 30, 2010)

Bald_Brother said:


> Right there with you. A "conversion" I've made in the past two years, though I make the occasional (two or three Sundays last year) concession to my parents when I visit home.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
My understanding now is there can be a necessity or mercy exception to this when one is traveling, or someone is sick and circumstances for food preparation are outside of one's ordinary control.

Trying, by God's grace to keep the sabbath is one of the disciplines of the Christian life, and one that will testify to others what is going on inside spiritually. It affects us in the ordinary course of our lives, blesses us, and is a witness to others. 

I first pray the Lord will give an alternative even in those circumstances, even a humble meal alone. But, if He does not, and I still keep focused on the Lord as much as within my control, conscience is clear... and God is pleased.

What's interesting is, planning for this even while traveling, have not had to 'except' this yet. But, if I do, it will be with a clear conscience, and appreciation for the Lord establishing mercy and necessity as part of the fourth commandment. Not as a way to rationalize getting around it, but as a way of establishing its perpetuity.

What a blessing!


----------



## Webservant (Jan 30, 2010)

austinww said:


> Webservant said:
> 
> 
> > *Politics:*
> ...


No other way to word them. If I paraphrased, I would mess them up!


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Jan 30, 2010)

The Lord's Supper: From memorialist view to Calvinist view. Also from infrequent receiving the Lord's Supper to weekly administration.
Many moons ago I was Psalms only, now Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs.
Even though I have always been Presbyterian I never really understood or accepted paedobaptism. Now I do.
Leaning heavily towards amilenialism and two kingdoms.
The struggle continues with the old fundamentalist mindset to receiving God's grace.


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 30, 2010)

Webservant said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > Webservant said:
> ...


 
I think we'd all be better off if we changed all of our views to Bible verses.


----------



## Eoghan (Jan 31, 2010)

Curt said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I believe in hyperbole.
> ...


 
sure thats not hyperbole to superbowl


----------

