Changing a mind that is made up.

Yes, it was my veiw on the Sabbath not being on Sunday. :flower:

 

I embraced Calvinism about 35 years ago. I left dispensational eschatology about 25 years ago. Am now a historical pre-millenialist.

I no longer use the Roman Road and the sinner's prayer in my personal witnessing. That happened after a mission trip to Romania in 1997.

I began to develop some Landmark tendencies about 15 years ago, but not the whole ball of wax.

 

Many of my theological views are much different than when I was younger. Most of that is due to the following:

Was: Independent, Fundamental, Legalistic, Dispensational, Pre trib/millenial, Baptist. For example, I had friends that went to such schools as Bob Jones, Tennessee Temple, Crown, etc.

Am: Reformed, Grace-driven, Amillenial, Presbyterian.

As a result, this changes everything. OK, not everything -- just close to it.

 

What's Landmark?

You and FoS sound a lot like me, I think...

 

I've been discouraged lately, in seeing and participating in all the debates, and noticing how people's minds are made up, and the type of argumentative tactics they resort to when running out of answers (ad-hominem, mischaracterization, just repeating the same assertions over and over again). And that is just within the Christian body alone. (And then we wonder why people like xdisciple are confused and don't know who to turn to) Look how even more difficult the secular world is, with intelligent design and the demand for "empirical evidence", and now, homosexuality being promoted all over the place.

It looks to me like debate has run its course. Everyone has their mind made up, and it seems nothing will change it. It is rare that someone admits to learning they were wrong about something.

I have pretty much stood my ground on the things I have debated, but in one area, I have opened up a bit. When I first entered the preterism debate a couple of years ago, against Grasshopper and Eschatologist, I argued fiercely against it and felt I refuted the notio of Christ's retuen being fulfilled with the destruction of the Temple in AD70. But as I researched it more, I saw some variations of it that look quite feasible. Its strong point was the "tme statements" showing that "the end" was to be in the lifetimes of people in Jesus' day. My main argument against it was the "sense statements" showing it and the resultant resurrecton to glory of the saints had to be more than a symbolic "Parousia". However, I soon discovered one theory, drawing from a Josephus reference, that there may have been some sort of visible appearance of Christ in the sky at the end of the war. Then, another person argued for a literal rapture in AD70. I had to admit, that if both of these things happened, that would fulfill the sense statements. (Though both teachers reject each other's view). Then, I found another view, called "pantelism" or "comprehensive Grace" that takes all of this to its consistent conclusion and says that when the system of the OC Law was finally destroyed in AD70, so was the condemnation that came with it, and salvation was unconditionally opened up to all men.

This is quite radical, but it does remind me of some points made in the Calvinism debates earlier, where the Calvinists strongest point was the notion of dead sinners being able to just turn and choose Christ, and what causes one to choose and not another. Looking at the utter obstinacy of most nonbelievers in the world today, you could see why that argument sticks. Then the Primitive Baptists would jump in and take it another step further and argue that if unconditional election is true, then "duty faith" and "duty repentance" should not be what marks salvation either. God is free to save anyone anywhere, and this would be the only hope for those who have never heard. Of course, they still held onto unconditional reprobation as well, but if you put that together with the other theories I mentioned, then not only do you have a solution to that debate, but you can also explain the often recurring OSAS/Perseverance debate. The Christians Christ and the NT were written to were still partially under the Law, so they had to persevere until the time --again, in their lifetimes, when that would end. Those who didn't would be lost, but this does not say anything about the world after that.

All of this makes the Christmas songs, sung by many non-Christians more meaningful. If salvation relies on a person being first convinced and then moved to profess Christ, then it looked like almost everyone we see around us wlll be lost. Especially when we take into consideration all those who do profess Chrst, but are nominal and not living it, or belive false things about Him, or other doctrines that we consider as rendering them unsaved. So a person has to be not only convinced of Christ, AND it has to be the right concept of Him, and noone is even in complete agreement on what exactly that is. And this against all of the stuff in life that appears to go against the faith; like not beng able to prove it empirically, and that no matter what happens, Christ just doesn't come back.

CG seems to explain this, but it raises the question of why the Church was in the dark about this all these centuries. The AD70 rapture theory offers the suggestion that those "left behind" were either so ashamed, or perhaps didn't know what happened, and thus would go on to form the Church still looking for what was past, and it would also explain why it went so corrupt after "the lost century" (AD50-150) when the Church chaged int catholicism.

But then this would make it look like God just washed His hands on the world and the church, and when we die, that's all that matters. "It [the entire plan of God] is finished". But this isn't this what many people who complain of God's seeming absence say they feel like? It seems a lot of pieces fall into place with this idea. Then, the Church's primary response is "no, that's not true; God is doing many wonderful works, saving souls, etc". On one hand, you have more conservative types who'll parrot that, but at the same time are complaining about how the world is rapidly falling away fro Christ. So the bggest proponents of "all the mighty work God is doing" ends up being the charismatics, who have influenced a lot of evangelicalism, yet are rejected by the more conservative, including many of us here. I find many of their claims to be very sensatonalistic, and some we will all agree are qiute false. Yet those are the biggest claims we have about what God is doing.

So while not officially accepting this, it does loom in my mind as a possible explanation of the world and Church we see today. The ramifications are significant, as if we preach it and it is wrong, and everyone still is heading for Hell. However, the teachng of Hell does not seem to be fazing the world anymore anyway, as Christianity seems to be fading to a relic of the past, and we just argue about everything and can't agree on what the truth is.

 

In my short time on the BB, I have encountered several who's mind's were made up before the debate even started. (mine included) Personally, I want to change my attitude. I think if we have an attitude of "what can I learn" instead of "what can I teach" we will be doing what God wants us to do and rightly divide the word by sharing instead of dictating. I am also ashamed of any rudeness that I've exibited. There is no excuse for a Christian to behave badly. I ask for your forgiveness.:saint:

 

Landmark thought holds that

Jesus established his church during his earthly ministry.

Perpetuity--there has always been a group in existence since Christ, which holds to the doctrines he taught. Not always named Baptist, but Baptists hold to those same doctrines. That's why many Baptists declare that Baptists are not Protestants because we were here before the Catholics.

Successionism--that each new church sprang from an existing church. By extension, no one should start a church without permission and blessing from an existing church. (I don't hold this view, but it is a Landmark position, as I understand it.

The church that Jesus established was a local, visible assembly, not a universal, invisible church. The universal church actually does not exist--people who think it does confuse it with the kingdom. (Some folks think the universal church and the kingdom are the same thing).

I am not a strong Landmarker, but do have some Landmark tendencies, I like to say. Strong Landmarkers would be opposed to para-church ministries unless they came under the authority of a local church. They would also oppose full-time evangelists who do not bring themselves under a local church.

Most Baptists I know today are not Landmark, but the movement is fairly strong among some Baptist groups in the South. Many Baptists today treat Landmarkism as heresy, which it's not.

 

Have I changed my mind on anything since I got saved? Yes. I am 13 years old in the Lord.

---
For the first five years, I loved to argue with Christians whom I disagreed with over things that do not really matter to actually serving the Lord with the good deeds He values most.

In the past five years, I have preferred to skip arguing unless there is something to be gained by it besides all the fun of sharp-tongued `contending for the truth.' I actually prefer to build bridges with Christians that I disagree with.

From the gist of 1 Timothy 6:3-4, I have developed a motto for myself: "Service before controversy."
---
For the first five years, I believed that baptism was totally unrelated to the causes of salvation.

For about 8 years, I have recognized while one is saved the moment of genuine faith, genuine faith involves a desire to obey the Lord in baptism.
---
I once believed that belief in biblical inerrancy was the most important issue to make someone a Christian.

I now believe that obedient faith in the Gospel to follow Jesus Christ as Lord is the most important issue to make someone a Christian.

---
I used to believe that Pentecostal services were irreverent `worship parties.'

I am not Pentecostal, but I know that this is not true. Pentecostals know that the Lord is Someone to get excited about, and in worship, they express it.

---
I used to believe that I should only attend church where the congregation worship-time distinctives were most in line with Scripture.

I now believe that I should attend church where they meet for the purpose of Hebrews 10:24-5, regardless of how good the preaching is about congregational distinctives of worship-time teaching and worship practice.

---
I used to believe that Christian conviction was demonstrated by our willingness to `take a stand for the truth' against other Christians as opposition.

I now believe that this violates Romans 16:17, Mark 3:24-5, Romans 12:18+Hebrews 12:14a, Titus 3:8-11, and Ephesians 4:2-3. I believe that we are to try to work against our fleshly desires to divide and quarrel, and instead strive to work toward bearing with each other and peace.
---

I used to think I had fewer opinions than I actually do.

So yes, my mind has changed a lot. It comes from trying to disregard party lines when it comes to honest inquiry, and doing my own studying, my own research, listening to whomever gives me input even if I do not agree, and doing my own thinking.

 

I used to think that only ignorant, uneducated, judgmental Christians believed in Byzantine text-type only versions, Landmarkism, Young Earth Creationism and that drinking alcohol is always a sin. This board has revealed to me that there are intelligent, informed, open-minded and graceful Christians who hold to these views, and I am grateful for them. I haven't changed my mind on those issues, but I have learned to be more graceful to those who do hold those positions.

 

Eric's points one the glaring fact that people simply do not change their views - is well taken. Clearly this debate board shows very little change during a debate. And yet all on this thread have shown that they did experience "times" where they were open to "change" on some points.

Certainly in my own church I meet a lot of "former-something else" attending my denomination as first-generation Adventists after making the change.

Yet the lesson of this board is that such changes are very rare no matter what denomination you are a part of at the moment. Even people who make a change - quickly settle back into a "no-more-change" mode.

The result is a zillion different doctrinal views on almost every subject.

(ok - maybe not a zillion)

I have never seen a good argument for rejecting the millennium in Rev 20 or supposing that the 2nd coming event of Rev 19 has already happened or the second coming of Matt 24 has already happened.

In fact in 2Thess 2 Paul argues strenuously against those who tried to insist on such things in his day.

Yet as Eric points out - that belief still hangs around in some groups to this very day.

Of course I also do not accept the secret rapture invention for Matt 24 and 1Thess 4 -- I believe it is a public world-wide "every eye shall see him" (Rev 1) Rapture and it occurs at the "First resurrection" seen in Rev 20 (The resurrection of the saints - the dead in Christ) which follows the Rev 19 events just as John tells us and also begins the actual 1000 years. (Note - it has been 2000 years since the time of Christ and we have no text at all in scripture that says "in prophecy 1000 years is really 2000 years")

In Christ,

Bob

 

I can't think of anything as pertains to faith I haven't changed my mind about. My whole Christian experience has been one of constant change - mind-changes.... only to have come to firm conviction, anchored and secure in a faith in the Scriptures, in the Tri-Une God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit .... and the whole Apostolic Confession; and in Divine Election and Free Grace, and in the Baptism of Jesus Christ with the fire of affliction and the power of grace, and in the Community of the saints, and in their Sabbaths' Feast of worshiping God, growing with the growth of God in Christ.
And loosing faith and trust in man and his devices and plans to thwart the Master Plan of God, to create unto Himself a People of faith in the Faith.

It all happened to a mind made up - a mind set against God and agaist His will and revelation, until shattered against the Rock, and broken, and sunken into the deap of misery and lostness. And God plucked me by the hair from the choking, sucking mud, and placed me upon a Rock - too high for me. From where vistas of freedom and joy opened up and stretched wide and far till into the life everlasting hereafter.

It happened, in my mind, in my life-centre, in my heart. It came from outside, from far, and overwhelmed me in a moment, a moment of a lifetime now of sixty and five years. God has been merciful, loving, forgiving, true, faithful, constant, a firm foundation, a lofty temple, my Sanctury of peace. Glory to His Name.
Just because Jesus Christ is Life and Truth.

 

Probably true based on your posts. As you know, there are a variety of churches within our two denominatins. My guess is that the PCA churches here are probably closer to the PCUSA churches in the south. Just a guess.