Doctrines introduced or changed over time?

--------------------------------------------------
1Tim. 2:15 But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good sense.
--------------------------------------------------

I guess then, the woman who aborts that life within her womb, that God so blessed her with, cannot be saved through childbearing as that would keep her from childbearing in the first place and also does not even start in faith, love, holiness, and good sense to begin with. By the way, the woman was decieved because she believed someone other than God. Secondly, it was Adam who sinned, and the reason for the fall of man. Not Eve. Eve was only decieved and decieved not of her own, but by the words of Satan. She believed Satan, over what Adam and ULTIMATELY God had said. Not all woman are decieved. And all woman do sin. Just as some men are decieved, but all men sin. How are men AND woman kept from being decieved, and keeping them from continuing in sin?

Are you saying that because I acknowledge my experience of being given the ability to KNOW that I had life within my womb, at the moment of conception, is not in accordance with the scriptural truth? God has put it in the woman to know when she concieves, and that this is life within her. Why do you not go talk with woman who have had first trimester abortions, or first trimester miscarriages, and see what they tell you. I know some who have and talked with them about this. Have you? When I concieved both of my children, this was even prior to my salvation in Jesus CHrist, yet I still KNEW. I didn't even know the scriptures of this yet, but yet God had put it in me to know this, as he does every other woman.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Thank you Dr. Bob, I really appreciate your comments, ecspecially coming from you, considering we haven't exactly been on the best of terms with one another in the past. Thank you for your encouraging words, and understanding of my faith in this issue, and for entreating me to continue to rely upon the words of God and being led by Him, and that I also as a woman can understand his words and live and believe them accordingly. Not just for me, but all woman who love their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and share His truth.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Dr. Bob, if you will go back and look at that post more carefully, you will see that I was using a play on words, responding to:

EVERYONE who knows me KNOWS that I have a VERY high degree of respect for women and that I am not a male chauvinist.

However, my opinion of Michelle’s revelations from the spirit world is somewhat different!
</font>[/QUOTE]

 

--------------------------------------------------
I really don't give one iota what these "men" thought, nor any other man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EVERYONE who knows me KNOWS that I have a VERY high degree of respect for women and that I am not a male chauvinist.

However, my opinion of Michelle’s revelations from the spirit world is somewhat different!
--------------------------------------------------


My revelations come from God, not MAN, and that was my POINT, to which you have relegated to the spirit world, and tried to show that what God has revealed to me from the scriptures, and in my own experience is DECEPTION. Am I to listen to MEN above that of God? How exactly is one decieve anyway? PLease show me the scriptures that there is NOT LIFE upon conception, rather than relying upon the OPINIONS AND TEACHINGS OF MEN? Who is really the one being decieved?


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle,

I have explicitly stated that I believe that first trimester abortions are, unless necessary, a sin. The issue in this thread, however, is NOT whether or not first trimester abortions are a sin—the issue is whether or not the early church had a doctrine that first trimester abortions are a sin, and that the sin is murder. As I have shown, some persons have taken quotes out of context to prove that they did, but when the quotes are read in context we see that they did not. And even Basil, who personally believed, contrary to the canons of the church, that first trimester abortions are “murder,” he expressly wrote, as I have quoted him in context, that he believed that the punishment for intentional abortions should be less than the punishment for “unintentional homicides.” Clearly even Basil did not believe that abortion is murder in the sense that we commonly use the word.

You have the right to believe as you do about abortion, but when quoting what others believe about abortion, we need to be very careful to honestly represent their beliefs.

And Michelle, as much as some of us respect you and your beliefs, I find it difficult to understand how you could have so little respect for the beliefs of others.

 

Absolutely not!

However, we all need to listen very carefully in order to accurately discern whether we are listening to the voice of God, or the voice of another spirit. If we heard one thing, but our brother and sisters in Christ heard something very different for 1600 years, I believe that we should consider the possibility that what we heard was NOT the voice of God.

 

---------------------------------------------------
Michelle,

I have explicitly stated that I believe that first trimester abortions are, unless necessary, a sin. The issue in this thread, however, is NOT whether or not first trimester abortions are a sin—the issue is whether or not the early church had a doctrine that first trimester abortions are a sin, and that the sin is murder.
--------------------------------------------------


Rather, it is you who is guilty of taking the quotes out of context, because you have failed to understand the points being made along with scriptural truth. If you believe it is a sin, I believe it is a sin, and countless other born again christians believe it to be a sin, then ALL other born again believers ALSO believed this very same thing, including the Jews prior to the church, and even also until this day. The reason we ALL know this to be the truth, is BECAUSE WE LEARNED THIS FROM GOD THROUGH THE SCRIPTURES and for woman through their EXPERIENCE of it. Just because you cannot seem to find any quote that fits your preconcieved and false idea regarding this doesn't make this it true that no one had a doctrine concerning this. You, nor I, nor anyone else that lives in this generation, can ever possibly KNOW ALL that was believed back then. Your argument is meaningless, and I believe quite dangerous, as you give credence to others that believe this NOT to be MURDER, and therefore not a sin.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
And even Basil, who personally believed, contrary to the canons of the church, that first trimester abortions are “murder,” he expressly wrote, as I have quoted him in context, that he believed that the punishment for intentional abortions should be less than the punishment for “unintentional homicides.” Clearly even Basil did not believe that abortion is murder in the sense that we commonly use the word.
--------------------------------------------------

And this is meaningless. Why? Because the words and opinions of one man, or other men does not constitute what the whole rest of the churches actually believed. You do not necessarily know all the doctrines of all the churches throughout the ages to make such a bold statement as you have done. You are only making a statement based upon what is today available, which may not in fact, be representative of other churches throughout the ages as a whole. It would be just as illogical for someone living 1000 years from now, to base what all the churches believed in this generation to the likes of Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Jim Jones, etc. It is not wise to do this.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

ANYTHING that does not agree with your spirit world revelations is "meaningless" to you. I find that very sad.

The data that we do have is extensive, and it does not come from one or two isolated churches, but from a multitude of churches throughout the Christian world who were in very frequent contact with each other and who on several occasions came together for church councils. When you mistakenly believed that the data supported your position, you posted several links to it. Now that you have learned that it does not support your position, you write that the data is “meaningless."

If you believed that the data was “meaningless,” why did you post it? Did you wish to sway the opinions of your brothers and sisters in Christ toward your point of view by posting “meaningless” data?

 

Craigbythesea,

Have you been drinking too much potion? Are your senses a little dull?

Anyone who reads the quotes previously posted and reads the internet site will realize that you have a "Bill Clinton" problem. Could you please define "is."

The quotes stand on their own. The quotes weren't taken out of context. And the quotes show the attitude of the church fathers who wrote them. And they aren't my quotes. And I wasn't being unethical. We sure do have a name-calling problem on this forum.

Craig, we look at sources like these for their historical value. You appear to need an "official" decree.

Perhaps these individuals are wrong. Perhaps they are right. That's not the point. The point is this is what they wrote.

The historical value is that we have a glimpse into their thinking and culture.

For anyone to say that first trimester abortions were not considered murder by the church fathers is just plain distorting the record.

Come on, Bill! I mean Craigbythesea.

 

When we consider how many multiplied thousands of churches existed over the ages which left no trace whatsoever of what they believed, it is utterly ridiculous to hear so many dogmatically assert what "the church" did nor did not teach in ages past.

Take the "Anabaptists" for example. When you put all of any writings left by them together you still have a very sketchy idea of any cohesive "Anabaptist" doctrine. Add to that this important, but often overlooked, footnote by the famous German Lutheran historian, Moshiem. He stated that there were at least thirteen different varieties of Anabaptists, each of which considered it's own baptism alone to be Scriptural.

Even John said, in his first letter, that there were already "many anti-christs" gone out from them while he was still alive. If these heretics left any record of what they believed some historian would hail it as proof positive of the doctrinal position of "the first century church."

In spite of all this, we know one thing for certain: Jesus Christ commissioned the church at Jerusalem to carry the gospel into the nations, where evangelism, baptism, and indoctrination in the truth would be continued "even unto the end of the word. Amen."

Whereas Jesus is the eternal "Amen" you can rest assured that when God's history books are open there will, indeed, be a continual succession of gospel preaching, baptism and indoctrination from the days of Christ till His second coming.

Even so come Lord Jesus. Amen.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Gene,

Let's be fair here. I have NEVER categorically denied that the Bible teaches that the saints will persevere. What I am denying is that we find prior to the reformation the doctrine that ALL saints will necessarily persevere. We simply do not find that doctrine prior to the reformation, and the doctrine of eternal security was NOT taught by anyone until after that doctrine had been formulated and taught. Millions of Christians have been conditioned to believe in eternal security and they “see” it being taught throughout the New Testament. The larger body of Christians who have not been conditioned to believe in eternal security and who have not been unduly influenced by 16th century and later theology do not see eternal security being taught anywhere in the Bible, but they do see conditional security being taught throughout the New Testament. I believe in and teach justification by faith apart from the works of the Law more adamantly than most Baptist that I know who believe in eternal security, but I do not believe in the doctrine of eternal security because it is NOT taught in the Scriptures, but is only imagined by some to be taught there due to theological conditioning. There is no other rational explanation for the phenomenon.

</font>[/QUOTE]My point is that of Oden (who is himself an Arminian of the Wesleyan persuasion). Using the early church fathers, he shows that they did in fact believe the church itself would "necessarily persevere,' because God would see to it. Her perseverance was not conditional, in the sense that modern Arminians would understand conditional security/perseverance. Those of us that believe in perseverance of the saints can sum up what we believe by saying, "Security is conditional and God Himself sees to it that the conditions relating to our perserverance are met so that we do persevere to the end. We persevere and we do so because God preserves us. The early church fathers said the exact same kinds of things when they spoke of the visible church itself. The difference in the Reformation is that these ideas were applied to the invisible church as well as the visible church.

As Oden sums it up," grace will never bat zero in any giving inning of history." You say there is no evidence at all that the doctrine of perseverance of the saints / eternal security (I hold to the former, not the latter), is to be found anywhere, prior to the Reformation. That's not so . It is simply found being applied to the church as a whole, when these same fathers speak of the indefectibilty and perpetuity of the church. Same doctrine... different application (institution vs. individuals as well as the church).


Moreover, even if you are correct, the same logic you are using could be applied directly to the situation in Jesus own day. There was a very clear theology of the Messiah that had developed over several centuries that went unchallenged. However, they were wrong. We're discussing, here, the development of doctrines over time. You have said that if a doctrine is taught or developed many centuries down the road it is incorrect. Not only can we apply that logic to baptismal regeneration, but we can apply the same logic to the Messianic prophecies, and we can see how it falls flat on its face. Moreover, in relationship to this specific doctrine, it is apparent that while they may not have taught perseverance of the saints in relationship to individuals; they certainly did teach the perseverance of the church, of which indefectibility, perpetuity, et.al. were taught, and those same ideas are the same ideas that underlie the peseverance of the saints and its modern cousin, eternal security. In short, its there in their writings but being applied elsewhere.

[ November 07, 2004, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]

 

The canons of the church DID consider abortion murder.

Basil was not in disagreement with the canons.

The length of punishment has nothing to do with determining whether or not the taking of innocent human life is murder.

Abortion is murder, and the early church fathers and councils addressed it as such! Period!

 

NO quote stands on its own merit!!! The merit of ALL quotes is subject to their fairness and accuracy in conveying the thought expressed in the documents from which they are taken.

That is, unless the “quotes” are deliberately taken out of context to distort and misrepresent the documents from which they are taken to prove one’s personal belief that first trimester abortions are murder.

 

This is a false statement and I have proven that to be the case. The documents in their entirety are available for study in theological libraries around the world. If you would take the time as I have to read these documents rather than quotes from them on the internet you would clearly see for yourself that the anti-abortionist websites have deliberately, unfairly and dishonestly misrepresented the contents of the documents being discussed here. They probably believed that saving the lives of the un-born justified what they did, but the fact is that they did it!

 

If Basil was not in disagreement with the canons on this issue, why did he say that he was and mock them?

The FACT that the punishment that Basil believed was justified for intentional abortion was less than the punishment that he believed was justified for “unintentional homicide” PROOVES that he believed that intentional abortions are a lesser sin than “unintentional homicide.” FACT: a sin less severe than “unintentional homicide” is something very different than the crime we know today as “murder.”

 

Nonsense. You have proven nothing but your penchant for distorting the documents. And since you willingly persist in distorting what can be plainly seen and understood by all who read the source materials for themselves, I am going to refrain from further discussions with you.

 

Yes, we even know that many of the early Baptists sprinkled rather than immersed for a short time until they changed.