Doctrines introduced or changed over time?

We have a better source than the early church fathers in regards to perseverence of the Saints.

We have the words of Jesus and the apostles in a first century compilation of letters and books called THE NEW TESTAMENT!

And the words from this first century source clearly shows that the apostolic church believed in the perseverence of the elect!

 

These are the same, old distorted quotes. The one by Tertullian I have already posted in context. As I showed there by a supporting quote from the Constitution of the Holy Apostles, Tertullian wrote that a fetus becomes a human being “the moment that its form is COMPLETED. Origen, Jerome and Augustine agreed with Tertullian's view of this. The Church argued about the point in time when the form of a fetus is completed, but they did NOT teach that the form of a fetus was completed at conception (does a fertilized egg have the form of a child?)

Did you read the quote by Gregory of Nyssa and the comments made about him in the first article?

Gregory, like many theologians, argued that the fetus becomes a human child well after the end of the first trimester when a living child can be felt by the mother to be moving about in the womb. And right after quoting Gregory as having argued that, the writer of the article says, “In other words, human life begins at conception.” This is an excellent example of what happens when someone is desperate for evidence to win a debate. Apparently the writer of this article copied this from some other source and pasted into his article without either carefully reading it or studying the subject that he was writing about.

Even the most up-to-date ultrasound technology does not detect movement by the fetus during the first trimester.

Instead of trying to prove a point, let’s honestly study what the early church fathers wrote, in context, and how their writings were interpreted and received by their contemporaries who knew the language, customs, and culture.

 

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.

 

Amen, Sister Michelle -- Preach it!

Craigbythesea: "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."

I don't know what "Eternal Security" mean in the
16th century. To me it means this:

John 3:16 (HCSB = The Holman Christian Standard Bible)

"For God loved the world in this way: He gave His only Son,
so that everyone who believes in Him will
not perish but have eternal life."

This "doctrine" has been available from the 1st century.
I believe "eternal life" starts when you believe in Him
and never ends. To me this is Eternal Security.
I have no idea what the 16th century starting
"Eternal Security" means. Do you?

Actually, I believe in "Conditional Security"
The condition for your salvation to fail
is for Jesus, who is God, to fail.

 

craigbythesea,

Have you read the hypocratic oath?
The Council of Ancyra?

The first century church believed that abortion immediately after conception was murder.

There is no getting around this.

Sexually immoral woman used abortifacient poisons to rid themselves of pregnancy! And the early church fathers considered it murder.

 

Craigbythesea,

The Bible has so many references to security that it is stupendous to say otherwise.

It does not surprise me that the early church fathers strayed so quickly from salvation by grace to security by works.

God's gift of salvation by grace through faith is too incredible for most to accept.

Many want to play a part in their salvation.
Many want to play a part in keeping it.
The church fathers were no different.

Their quick denial of the Biblical record doesn't change the truth of the Scriptures. It only shows how difficult it is for human nature to admit that we play no part in God's work of salvation.

 

The Catholic Church Position about abortion

The early councils of the Church, consisting of gatherings of local bishops, enacted legislation against abortion.

• The Council of Elvira, (305 A.D.) is generally thought of as the first council to do so. This Spanish council held that a woman who aborted a child, even though it may have been conceived in adultery, was not to be given communion even at the end of her life.

• The Council of Ancyra (314 A.D.), the first Eastern council to legislate against abortion, states, in canon 21 that "women who prostitute themselves, and who kill the children thus begotten, or who try to destroy them in their womb, are by ancient law excommunicated to the end of their lives. We, however, have lessened their punishment and condemn them to the various appointed degrees of penance for ten years" (2). The Council of Ancyra stipulated a lesser period of penance but clearly extended punishment to the killing of any child in the womb (not only adulterine offspring). This councilor rule was apparently recognized and ratified, at least in a general sense, by the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (450 A.D.)

• The Council of Lerida Spain (524 A.D.) affixed penalties to persons who tried to kill the unborn child in the womb of the mother.

******************

The Council of Ancrya, rather than increasing the penalty for aborting a “child,” decreased the penalty to “various appointed degrees of penance for ten years." Obviously they did not consider it murder! The penalty for murder was a wee bit more severe than “various appointed degrees of penance for ten years." And notice that there is NO mention of the period in time when a fetus becomes a child. The great majority of Catholic bishops at that time believed that a fetus became a child when it took on the characteristics of a child, including the ability to move about in the womb. As I have already posted, a fetus is NOT capable of moving around in the womb during the first twelve weeks (the first trimester).

 

These are false statements, and Michelle has posted proof of that. The first century Church based its understanding of Exodus 21:23 upon the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, and they understood it to teach a fetus becomes a child SUBSEQUENT to conception when the child takes on the characteristics of a child , including the ability to move about in the womb.

Yes, certain individuals had varying opinions, but there was no Ante-Nicene Church Doctrine that specified that aborting a first trimester fetus was murder.

 

No one is saying otherwise. What they are saying is that to extrapolate from these references to security to the doctrine of OSAS is unjustified for two basic reasons:

1. When carefully studied exegetically, they do not allow for such an extrapolation.

2. There are a multitude of scriptures that teach conditional security without any extrapolation being necessary. (Yes, Baptists try to explain away these verses, but when one looks at their explanations, we find that they contradict each other at every turn. If don’t believe this, simply read ten commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews and you will not likely find two of them that agree regarding Heb. 3:12, Heb_6:4-8, and Heb_10:26-29).

 

Hippolytus of Rome, writing between A.D. 199-217, is absolutely scathing in his condemnation of those who procure abortion in order to avoid “embarrassment” or social liability:

Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family or excessive wealth. Behold into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time!” (Refutation of All Heresies, 9:17.)

This change in penitential practice must not be misunderstood as a “liberalization” of attitudes, however. Abortion was still considered murder, as Basil the Great makes clear:

The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder. With us there is no nice enquiry as to its being formed or unformed. In this case it is not only the being about to be born who is vindicated, but the woman in her attack upon herself; because in most cases women who make such attempts die. The destruction of the embryo is an additional crime, a second murder, at all events if we regard it as done with intent. The punishment, however, of these women should not be for life, but for the term of ten years. . . . Women also who administer drugs to cause abortion, as well as those who take poisons to destroy unborn children, are murderesses. So much on this subject. (Letter to Amphilochius, 188:2, 8.)

Similarly, the great Latin biblical scholar, Jerome (A.D. 347-419), does not even disguise his contempt for Christians who rationalize abortion as a matter of “choice” or “conscience”:

Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder. Yet it is these who say: “‘Unto the pure all things are pure’ (Titus 1:15); my conscience is sufficient guide for me. A pure heart is what God looks for. . . .” I blush to speak of it, it is so shocking; yet though sad, it is true. (Letter to Eustochium, 22:13-14.)

The evidence is available for all to read. First trimester abortion was murder in the eyes of the church fathers.

 

The above quotes taken from:

http://www.stnicholasla.com/abortion.htm

 

We have two different subjects here:

1. Contraception
2. Abortion of mid or late term fetuses

Contraception in not murder.

The type of abortion described here by Hippolytus is of no effect during the first trimester. Therefore the use of the word “murder” by Hippolytus does not apply to first term abortions, and applies only to second or third trimester abortions.

 

This sounds like it would condemn any abortion regardless of when or how. Is that good enough? I don't think there is really much reason to justify first trimester abortions unless we are planning on having them, why is this such a controversy on the 'baptist' board?

Job 3:3
Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived.

Matthew 1:20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 2:21
And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

See what kinds of things are being concieved? Man children, Jesus of the Holy Spirit, no lumps of flesh and no fetuses waiting to come to life. Whether or not the early church fathers had it right is of little import. If you kill a baby in the first trimester, you are a murderer.

 

Paul,

You have me a bit confused here! It appears to me that you have copied a quote by Basil from a website and pasted into your post without first verifying that the quote on the website honestly and fairly quoted Basil in context. But of course, you would not commit such a breach of ethics on a Christian message board, would you, Paul?

When we read Basil’s letter to Amphilochius, with whom he has been corresponding, we see that it is not a formal doctrinal treatise, but an informal letter in which he shares with Amphilochius his personal opinions regarding the canons of the Church—some of which he agrees with; some of which he does not. And he writes that on the issue of abortion, he and Amphilochius do not agree with the Churches position that abortion is wrong only when the child has already been formed. And he expresses his personal opinion that “The punishment, however, of these women should not be for life, but for the term of ten years. And let their treatment depend not on mere lapse of time, but on the character of their repentance.” (The ten year punishment refers to their being separated from the Church and denied communion for that period of time).

However, Basil also writes in the same letter, “The man who is guilty of ‘unintentional homicide’ has given sufficient satisfaction in eleven years.” NOTICE THAT! Basil himself suggests that the punishment for “unintentional homicide should be longer than the punishment for a willful abortion. Obviously Basil is not using the word “murder” here for what we call first degree homicide, but for something much less serious.

The quote provided by Paul33 above is taken from two very different paragraphs in a very long letter that includes an introductory paragraph followed by a discussion of 16 individually numbered topic. All of the quoted words prior to the ellipsis are taken from topic 2, which reads as follows:

The quoted words after the ellipsis are the last sentence in topic 8, which reads as follows:

And don’t forget that the ellipsis in Paul’s quote also includes all of topics 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7!

Paul33 took his quote from a Pro-Life, anti-abortion website and he should have realized that it was likely that the quotes in it were taken out of context, and he should have read Basil’s letter to find out what Basil actually wrote and what kind of a letter Basil had written. But Paul33 is not alone in his guilt. The quote that Paul33 provided is plastered all over the internet on very many Pro-Life, anti-abortion websites that apparently believe that it is fair game and perfectly ethical for Christians to distort the truth and misrepresent the Ante-Nice Church Fathers to defend their personal beliefs.

It is my personal opinion that Christians have a moral and ethical responsibility to be fair and truthful. Any doctrine that is in need of misrepresentations and distortions of the truth to defend it can not be a Biblical doctrine.

 

Dear Brother James,

I appreciate your concern for me, but I assure that I am NOT pregnant! And last time I checked with my wife’s gynecologist, men who are not pregnant very seldom get first trimester abortions.

Three more things,

My attitude toward women who have gotten an abortion, what ever the trimester and whatever the reason, is an attitude of compassion.

My personal belief is that although the Bible does not expressly mention voluntary abortion, voluntary abortions are a sin, even if the abortion is performed in the first trimester, unless the woman’s doctor believes that an abortion is necessary.

There are several lists of sins that are expressly addressed in the Bible, including arrogance, lying, gossip, selfishness, drunkenness, divorce, etc., and I believe that the Church should focus on these and the other sins that are expressly addressed rather than a sin that is not expressly mentioned. And several of these expressly addressed sins are expressly addressed more than once!

 

--------------------------------------------------
Gregory, like many theologians, argued that the fetus becomes a human child well after the end of the first trimester when a living child can be felt by the mother to be moving about in the womb. And right after quoting Gregory as having argued that, the writer of the article says, “In other words, human life begins at conception.” This is an excellent example of what happens when someone is desperate for evidence to win a debate. Apparently the writer of this article copied this from some other source and pasted into his article without either carefully reading it or studying the subject that he was writing about.
--------------------------------------------------


I really don't give one iota what these "men" thought, nor any other man. I am a woman who has given birth to two children, and KNEW EXACTLY when it was I concieved, and KNEW I had a child within me. I KNEW I had life in my womb, the MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. So you can believe all you care to, however, I not only know from my own experience of it, but from the words of God himself, that life begins at CONCEPTION, and to abort that Life is MURDER and therefore sin. Not only that, but the thoughts of the mother that bring her to ABORT in the first place are ALSO SIN.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Millions of Christians have been conditioned to believe in eternal security and they “see” it being taught throughout the New Testament.
-------------------------------------------------


Are you saying the Holy Spirit of truth taught me and conditioned me to believe a lie? I did not learn this from anyone, other than God and his words of truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Absolutely not!

 

2 Cor. 11:3 I fear that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your mind may be corrupted from a complete and pure devotion to Christ. (KJV, 2004.5)

1Tim. 2:13 For Adam was created first, then Eve.
1Tim. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.
1Tim. 2:15 But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good sense. (KJV, 1769)