Doctrines introduced or changed over time?

[natters]

Do doctrines ever change over time? Can something that was doctrinally false in one year become doctrinally true the next? Can something that wasn't a doctrine one year become a doctrine the next? Note that these questions assume strictly within the "church age", and not spanning the incarnation, second coming, etc.

Any examples?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by natters:
Do doctrines ever change over time? Can something that was doctrinally false in one year become doctrinally true the next? Can something that wasn't a doctrine one year become a doctrine the next? Note that these questions assume strictly within the "church age", and not spanning the incarnation, second coming, etc.

No, doctrines don't change. However, much of what we have called doctrine isn't. As the church grows over time, we sometimes learn that we were wrong about "doctrines" of the past. Geocentrism is a good example. It doesn't mean the doctrine has changed, but it means we were mistaken about a doctrine.
Also, something are a matter of interpretation. The color of Jesus' robe is a good example. Anyone saying that the color of Jesus' robe is a doctrinal issue does two things: He does so without scriptural support, and, he completely missed the doctrinal message contained in the subject of the color of Jesus' robe.

 

[natters]

I agree.

What about introducing doctrines over time, that were not even possible in the past? For a silly example, could it be possible that church is doctrinally correct who put in their doctrinal statement "only Welch's grape juice is to be used in communion", even though Welch's grape juice didn't exist before the 1800's?

In other words, could it be possible that a true doctrine can "come into existence" sometime after the church and scriptures were established?

 

[swaimj]

Objectively, doctrine does not change over time. We have a faith "once delivered to the saints." However, our UNDERSTANDING of doctrine may change over time and may be clarified over time. For instance, the deity of Christ was believed in the early church. In the course of time, some began to question his deity and some began to try to state the relationship of his deity to his humanity. In attempting to state the relationship, some stated it incorrectly. Thus the church had to struggle to understand the doctrine correctly and to draw a firm boundary between what is orthodox and what is heresy. The deity of Christ was revealed from the beginning of the church but the doctrine was clarified because of misstatements and challenges to the doctrine.

As we interract with the world and as we address issues that arise we are often forced to go back to the Bible, study what it says and clarify our doctrinal belief. This process SOMETIMES brings us to the conclusion that some aspects of a doctrine that have long been held are incorrect or need clarification. That is why, as Baptists, we generally do not attach ourselves to creeds. Our authority is the Bible itself and we reserve the right to interpret it for ourselves even if that leads us to disagree with creeds.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Can something that wasn't a doctrine one year become a doctrine the next?

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 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.

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.

Additional examples could be posted.

Perhaps the question should be worded differently, “Can something that wasn't a Biblical doctrine for more than 1,000 years become a Biblical doctrine after that? The answer to that question is, “No!”

 

[James_Newman]

How does the baby indicate that he has volunteered to be aborted?

Prior to conditional security, the Lord taught eternal security with conditional rewards. And Morgan Edwards wrote of a pre-trib rapture in the 18th century, so I doubt Darby invented it.

 

[michelle]

Craig,

Your entire post is filled with lies.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Ben W]

How about King James Version Onlyism?

 

[MTA]

The answer to the question depends entirely on the definition intended by the word doctrine. If it is intended as any belief or opinion expressed by a person or group, then obviously the answer is that those doctrines can and do change with some regularity depending on circumstance. However, if we are talking about the doctrines of the gospel as taught by Christ, the answer must emphatically be No! Of course, how we express those doctrinal truths supplies the fodder for continuing debate, but certainly no one would suggest that Christ taught more than one truth in the doctrines of the Gospel.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by michelle:
Craig,

Your entire post is filled with lies.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

If you believe that then don't just slam the person with an arrogant attitude. Give some reasons why you believe that.

Gal. 5:26-6:1, "Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another. Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted."

2 Tim. 2:24-26, "The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escap] from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will."

Gal. 5:22-23, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law."

 

[Dave Taylor]

Morgan Edwards wrote of a pre-trib rapture in the 18th century, so I doubt Darby invented it.

You should spend some time researching Morgan Edwards; for unfortunately you mischarachterize him.

As a teenage college student, Edwards was directed by his professor to produce a paper that was to be considered a lark, a lampoon, a farce. His imaginative teenage mind came up with a pamphet on what was a mid-trib rapture scenerio; in which the rapture would occur 3.5 years prior to the 2nd Advent; and that was the 'lark' of his thesis; because it was a position that noone had ever taught or presented.

There are no extant writings or sources on Morgan Edwards as an adult ever teaching or admitting that this teenage college lark-paper was ever seriously considered or believed or taught; nor was there ever any evidence of Morgan Edwards believing or teaching the 'Pretrib View'.

It, much like the misinterpreted and misquoted False-Ephraem Sermon, is just an example of overzealous Pretribulationalists grasping at any type of historical straw it can find in attempts to find evidence of a pre-Darby example of pretribism.

While there was ancient church history and records showing early belief in a type of Premillennialism; there was never anything substantial taught on any scale or recorded in any detail by anyone prior to Darby in regards to the Pretrib viewpoint.

That in and of itself does not make Pretribism false; however, we should not claim historical veracity over viewpoints that cannot be clearly or plainly supported from the historical record.

 

[blackbird]

Michelle--your post in reply to Craig is in bad taste! Please reply to my PM and justify your statement!

Blackbird

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by natters:
What about introducing doctrines over time, that were not even possible in the past? For a silly example, could it be possible that church is doctrinally correct who put in their doctrinal statement "only Welch's grape juice is to be used in communion", even though Welch's grape juice didn't exist before the 1800's?

That example isn't an issue of doctrine. That's an example of practice and application, which is more tied to changes in culture and society over time. Another example is women and the wearing of pants. Might have been wrontg 150 years ago, but there's nothing wrong with it today.

Methods of practice and application can, and typically do, change over time, but matters of doctrine don't. Our understanding of doctrine might change, but the doctrines themselves don't change.

 

[natters]

Craig, I believe in neither eternal security nor pretrib rapture, but those sorts of examples are not really what I was asking about, for it is possible that those things could have still been true from the beginning but that people just were mistaken about them for a long time.

Ben W, yes that is a perfect example of what I'm asking about. Can we reject KJV-onlyism as a false doctrine simply for the reason that such a doctrine was impossible before the KJV was produced? In other words, is the fact that it is not a doctrine that was not "once delivered to the saints" at the beginning (but needed 1600 years to pass before such a doctrine could even possibly exist in the first place) enough reason and proof that it is a false doctrine? Or can/do doctrines "pop into existence" like that?

 

[Dr. Bob]

IF a poster gives a "lie" (his slant on truth) and you disagree, please give reasons/proof for your disagreement.

 

[Dr. Bob]

As to the question, doctrine must, by definition, be taught in the Word of God. If there is no Scriptural support, it is not a doctrine.

Hence the one-version-only position (don't care which one you choose), is without a single verse of support and is NOT A DOCTRINE.

The doctrine of the 2nd coming of Christ IS a Scriptural doctrine. Our understanding of it and details of it (pre/mid/post/a) evolves. If it didn't, we would all hold catholic teaching!

Am glad Luther, reading the Word, realized "The just shall live by faith" and brought more Scriptural light into the doctrine of soteriology.

 

[natters]

Dr. Bob said "As to the question, doctrine must, by definition, be taught in the Word of God. If there is no Scriptural support, it is not a doctrine. Hence the one-version-only position (don't care which one you choose), is without a single verse of support and is NOT A DOCTRINE"

Well, I think it IS a doctrine, just a false one. I agree that it is not taught in scripture. But aside from that, can it be classified a false doctrine also because it is not possible for it to cover all of church history?

 

[Lacy Evans]

No truth is new. But truth can be lost and revived. There are many examples in the OT where God withdrew his "revelation." He would quit speaking to the prophets. He would allow the written Word to be partially lost. And when the people would begin to cry out for God, He would turn the lights up brighter. The prophets would return of again hear from God. The Book would be rediscovered.

There was Satanic deception on a wholescale and worlwide level during the Dark Ages. It would make sense that God would "turn us over to a reprobate mind" in one way or another.

As Bob said, thank God for Luther. It wasn't new truth. It was ressurrected truth. I believe Pre-millenialism was "rediscovered" in the same way.

I think the closer we get to the end, the farther we get away (hopefully!) from the Roman Church, and the more diligently we seek God, the more will be revealed.

Lacy

 

[Craigbythesea]

gb93433, blackbird, and Dr. Bob,

Thank you!

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by natters:
Dr. Bob said "As to the question, doctrine must, by definition, be taught in the Word of God. If there is no Scriptural support, it is not a doctrine. Hence the one-version-only position (don't care which one you choose), is without a single verse of support and is NOT A DOCTRINE"

Well, I think it IS a doctrine, just a false one. I agree that it is not taught in scripture. But aside from that, can it be classified a false doctrine also because it is not possible for it to cover all of church history?

If it is a doctrine, it is a doctrine on the same order as which books make up the canon. We stop at 66 for a reason, but it is not a direct Biblical command, "Thou shalt not regard 'The Shepherd of Hermes' as Holy Scripture", or , "Thou shalt stop at 66".

It is a decision you must make (Like whether to watch TV), based on Biblical principals. I am KJVO. I believe I have very sound Biblical principals upon which I make that decision. But neither side of that debate has a direct Bible mandate.

When tradition tries to rise up and supercede Scripture, then tradition must be severly reprimanded, pruned, and chastened.

Lacy