And so do you, no more, no less, than the rest of us.
Yours in Christ
Matt
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Doctrines introduced or changed over time?
- Thread starter natters
- Start date
Yours in Christ
Matt
Ah, I take it you therefore believe that the Apocrypha is part of the canon of Scripture, then? Also, please tell me how you know that the TR is uncorrupted as opposed to, say, Sinaiticus, or the Masoretic Text?
Yours in Christ
Matt
The Scriptures are the final authority for me likewise and I would think everyone else here too. Your point?
Yours in Christ
Matt
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
If this post is addressed to me, you have very much misunderstood what I have been writing in this thread. The early church fathers certainly did not advocate abortion! Nor do I! However, the early church, for the most part (see Basil as a noted exception) made a distinction between the fetus that was “formed” and moved about it the womb and the younger fetus that was not “formed” and did not move about in the womb. But even in the case of the younger fetus that they did not view as a human being with a soul, they did not advocate abortion. Perhaps you have jumped into this thread without reading all of the posts in which Basil and several other church fathers were quoted.
Thanks for clearing that up Craig. Your right I have not read all the thread so be patient with me. I have studied some history of science, and it doesn't seem that at that time the early church fathers would know anything about the time of conception (the time the younger fetus is formed) up to the time of "the formed fetus." Something is missing here. It almost sounds like todays abortion rights advocates who advocate that we should be allowed to abort in the first semester, when the fetus is not considered human. We believe that life starts at conception. How did the early church fathers know when conception was? The only way a woman would know was once she would feel the fetus moving about, then she would have to reflect back about three months in the history of her life and ask herself: "What did I do?" Otherwise she has no knowledge of conception.
Even in our society today, there is the occasional woman who claims she never knew that she was pregnant up until the time of delivery. So, if the fetus moving around is the indicator of human life, it has a very wide variable.
DHK
They did not, craig. There is even evidence that birth control itself was considered "murder" by the church fathers. Expelling the embryo through poisons and potions was considered murder. They had different degrees of penances. So what. So do we. Murder is still murder and the early church considered abortion murder no matter when a person tried to abort.
--------------------------------------------------
It is entirely possible that the large majority of the early Church fathers were mistaken in their view that first trimester abortions were not taught to be a sin in the Bible. Basil certainly did not agree with them, but even he did NOT believe that abortion is anything close to the crime of first degree murder.
--------------------------------------------------
First, it really doesn't matter the opinions of these men in this doctrine, and as I have said, is not accurately reflective of all doctrines believed, of all ages throughout the church age, to even make the statement it was NEVER A DOCTRINE UNTIL.. So that alone is a false statement, that you could never have any idea whether it was true or not.
Second, Basil DID believe it was murder. It was his opinion that the punishment for such should be different than that of other types of murder. However, this is strictly getting involved in carnal and worldly matters, as we are commanded not to do. This is for the Lord, who is the judge and really has no bearing on the fact that he though it WAS MURDER. Basil, and others, as has been shown to you in FACT did BELIEVE it was murder and a sin regardless of thier personal opinions on what they thought the penalty should be, and considering this has nothing to do with a christian to judge in matter of anyway.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
It is entirely possible that the large majority of the early Church fathers were mistaken in their view that first trimester abortions were not taught to be a sin in the Bible. Basil certainly did not agree with them, but even he did NOT believe that abortion is anything close to the crime of first degree murder.
--------------------------------------------------
First, it really doesn't matter the opinions of these men in this doctrine, and as I have said, is not accurately reflective of all doctrines believed, of all ages throughout the church age, to even make the statement it was NEVER A DOCTRINE UNTIL.. So that alone is a false statement, that you could never have any idea whether it was true or not.
Second, Basil DID believe it was murder. It was his opinion that the punishment for such should be different than that of other types of murder. However, this is strictly getting involved in carnal and worldly matters, as we are commanded not to do. This is for the Lord, who is the judge and really has no bearing on the fact that he though it WAS MURDER. Basil, and others, as has been shown to you in FACT did BELIEVE it was murder and a sin regardless of thier personal opinions on what they thought the penalty should be, and considering this has nothing to do with a christian to judge in matter of anyway.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
The only way a woman would know was once she would feel the fetus moving about, then she would have to reflect back about three months in the history of her life and ask herself: "What did I do?" Otherwise she has no knowledge of conception.
--------------------------------------------------
This is not necessarily true. A woman knows, and can know. Some are more attentive to it than others, or some may not realize what exactly it is they know, or they are drunk/drugged and out of judgement of it at the time. I knew with both of my pregnancies, and this was prior to my salvation. I also did not plan these, nor was I trying. I just knew at that moment. A woman can also tell prior to movement, even if they have not been coherent to the moment of conception. A woman's body informs her, that something is different, and it is not always the feeling of the movement in the womb. There are many other things, such as change in appetite, weight gain, emotions, breast enlargements, and in one's conscience. God has given to us woman to know.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
The only way a woman would know was once she would feel the fetus moving about, then she would have to reflect back about three months in the history of her life and ask herself: "What did I do?" Otherwise she has no knowledge of conception.
--------------------------------------------------
This is not necessarily true. A woman knows, and can know. Some are more attentive to it than others, or some may not realize what exactly it is they know, or they are drunk/drugged and out of judgement of it at the time. I knew with both of my pregnancies, and this was prior to my salvation. I also did not plan these, nor was I trying. I just knew at that moment. A woman can also tell prior to movement, even if they have not been coherent to the moment of conception. A woman's body informs her, that something is different, and it is not always the feeling of the movement in the womb. There are many other things, such as change in appetite, weight gain, emotions, breast enlargements, and in one's conscience. God has given to us woman to know.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Michelle, I know that when my mother became pregnant with two of my sisters, she knew immediately when she was pregnant. So, I know for a fact that what you're saying here is possible. It was within 24 hours, and contraception was used, but she was pregnant both times. It shocked my dad that she knew so quick. My wife Vivian also knew that she was pregnant within 24 hours. But, she, after a few days, knew something wasn't right. She miscarried five weeks later.
Thank you for your testimony AVL1984. How sad that you and your wife had a miscarriage. I am so sorry to here that. Was this recently? You don't have to answer, just curious. I will continue to keep you and your wife in my prayers. I know that miscarriages can be very painful to endure, and I believe woman never truly get over it. I believe, someday, and someday soon, you and your wife will see and know your baby in Heaven. What a wonderful day that will be?
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Thank you, Michelle. No, this wasn't recent. My wife has had six miscarriages, the last being in 1996. She is a spontaneous aborter and will never see a completed pregnancy. But, we have lots of nieces and nephews to take the place, and the Lord has been good. And, yes, we certainly do look forward to the day when we will see our children in Heaven.
Oh, AVL1984, I am so very sorry to hear of your sad sad news. Even though children are a wonderful blessing of God, God also blesses us just the same in other ways, just as you have mentioned. Now your neices and nephews will have even more love showered upon them, and upon you both also, and who knows, mabye God knew/knows they need it? It also is not the easiest time to be living in and and nurturing and teaching children in the ways of the Lord. There are not only the obvious evils of the world out there, but so many more things today that are evil, are not seen as such, and are actually promoted and taught (even subtely) to our children, that can be, and are very spiritually dangerous for them. So many things you have to say no to, or keep them from, and explain to them why in biblical ways. It is touph.
Have you ever thought of adoption? I have always thought that maybe someday (my husband willing) to adopt a child. I wouldn't be looking for an infant as I have already experienced this, and there are so many older children today in need of good, godly, loving homes. My neighbours adopted an infant 10 years ago from Russia. He is a wonderful boy. They did this because they thought they could not have thier own. Then they were pleasantly surprised to find out a couple years later, they could. So, never give up hope in that area. God can and does work many miracles. Look at Sarah? If it is God's will. I am so glad to see that you are both rejoicing, and glorifying the Lord, even in this situation that can and is very hard a thing to rejoice in.
Well, I will continue to keep you and Vivian in my prayers, and look forward to meeting your children in Heaven also.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Have you ever thought of adoption? I have always thought that maybe someday (my husband willing) to adopt a child. I wouldn't be looking for an infant as I have already experienced this, and there are so many older children today in need of good, godly, loving homes. My neighbours adopted an infant 10 years ago from Russia. He is a wonderful boy. They did this because they thought they could not have thier own. Then they were pleasantly surprised to find out a couple years later, they could. So, never give up hope in that area. God can and does work many miracles. Look at Sarah? If it is God's will. I am so glad to see that you are both rejoicing, and glorifying the Lord, even in this situation that can and is very hard a thing to rejoice in.
Well, I will continue to keep you and Vivian in my prayers, and look forward to meeting your children in Heaven also.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
joyfulkeeperathome
New Member
Craigbythesea, I just want to address one thing you said that was inaccurate. Perhaps you are just unaware, but a baby can and DOES move prior to being 12 weeks old. I was with my friend at her ultrasound when her baby was 8 weeks old and we (and the technician) saw her baby moving. So, yes, the baby does move during the first trimester. Although, that is not a good indication of someone being human. There are humans that are paralized and can't move, but we don't question their personhood.... Just wanted to put this out there....
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Yes, you are correct. Fetal movement has been reported as early as the 6th week of pregnancy during ultrasound procedures. Such movements, however, can not be felt by the mother, and it is typically during the 20th week that the mother begins to feel the movement in her womb.
I am not arguing for or against any indications of ensoulment, but simply making known the indications that most of the early church fathers considered relevant. My point is simply that the doctrine widely held by white evangelical Christians today that ensoulment begins at conception is largely a post-Nicene doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and a doctrine that was not popular among evangelical Protestants till the latter half of the 19th century. The rise in the popularity of the doctrine is directly linked, not to new Biblical discoveries, but to a change in social values in reaction to the American Medical Association’s campaign against abortions.
The theological questions are complex, but they seek to find the answer to one basic question, “At what point in a pregnancy does ensoulment occur?” However, to answer that question we must ask, “Does a fertilized egg have a soul? If it does not, does the blastocyst have a soul? If it does not, does the gastrula stage of the embryo have a soul? If a fertilized egg perishes, as most of them do, does that mean that there is a new member in heaven?”
Is it mass murder for a Christian couple wanting a child to use the services of a fertilization clinic that produces eight to twelve blastocysts but implants only three or four of them in the woman and discards as biological waste the remaining blastocysts? And if that is not mass murder, is it mass murder for scientists to use those blastocysts for stem cell research rather than discarding them as biological waste?
Is our theology regarding abortion the outcome of detailed personal study and prayer, or is it the outcome of being a member of a white, evangelical Baptist church that has indoctrinated us rather that encouraged us to study and pray for God’s truth to be known to us?
joyfulkeeperathome
New Member
A soul begans at conception therefore, yes, the fertility clinic scenario you set up would be wrong in my (and I believe the Bible's) eyes. I guess then if you say the church fathers didn't believe that the soul began at conception, it still does not change the facts. Did they believe the world was round??? I don't think that they did, but that does not change the fact. I think (but am not certain) that we are in agreement here that life begins at conception and you were just using this line of reasoning to show that just b/c the church fathers did/did not believe something does not mean they were necessariy correct/incorrect. Did I properly represent you in that? If not, please let me know....
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
My point is essentially that the doctrines of the Church have changed over time, and that these changes are not typically due to not Biblical discoveries but rather to other factors such as the evolution of Christian thought, misconceptions of influential Christians, changes in the social perspective, etc.
Any doctrine that is not only a new doctrine but also a doctrine that is clearly in opposition to the very well established doctrines of the Church can not be reasonable supposed to be a true and correct doctrine. In the case of first trimester abortions, we find that the doctrine that such abortions are a sin is not a new doctrine. It is a minority doctrine, but not a new doctrine, and therefore not a doctrine that is dependent upon the introduction of another new doctrine or later misconceptions or new social perspectives hitherto unknown, and thus it may be a true and correct doctrine.
My personal conviction is, as I have stated several times in this thread, that abortion is a sin regardless of the trimester of the pregnancy unless the woman’s doctor believes the abortion to be necessary. This conviction, however, is not based upon any clear teaching to that effect in the Bible, but is simply a personal conviction. When women, couples, or others ask me for my opinion, I give it to them—but I always make it clear that it is my personal conviction and that many other Christians do not share my conviction.
Also, as I have already emphatically posted, I believe that our priorities should be based upon the priorities that we find in the Bible. The issue of poverty is mentioned approximately 2,000 times in the Bible; the issue of voluntary abortions is not mentioned even once. Therefore I am much more concerned about the needs of the poor in my community than I am about the abortion clinic.
The sin of prideful arrogance is expressly mentioned a number of times in the Bible, and therefore I am much more concerned about that sin than any subject that is not expressly mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Some people simply argue that willful abortions are murder and therefore a sin, but that is not a Biblical fact but a personal conviction. That the absence of food, clothing, shelter, and medical and dental care is harmful to a child is not just a personal conviction, but a most deplorable fact, and it is a condition that the Church could do very much more to change if only they were willing to give as we find the example in both the life and death of Jesus.
The testimony of the New Testament Church is that they gave so that N
NE suffered from want, and the Church grew by leaps and bounds. Today, their generosity is called communism, socialism, far-leftist liberalism, and other pejorative epithets so that we can keep our motor homes, boats, expensive cars, memberships to the country club, etc. These things ought not to be so.
Any doctrine that is not only a new doctrine but also a doctrine that is clearly in opposition to the very well established doctrines of the Church can not be reasonable supposed to be a true and correct doctrine. In the case of first trimester abortions, we find that the doctrine that such abortions are a sin is not a new doctrine. It is a minority doctrine, but not a new doctrine, and therefore not a doctrine that is dependent upon the introduction of another new doctrine or later misconceptions or new social perspectives hitherto unknown, and thus it may be a true and correct doctrine.
My personal conviction is, as I have stated several times in this thread, that abortion is a sin regardless of the trimester of the pregnancy unless the woman’s doctor believes the abortion to be necessary. This conviction, however, is not based upon any clear teaching to that effect in the Bible, but is simply a personal conviction. When women, couples, or others ask me for my opinion, I give it to them—but I always make it clear that it is my personal conviction and that many other Christians do not share my conviction.
Also, as I have already emphatically posted, I believe that our priorities should be based upon the priorities that we find in the Bible. The issue of poverty is mentioned approximately 2,000 times in the Bible; the issue of voluntary abortions is not mentioned even once. Therefore I am much more concerned about the needs of the poor in my community than I am about the abortion clinic.
The sin of prideful arrogance is expressly mentioned a number of times in the Bible, and therefore I am much more concerned about that sin than any subject that is not expressly mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Some people simply argue that willful abortions are murder and therefore a sin, but that is not a Biblical fact but a personal conviction. That the absence of food, clothing, shelter, and medical and dental care is harmful to a child is not just a personal conviction, but a most deplorable fact, and it is a condition that the Church could do very much more to change if only they were willing to give as we find the example in both the life and death of Jesus.
The testimony of the New Testament Church is that they gave so that N
NE suffered from want, and the Church grew by leaps and bounds. Today, their generosity is called communism, socialism, far-leftist liberalism, and other pejorative epithets so that we can keep our motor homes, boats, expensive cars, memberships to the country club, etc. These things ought not to be so.
Somehow I missed something. So maybe you could enlighten me some of your knowledge.
First off, I assume you are quite young by the way you write. I can easily rememeber when the KJVO's came on the scene in the early 70's telling people they were going to hell because they were not reading the King James Bible. I can remember the trouble they were causing in the shcurh I was attending. Many of the People who liked the KJV did not cause any trouble at all. It was the KJVO's who were the troublemakers.
Some years ago a man at the church I had just started pastoring told a group in Sunday School, "The reason why people are going to hell today are because they are not reading the King James Bible." So I told him to take his KIng James Bible and starty winning people to Jesus because we needed everyone he would win to Christ. He never won one person while I was there. People got to the point where they wouldn't listen to him. His fruit began to reveal itself for what it really was, nothing.
I suppose what Craig has been pointing out, and I agree with, is that the doctrine concerning abortion has been constantly changing over time due to technology. As our technology and knowledge increases over time so do those matters that are related to the issues of abortion become more complex. If human life starts at the time the sperm fertilizes the egg, then, as Joy points out, what about all the other eggs at the fertility clinics for couples who choose to go that route? Tough questions that many couples have to face. I wonder if all the pro-life people have thought these issues through.
DHK
DHK
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
DHK, I know many have never considered it. My wife and I did, and that is the reason we never considered fertility clinics as an option except to find out why we couldn't have children. I have friends who are preachers who considered all the options, and they do not believe that it was wrong. They have several "test tube" children. They prayed long and hard and struggled with the subject for several years before going. Several other couples we know felt that it was wrong, so they opted to adopt.
Plain Old Bill
New Member
I have over the last two weeks read many posts by Michelle and found myself agreeing with her on 4 different occassions.
I find with the exception of her OKJV or KJVO position I do generally agree with much of what she says.
She is very sound doctrinally except for her KJVO/OKJV position.
The surprise to me is that I agree with her on several things. If Michelle did not discuss the KJVO position so frequently we would be discussing Bible and doctrinal subjects with her in a much more civil manor.
Michelle my compliments to you on several of your views.
I find with the exception of her OKJV or KJVO position I do generally agree with much of what she says.
She is very sound doctrinally except for her KJVO/OKJV position.
The surprise to me is that I agree with her on several things. If Michelle did not discuss the KJVO position so frequently we would be discussing Bible and doctrinal subjects with her in a much more civil manor.
Michelle my compliments to you on several of your views.