Doctrines introduced or changed over time?

[michelle]

Lie#1

--------------------------------------------------
Yes. The doctrine of eternal security as it is generally and broadly taught today was first taught in the 16th century. Prior to that time the doctrine of conditional security was the doctrine of the Church (with the exception of the false doctrine of universalism). Several of the more specific doctrines of eternal security were first taught in the 19th or 20th centuries
--------------------------------------------------


The bible teaches unconditional eternal security, therefore it was TAUGHT PRIOR to the 16th century by JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF:


John 3:16

14. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15. That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


Ephesians 2

5. Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
6. And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7. That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.


Not only did Jesus Christ himeself teach this as a doctine, but he did so also through the apostle Paul.


http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/eternalsecurity.htm

http://www.letusreason.org/Doct8.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4027/warningpassages.html


Lie #2

--------------------------------------------------
The doctrine of the pre-tribulational rapture of the Church first appeared in the years 1826-1830 and it first appeared in print in its present form in a book published in December of 1830 by J. N. Darby, a book that immediately followed his earlier book that was published in January of that same year in which the post-tribulational rapture of the church was taught. Since 1830, many new doctrines regarding the timing of the rapture have evolved or have been pulled out of a hat.
--------------------------------------------------

http://www.conservativeonline.org/journals/01_01_journal/1997v1n1_id01.htm

http://www.biblicist.org/bible/pretrib.htm

http://www.according2prophecy.org/ancient.html

http://www.according2prophecy.org/literal.html

http://www.layhands.com/RaptureOfTheChurch6.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/la/jlush/rapture.html

1 Thess. 4

14. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.


2 Thessalonians 2

1. Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2. That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6. And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9. Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10. And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12. That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
13. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
14. Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
16. Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
17. Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.


Lie #3

--------------------------------------------------
The doctrine that first-trimester voluntary abortions are a sin sprang up in the late 1800’s as a reaction to a campaign against first-trimester voluntary abortions by the American Medical Association. Recently that doctrine has evolved to the point where such abortions are not only taught to be a sin, they are taught to be murder.

--------------------------------------------------


God teaches us that from the womb, and from conception is life, as God is the giver of life, and to kill that life, is MURDER to which is A SIN. Modern day are the one's guilty of believing NEW DOCTRINES foriegn to the churches, and yes, even to the scriptures themselves.


http://www.godandscience.org/abortion/abortionandtheearlychurch.pdf

http://www.all.org/issues/ab99x.htm

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/r/re/religion_and_abortion.html

http://www.ppl.org/hist_xn.html


Judges 16

17. That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a rasor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man.

Job 31

14. What then shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him?
15. Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?

Psalm 71

4. Deliver me, O my God, out of the hand of the wicked, out of the hand of the unrighteous and cruel man.
5. For thou art my hope, O Lord God: thou art my trust from my youth.
6. By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother's
bowels: my praise shall be continually of thee.


Psalms 127

1. Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.
2. It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep.
3. Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
4. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
5. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

Psalms 109

13. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.


Ecclesiastes 11

5. As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.


Isaiah 13

15. Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
17. Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.
18. Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children.
19. And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

Isaiah 48

. Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them.
7. They are created now, and not from the beginning; even before the day when thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say, Behold, I knew them.
8. Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.


Isaiah 49

1. Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.

Luke 1

12. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
13. But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
14. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
15. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.


Luke 1

39. And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
40. And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
41. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42. And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44. For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.


I think I have given sufficient evidence to show the lies are indeed lies, not only from history, but from God himself through the scriptures - his word of truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

Lacy said "If it is a doctrine, it is a doctrine on the same order as which books make up the canon."

Why? There are scriptures that speak of other books of the Bible as "scripture". There are none that speak of KJV-onlyism.

Lacy said "I believe I have very sound Biblical principals upon which I make that decision."

So? It was impossible for this doctrine to exist in 1610. Do doctrines pop into existence? I believe I have very sound Biblical principals upon which I make the decision to reject KJV-onlyism. We then have two opinions that are mutually exclusive. I do not make my position doctrinal (I restrict it to an understanding, not declaring it necessarily as God's truth), yet KJV-onlyism is a doctrine.

But neither side of that debate has a direct Bible mandate.

But many churches put it in their doctrinal statement (including yours, it looks like). How can you hold to a doctrine that was not "once delievered to the saints", and could not even be possible for 80% of church history?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Michelle,

We are all familiar with the verses in the Bible that you and some others personally interpret as teaching eternal security. Your problem is that your interpretation of them did not become a doctrine till the 16th century because no one interpreted them before then like you do. If your interpretation is really the true interpretation, why is it that such an interpretation is unknown to the Church until after some of the early reformers misunderstood what the Bible says about the sovereignty of God and predestination? The doctrine of eternal security is dependent upon those misunderstandings, and those misunderstandings arose in the 16th century. It necessarily follows that the doctrine of eternal security was inconceivable before the 16th century, and it seems inconceivable to me that the inspired Scriptures could really be so difficult to understand that not even the basic doctrine of salvation was understood until the 16th century. And of course we have thousands of documents from before the 16th century, beginning in the 2nd century, that expressly teach conditional security.

Do you really believe that the early Christian scholars whom it pleased God to use to establish the Canon the New Testament and to formalize the doctrine of the Trinity were so unspiritual and caught up in doctrinal error that they were not able to see the doctrine of eternal security in the Bible if it is really there?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
We are all familiar with the verses in the Bible that you and some others personally interpret as teaching eternal security
-------------------------------------------------


Scripture is not for private interpretation, and the truth is CLEAR to all who have eyes and ears. The scriptures are very clear on unconditional salvation and eternal security of the believer. You refute that, you refute the plain truth in the scriptures, along with the gospel truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
If your interpretation is really the true interpretation, why is it that such an interpretation is unknown to the Church until after some of the early reformers misunderstood what the Bible says about the sovereignty of God and predestination? The doctrine of eternal security is dependent upon those misunderstandings, and those misunderstandings arose in the 16th century. It necessarily follows that the doctrine of eternal security was inconceivable before the 16th century, and it seems inconceivable to me that the inspired Scriptures could really be so difficult to understand that not even the basic doctrine of salvation was understood until the 16th century. And of course we have thousands of documents from before the 16th century, beginning in the 2nd century, that expressly teach conditional security.
---------------------------------------------------

It is not my interpretation, it is the plain truth of the scriptures, and the gospel truth. I do not care that "you" find it inconcievable. The FACT is that you are rejecting the scriptural truth of the gospel. Did you read any of the links I gave you? I highly doubt it, since you are so quick to respond with your "inconcievable" assumptions based upon the teachings of men, rather than the teachings of scripture. Your beliefs are the same as those of the Roman Catholic church. Not one difference.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Do you really believe that the early Christian scholars whom it pleased God to use to establish the Canon the New Testament and to formalize the doctrine of the Trinity were so unspiritual and caught up in doctrinal error that they were not able to see the doctrine of eternal security in the Bible if it is really there?
----------------------------------------------------


I don't look to the teachings of men for veracity. I learn from God through study of his words, desire to know Him, His truth, and HIS WILL in my life, and through His teaching me by the Holy Spirit of truth. My belief comes from the scriptural truth and conviction of that truth upon my heart and mind by God, not the teachings and doctrines of men.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Craigbythesea]

Michelle,

In the first article regarding the rapture of the church to which you so generously provided links, the author of the article wrote:

Pretribulationism is not clearly represented within the extant writings of these early fathers. However, before one draws the conclusion that it is totally absent, it is possible that a few ancient statements do represent elements of a fuzzy form of pretribulationism.

We continue reading and five lines down we read,

Furthermore, The Shepherd of Hermas speaks of the pretribulational concept of escaping the tribulation.
You have escaped from great tribulation on account of your faith, and because you did not doubt in the presence of such a beast. Go, therefore, and tell the elect of the Lord His mighty deeds, and say to them that this beast is a type of the great tribulation that is coming. If then ye prepare yourselves, and repent with all your heart, and turn to the Lord, it will be possible for you to escape it, if your heart be pure and spotless, and ye spend the rest of the days of your life in serving the Lord blamelessly.

However, when we read this quote in context, we see that The Shepherd of Hermas actually says that the Church will go THROUGH the Great Tribulation and be purified as a consequence (Chapter Three).

Vision Fourth
Concerning the Trial and Tribulation that are to Come Upon Men.
Chapter I.
Twenty days after the former vision I saw another vision, brethren -a representation of the tribulation that is to come. I was going to a country house along the Campanian road. Now the house lay about ten furlongs from the public road. The district is one rarely traversed. And as I walked alone, I prayed the Lord to complete the revelations which He had made to me through His holy Church, that He might strengthen me, and give repentance to all His servants who were going astray, that His great and glorious name might be glorified because He vouchsafed to show me His marvels. And while I was glorifying Him and giving Him thanks, a voice, as it were, answered me, "Doubt not, Hermas; "and I began to think with myself, and to say, "What reason have I to doubt-I who have been established by the Lord, and who have seen such glorious sights? "I advanced a little, brethren, and, lo! I see dust rising even to the heavens. I began to say to myself, "Are cattle approaching and raising the dust? "It was about a furlong's distance from me. And, lo! I see the dust rising more and more, so that I imagined that it was something sent from God. But the sun now shone out a little, and, lo! I see a mighty beast like a whale, and out of its mouth fiery locusts proceeded. But the size of that beast was about a hundred feet, and it had a head like an urn. I began to weep, and to call on the Lord to rescue me from it. Then I remembered the word which I had heard, "Doubt not, O Hermas." Clothed, therefore, my brethren, with faith in the Lord and remembering the great things which He had taught me, I boldly faced the beast. Now that beast came on with such noise and force, that it could itself have destroyed a city. I came near it, and the monstrous beast stretched itself out on the ground, and showed nothing but its tongue, and did not stir at all until I had passed by it. Now the beast had four colours on its head-black, then fiery and bloody, then golden, and lastly white.
Chapter II.
Now after I had passed by the wild beast, and had moved forward about thirty feet, lo! a virgin meets me, adorned as if she were proceeding from the bridal chamber, clothed entirely in white, and with white sandals, and veiled up to her forehead, and her head was covered by a hood. And she had white hair. I knew from my former visions that this was the Church, and I became more joyful. She saluted me, and said, "Hail, O man!" And I returned her salutation, and said, "Lady, hail!" And she answered. and said to me, "Has nothing crossed your path? "I say, "I was met by a beast of such a size that it could destroy peoples, but through the power of the Lord and His great mercy I escaped from it." "Well did you escape from it," says she, "because you cast your care on God, and opened your heart to the Lord, believing that you can be saved by no other than by His great and glorious name. On this account the Lord has sent His angel, who has rule over the beasts, and whose name is Thegri, and has shut up its mouth, so that it cannot tear you. You have escaped from great tribulation on account of your faith, and because you did not doubt in the presence of such a beast. Go, therefore, and tell the elect of the Lord His mighty deeds, and say to them that this beast is a type of the great tribulation that is coming. If then ye prepare yourselves, and repent with all your heart, and turn to the Lord, it will be possible for you to escape it, if your heart be pure and spotless, and ye spend the rest of the days of your life in serving the Lord blamelessly. Cast your cares upon the Lord, and He will direct them. Trust the Lord, ye who doubt, for He is all-powerful, and can turn His anger away from you, and send scourges on the doubters. Woe to those who hear these words, and despise them: better were it for them not to have been born."
Chapter III.
I asked her about the four colours which the beast had on his head. And she answered, and said to me, "Again you are inquisitive in regard to such matters." "Yea, Lady," said I, "make known to me what they are." "Listen," said she: "the black is the world in which we dwell: but the fiery and bloody points out that the world must perish through blood and fire: but the golden part are you who have escaped from this world. For as gold is tested by fire, and thus becomes useful, so are you tested who dwell in it. Those, therefore, who continue stedfast, and are put through the fire, will be purified by means of it. For as gold casts away its dross, so also will ye cast away all sadness and straitness, and will be made pure so as to fit into the building of the tower. But the white part is the age that is to come, in which the elect of God will dwell, since those elected by God to eternal life will be spotless and pure. Wherefore cease not speaking these things into the ears of the saints. This then is the type of the great tribulation that is to come. If ye wish it, it will be nothing. Remember those things which were written down before." And saying this, she departed. But I saw not into what place she retired. There was a noise, however, and I turned round in alarm, thinking that that beast was coming.

We all need to realize that not all writers are honest, and some of them are so desperate to prove their point that they will stoop to any deceptive methods necessary to do so. I have encountered several pre-tribulationalists that do this. We need to be very careful and check out their references.

 

[michelle]

-------------------------------------------------
If then ye prepare yourselves, and repent with all your heart, and turn to the Lord, it will be possible for you to escape it, if your heart be pure and spotless, and ye spend the rest of the days of your life in serving the Lord blamelessly.
--------------------------------------------------


Just in case you are not clear in understanding me, I will say, that I do not believe what I believe because of what man believes. I believe, what I believe, because it is what the Lord has taught me and showed me through study of his word and my walk with him. The ONLY reason I gave you these referrences, wasn't because I need them for the truth. The truth stands on it's own, and God reveals them to us through his word. I gave them for YOUR BENEFIT, as you seem to base your understanding on what man believes rather than God.


Please take a long hard look at what the above quote ACTUALLY says, and then read the rest of what you quoted. What is being said, is EXACTLY what the scriptures say, that those living in the time just prior to the tribulation period, who are the lukewarm /head knowledge, not heart knowledge will be brought through the fire. They will be brought through God's wrath on this earth, in order to bring them to REPENTANCE. Repentance in the gospel and in the life of the believer is the KEY IMPORTANT truth in order to understand properly the gospel. Those who are saved at this time will be raptured. This is God's promise to us. THe warning is clearly toward those who think, look, act like they are saved, but indeed are NOT TRULY SAVED, because REPENTANCE is the key. If one truly has faith, they will be repentful. One cannot come to the cross without these things together.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Ben W]

The King James Version Onlyism Doctrine is an interesting phenomina in the modern church. I am not to sure that I would go along with the idea that it originated in 1611 though.

Yes the translation was written then, yet there were various Bibles in use across the world, the Geneva and the Orthodox Bible being two examples. I think that the KJVO is an invention of more modern times.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Michelle,

We are all familiar with the verses in the Bible that you and some others personally interpret as teaching eternal security. Your problem is that your interpretation of them did not become a doctrine till the 16th century because no one interpreted them before then like you do. If your interpretation is really the true interpretation, why is it that such an interpretation is unknown to the Church until after some of the early reformers misunderstood what the Bible says about the sovereignty of God and predestination? The doctrine of eternal security is dependent upon those misunderstandings, and those misunderstandings arose in the 16th century. It necessarily follows that the doctrine of eternal security was inconceivable before the 16th century, and it seems inconceivable to me that the inspired Scriptures could really be so difficult to understand that not even the basic doctrine of salvation was understood until the 16th century. And of course we have thousands of documents from before the 16th century, beginning in the 2nd century, that expressly teach conditional security.

Of course, using that same logic, one could rule out a great many things, including just plain justification by faith. The majority of Christians believed in baptismal regeneration up until about the same time as well, so should we affirm that? Not only that you are on record at this very board as believing in libertine free will, which itself is pure speculation and was where Pelagius began, and we all know what happened to him. You yourself do not hold to the same teaching of conditional security held to by those who affirmed it prior to the 16th century, Craig.

To a limited extent your claim is true. However, what you fail to tell us is that the Anti-Nicene Fathers generally believed only the elect would be completely secure, but not all the regenerate. However, they frequently contradicted their own views on conditional security and there is some dispute about a few of them that said things indicating a view contrary to yours. Moreover, you, elsewhere, say Augustine did not affirm perseverance of the saints and that it was drawn from his recantations. That's not quite right:

Here's what Iranaeus said, in addition to the quote I have already posted in a previous thread on this issue, from Against Heresies 1.13.1.7 "Unless it had been God who had freely given salvation, we could never have possessed it securely." Of course, he would contradict himself later on by saying a person could lose his salvation via falling into sin, a position you yourself do not affirm, unless it is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but, hey, we're just talking about the way doctrines arise.

Clement of Alexandria taught that God is an invinsible shield. Tertullian, whom I have already quoted also said that the person who falls from grace can be restore, though he may lapse out of the right path. Origen stressed the inseparable nature of the believer's relationship to God.

Clement of Alexandria writes, "190 AD Clement of Alexandria "It follows that there is one unchangeable gift of salvation given by one God, through one Lord, benefiting in many ways." (Clement, Miscellanies bk. 6, chap. 13) Here it seems there may be some acknowledgement of the unchangeable nature of the gift of salvation. I would call this some recognition of one of the underlying priniciples of perseverance/eternal security. If the gift is unchangeable and from God, then it it would be inherently contradictory to believe in conditional security as you present it, because something about the gift, by definition, is changeable.

Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, wrote, "Thus Christ's gift is greater than Adam's fault. It is easer for man to persevere with the gift of grace"...prior to the fall of man..."than it is now....For the restoration by Christ's grace, although it is already begun in the mind, is not yet completed in the flesh, as it will be in heaven, where men will not merely be able to persevere but will be unable to sin." That's a pretty clear statement.


Augustine, from Admonition and Grace, 1.3.11, "By free will since unbelievers have not received the gift of perseverance, they are sent away in God's just and hidden judgment; " and from On Christian Doctrine, "...we are able to rest permanently in the supreme and unchangeable good." Right there, we see Augustine affirming perseverance before his recantations.

Then of course there's Cyprian, whose statement "200-258 AD "It is written, 'He who endures to the end, the same shall be saved' [Matt. 10:22]. So whatever precedes the end is only a step by which we ascend to the summit of salvation. It is not the final point wherein we have already gained the full result of the ascent." (Cyprian, Unity of the Church sec. 21)." This statement can be squared quite well with the perseverance of the saints as taught within the parameters of the Reformed tradition. One may also square it with the Arminian tradition. Either way, it is presuppositional to say that the doctrine was not at all recognized at all, based on this one statement, since this one statement could indicate otherwise. Of course, you say I'm putting words in his mouth, but hey, I'm just quoting him directly. The point is that both those on your side of aisle and mine can claim that statement, and such a claim is presuppositional. However, the fact that it exists is proof enough that it is very possible that what you allege about the doctrine of eternal security or its cousin perseverance of the saints, was not at allrecognized until the Reformation isn't quite as clear cut as you allege.

Through my own interactions with Moravians where I live, I have learned that Wesley had sharp disagreements about eternal security with the Moravians of his time. While the majority of modern Moravians have clearly moved away from that doctrine, in times past they did affirm it through both their adherence to their own set of creedal statements post Reformation, and, as their church historians teach they seem to have inherited it from a pre-Reformation era sect of Christians living in Germany whom we would recognize, by our modern standards, as being evangelical and holding to an Aquinan idea of perseverance.

The point is that we see the words "securely, perseverance, and permanent" being used among other terms. To say there is "not even the very slightest bit of evidence that the doctrine was known to anyone in the Early Church is simply not true. It is a parsing of words. No, the doctrine of eternal security as is articulated in the modern period, particularly by the dispensationalist crowd, was not known. That is true, but there are very clear elements of it. No serious theologian would dare claim that there was not such understanding at all at any level by anyone, unless they were speaking from a bias. What they believed, and what responsible writers affirm, is that they actually believed all the elect would persevere but not all the regenerate would be secure, in the modern understanding of those theological terms, but those doctrines that we either know as perseverance of the saints or its cousin eternal security were very much recognized in part or, by some small groups or individuals, in their entiriety several hundred years prior to the Reformation itself, it did not become prevalent until the historical break with Rome.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Michelle,

Your argument in support of your belief that there was in the early church a doctrine that first-trimester abortions is a sin, and even murder, has much more merit than your arguments regarding eternal security and the pre-tribulational rapture. However, the articles for which you posted links do not entirely support your belief. For example, they say that Tertullian taught ensoulment at conception. However, Tertullian wrote,

Treatise on the Soul
Chap. XXXVII.--On the Formation and State of the Embryo. Its Relation with the Subject of this Treatise
Now the entire process of sowing, forming, and completing the human embryo in the womb is no doubt regulated by some power, which ministers herein to the will of God, whatever may be the method which it is appointed to employ. Even the superstition of Rome, by carefully attending to these points, imagined the goddess Alemona to nourish the foetus in the womb; as well as (the goddesses) Nona and Decima, called after the most critical months of gestation; and Partula, to manage and direct parturition; and Lucina, to bring the child to the birth and light of day. We, on our part, believe the angels to officiate herein for God. The embryo therefore becomes a human being in the womb from the moment that its form is completed. The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion, inasmuch as there exists already the rudiment of a human being, which has imputed to it even now the condition of life and death, since it is already liable to the issues of both, although, by living still in the mother, it for the most part shares its own state with the mother.

Notice the words, “The embryo therefore becomes a human being in the womb from the moment that its form is completed.” What did Tertullian mean by that?

Compare:

The Constitution of the Holy Apostles
Book VII.
Concerning the Christian life, and the Eucharist and Initiation into Christ
Sec. I
III. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten; for "everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it be slain, shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed."

The words in quotation marks are an interpretation of Exodus 21:23 as it appears in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, that is, the Old Testament that was used in the early Church. And the early Church interpreted verse 23 to teach that if a “perfectly formed” fetus is cause to be aborted, a murder has been committed, but if the fetus was not yet “perfectly formed,” the man striking the woman shall be fined (indicating that the fetus was not yet a human being).

There is no mention anywhere in the Bible of voluntary abortion and to argue that the early church had a doctrine that voluntary abortions of a first trimester fetus are a sin is somewhat shaky. To say that they had a doctrine that it was murder goes against the early churches interpretation of Exodus 21:23.

Nonetheless, the articles to which you posted links are excellent articles and they clearly show that the early Church Fathers disapproved of abortion. And they go into detail about the case of abortion when the life of the mother is in danger. I would encourage our readers to very carefully and prayerfully read the articles that you posted and consider what they do and do not say.

But these articles also very clearly show something else—that the early church fathers wrote about the issues that were important to them. If the doctrine of eternal security was believed by any of the church fathers, we would expect to see at least some mention of that doctrine in view of the fact that there was very much teaching of conditional security. If any of the Church fathers believed that the doctrine of conditional security was wrong, why can’t we find any evidence that they did?

Michelle,

You did your homework very well. Dr. Bob should take a look at it. I believe that he would be impressed!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Of course, using that same logic, one could rule out a great many things, including just plain justification by faith. The majority of Christians believed in baptismal regeneration up until about the same time as well, so should we affirm that?

GeneMBridges,

As you very well know, the doctrine of justification WAS expressly taught by some of the early Church fathers, and they did not all believe in baptismal regeneration. Therefore there is no comparison between these things and a doctrine that none of them taught.

You have posted several quotes out of context and write that it is conceivable that these quotes could be interpreted to show that the writers of them had a partially formed concept of eternal security or preservation of the saints.

As you very well know, there are many very explicit statements by the early Church fathers that one’s salvation is conditional and may be lost. When the very explicit statements in context are placed beside those that out of context could conceivably be interpreted in some fuzzy fashion, it becomes expressly clear to me, as it id to the early Church fathers, that our salvation is conditional upon our continued faith as demonstrated by our continued obedience, not of the Law, but of Christ.

Not only that you are on record at this very board as believing in libertine free will, which itself is pure speculation and was where Pelagius began, and we all know what happened to him.

You also know that I have in the past broken off my fellowship with you because of your insulting posts, and if I see any more of that, I will break it off again. We all need to remember that such behavior casts a dark shadow over the Character of our Savior.

You yourself do not hold to the same teaching of conditional security held to by those who affirmed it prior to the 16th century, Craig

You and I have discussed this issue at length in another thread and I more than amply demonstrated that your claim is false.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Your beliefs are the same as those of the Roman Catholic church. Not one difference.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Of course, using that same logic, one could rule out a great many things, including just plain justification by faith. The majority of Christians believed in baptismal regeneration up until about the same time as well, so should we affirm that?

GeneMBridges,

As you very well know, the doctrine of justification WAS expressly taught by some of the early Church fathers, and they did not all believe in baptismal regeneration. Therefore there is no comparison between these things and a doctrine that none of them taught.

You have posted several quotes out of context and write that it is conceivable that these quotes could be interpreted to show that the writers of them had a partially formed concept of eternal security or preservation of the saints.

As you very well know, there are many very explicit statements by the early Church fathers that one’s salvation is conditional and may be lost. When the very explicit statements in context are placed beside those that out of context could conceivably be interpreted in some fuzzy fashion, it becomes expressly clear to me, as it id to the early Church fathers, that our salvation is conditional upon our continued faith as demonstrated by our continued obedience, not of the Law, but of Christ.

Not only that you are on record at this very board as believing in libertine free will, which itself is pure speculation and was where Pelagius began, and we all know what happened to him.

You also know that I have in the past broken off my fellowship with you because of your insulting posts, and if I see any more of that, I will break it off again. We all need to remember that such behavior casts a dark shadow over the Character of our Savior.

You yourself do not hold to the same teaching of conditional security held to by those who affirmed it prior to the 16th century, Craig

You and I have discussed this issue at length in another thread and I more than amply demonstrated that your claim is false.

</font>[/QUOTE]No, Craig, I have not posted any of these quotes out of context, (oh, and by the way as you admonished me there is a difference btw. preservation of the saints and perseverance of the saints, I very clearly said "perseverance" of the saints. I have posted them directly as they appear. Not one word is out of context. Not only that, there are some of those that come from systematic theology texts that Arminians use when discussing this very issue. I have said nothing that has not been said already. Perhaps you're referring to the Augustine quote. Yes, I admit that one from Admonition is a bit ambiguous, but the point I'm trying to make is simply that he had some concept of perseverance being a gift of God Himself and not of man. THe Admonition quote does occur in a statement regarding why people apostacize, but the point there is simply that he does speak of it as being a gift from God, not a work of man. However, the quote following is very clear, saying, ""[O]f two pious men, why to the one should be given perseverance unto the end, and to the other it should not be given, God’s judgments are even more unsearchable. . . . had not both been called and followed him that called them? And had not both become, from wicked men, justified men, and both been renewed by the laver of regeneration?" (The Gift of Perseverance 9:21 [A.D. 428]). Again, your view of that statement as supporting a seminal view of the doctrine of perseverance of the saints or not containing any kernel of it is presuppositional, nothing more.

No, Craig, you don't hold to the same view as these men and you did not "prove" anything. (In fact, you seemed quite surprised when I brought up Tertullian's view as being at odds with your own). You hold to a view of this issue at odds with both Tertullian and Iranaeus. Shall I post the quotes next to your statements again? You said in that thread that God has not hand in taking salvation away from us. Tertullian on the other hand, said, " Some people act as though God were under an obligation to bestow even on the unworthy His intended gift. They turn His liberality into slavery.... For do not many afterwards fall out of grace? Is not this gift taken away from many?" (Tertullian On Repentance chap. 6.) That varies strongly from the view to which you hold. You say God does not actually take it from us, and that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is what causes it.

You also believe in libertine free will, which was soundly condemned by the Early Church. Libertine free will is the position of Pelagius with regard to the will, and you have said that we are as free to reject Christ after we are saved as we were beforehand. That is libertine freewill, is it not? Pelagius held to it, and so do you. The rest of your theology is at variance with his, but not that particular piece. I'm just quoting your own words, Craig, that's it. I'm sorry if you feel slighted by that, but, you decided to go there, not I.

[ November 05, 2004, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Michelle, You did your homework very well. Dr. Bob should take a look at it. I believe that he would be impressed!

What? You want me to READ Michelle's posts?

 

[GeneMBridges]

The logic that says that because a doctrine was not known, recognized, or articulated for centuries and it is therefore to be considered invalid is extremely dubious. If we were to apply that same logic to the Old Testament prophecies about Christ then Jesus Himself had no business admonishing the Pharisees, saying to them that they were in error for not recognizing Him, because they had the Scriptures before them for generations and, yet, when He came, they did not recognize Him and they outright rejected Him. The prophecies were there, but they clearly were unrecognized for CENTURIES for what they were, yet that did not mean that the prophecies were wrong nor does that mean that the NT writers are wrong for citing them after they had been fulfilled. Jesus quoted Isaiah at the beginning of His own ministry, saying that that very day prophecy had been fulfilled before His hearers. Isaiah began his ministry 700 years before the Incarnation. 700 years after Isaiah, the greatest theologians of the day had rejected the Lord Himself, and there's not much evidence anybody knew much more than that Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, according to Matthew's account. We dare not say they were right because nobody got it right for that long, yet we have the audacity to say that because a doctrine that we have come to recognize today is spurious because it went with little, if any formal recognition for several centuries. That is extremely sloppy thinking.

In short, if we apply Craig's thinking about the doctrine of eternal security's history to the Incarnation of Jesus Himself, Craig would end up very certainly on the wrong end of the argument. If the doctrine of eternal security should be reconsidered on that basis, and moreover we should discount it on that basis, then the theologians of Jesus day were right about Jesus, not wrong.. Hmmm.

 

[Paul33]

Criagbythesea,

First trimester abortions were considered by the early church to be murder.

http://www.stnicholasla.com/abortion.htm
http://www.godandscience.org/abortion/earlychristian.html

[ November 06, 2004, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

[Craigbythesea]

The logic that says that because a doctrine was not known, recognized, or articulated for centuries and it is therefore to be considered invalid is extremely dubious. If we were to apply that same logic to the Old Testament prophecies about Christ then Jesus Himself had no business admonishing the Pharisees, saying to them that they were in error for not recognizing Him, because they had the Scriptures before them for generations and, yet, when He came, they did not recognize Him and they outright rejected Him. The prophecies were there, but they clearly were unrecognized for CENTURIES for what they were, yet that did not mean that the prophecies were wrong nor does that mean that the NT writers are wrong for citing them after they had been fulfilled. Jesus quoted Isaiah at the beginning of His own ministry, saying that that very day prophecy had been fulfilled before His hearers. Isaiah began his ministry 700 years before the Incarnation. 700 years after Isaiah, the greatest theologians of the day had rejected the Lord Himself, and there's not much evidence anybody knew much more than that Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, according to Matthew's account. We dare not say they were right because nobody got it right for that long, yet we have the audacity to say that because a doctrine that we have come to recognize today is spurious because it went with little, if any formal recognition for several centuries. That is extremely sloppy thinking.

Gene,

I apologize! I did not know that the Pharisees had studied both the Old and New Testaments. None of the schools where I studied taught that.

We are not simply talking about a time in church history were a doctrine was not yet formulated in detail, we are talking about the Ante-Nicene Church that had a very well developed theology of conditional security and we do NOT find anyone in the Ante-Nicene period challenging that doctrine.

 

[GeneMBridges]

There is something that you're missing in your assertions, Craig, something important. While your position on eternal security / perseverance is largely meritorious...I have not said it is completely incorrect, you missed what the pre-Reformation writers said about indefectibility, imperishability, and perpetuity in relationship to the Church as a whole. The same ideas that the Reformation applied to individuals and called "perseverance of the saints" and its modern cousin "eternal security" earlier writers applied to the Church as a whole. That's the biggest difference, but still it is an important thing to note. All the same elements are there, but they are spoken of in relationship to the Church as an institution and as a group, saying that she may fall into sin, but she will never fully apostacize so that the gospel is lost, among other things.

According to Thomas Oden, you can find this in the writing of Anasthasius, Gregory of Naianzen, and Cyril to name just a few. When you read through what they and others had to say about the Church itself, and you see the Scriptures to which the often appeal, you can VERY clearly see what we would today recognize as these doctrines we apply to individuals as, while not being applied to the salvation of individuals, very clearly being applied to the Church as a whole . Just reading a few pages of his own work, Life in the Spirit in the section on the Church as a whole, it seems very clear indeed.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The logic that says that because a doctrine was not known, recognized, or articulated for centuries and it is therefore to be considered invalid is extremely dubious. If we were to apply that same logic to the Old Testament prophecies about Christ then Jesus Himself had no business admonishing the Pharisees, saying to them that they were in error for not recognizing Him, because they had the Scriptures before them for generations and, yet, when He came, they did not recognize Him and they outright rejected Him. The prophecies were there, but they clearly were unrecognized for CENTURIES for what they were, yet that did not mean that the prophecies were wrong nor does that mean that the NT writers are wrong for citing them after they had been fulfilled. Jesus quoted Isaiah at the beginning of His own ministry, saying that that very day prophecy had been fulfilled before His hearers. Isaiah began his ministry 700 years before the Incarnation. 700 years after Isaiah, the greatest theologians of the day had rejected the Lord Himself, and there's not much evidence anybody knew much more than that Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, according to Matthew's account. We dare not say they were right because nobody got it right for that long, yet we have the audacity to say that because a doctrine that we have come to recognize today is spurious because it went with little, if any formal recognition for several centuries. That is extremely sloppy thinking.

Gene,

I apologize! I did not know that the Pharisees had studied both the Old and New Testaments. None of the schools where I studied taught that.

We are not simply talking about a time in church history were a doctrine was not yet formulated in detail, we are talking about the Ante-Nicene Church that had a very well developed theology of conditional security and we do NOT find anyone in the Ante-Nicene period challenging that doctrine.

</font>[/QUOTE]But we do find them applying the same concepts applied to individuals in these more modern doctrines applied to the Church as an institution.

We are also talking about this notion that because a doctrine goes apparently unrecognized for centuries, it is therefore, to be considered suspect or spurious. If you apply that same thinking to the Old Testament, it proves itself to be extremely faulty. In short, just because a doctrine goes unrecogized it does not make it invalid, nor does the articulation of a doctrine for long periods of time make it valid. We're talking about the development of doctrines through history. Your logic applied to the First Century falls very short. The Jewish religious leaders had a very well developed theology around the Messiah and they ended up challenging the Messiah himself!