Doctrines introduced or changed over time?

Paul,

Are you having as much difficulty understanding me as you are Basil?

I have repeatedly said, in this thread and other threads, that I believe that we are saved by grace though faith. And indeed, my understanding of the Greek word translated “grace” in our English translations is much closer to the understanding of grace held by the German theologian Ernst Käsemann and the Methodist compiler of the worlds post popular concordance, James Strong, than it is to the understanding of John Calvin and most of the Baptists on this message board, be they Calvinists or not. To put it in another way, I do not believe that the grace of God is merely His unmerited favor or anything remotely like that. With Käsemann and Strong I believe that the grace of God is the dynamic of God by which we are saved through faith. And I believe that the grace of God is fully efficacious to accomplish the purpose of saving and preserving all of those who trust Him to do so, and that the trust and faith itself is a part of that grace. I further believe, very much unlike Calvin, that the efficacy of the grace of God was entirely sufficient to save those who trust and believe in Jesus not only from the penalty of sin, but the power of sin.

Nonetheless, the doctrine taught by Calvin and other early reformers commonly known today as the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is not found anywhere in the writings of the Church father. Rather what we do find are very many statements to the contrary. The belief that the church as a whole will persevere says nothing at all about the individual members of the church. The human race has persevered for thousands of years through calamity after calamity, but very many individuals have succumbed and died along the way (that is, unless you believe that Adam and Eve, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Moses are persevering on some remote, yet un-charted tropical island).

Whoops! Time to get ready for church.

 

Agreed! But you know me better than that, do you not?



Thank you, Dr. Bob.

 

Red Herring and straw man fallacies.

I did not say you do not believe in salvation by grace through faith. I am not attacking your beliefs about conditional security. That's a red herring.

I am pointing out that according to Thomas C. Oden, himself an Arminian of the Wesleyan persuasion, that there was a very clear teaching in the pre-Reformation period regarding the imperishability, indefectability, and perpetuity of the visible church. These things were true of the visible church, not because she would do these things herself, but because God would preserve her in such a way that this would always be true. Oden sums up their teaching by saying, 'Grace does not coerce, but neither does it bat zero in any given season." In other words, it is impossible for the church to lapse into total apostasy and thus completely disappear. God desires all men to be saved, and He has entrusted the gospel to His people, therefore, in order for this to happen, the Church itself is indefectable, perpetual, and imperishable. This is throughout the writings of Cyril, Gregory of Nazianzen, and Anasthasius, among others. Modern theologians do not deny that this was the teaching of the early church fathers about the visible church.

These same exact concepts are the concepts that underlie the doctrine of perseverance of the saints. You would have us believe that there was no understanding of these concepts at all. That simply is untrue. It is a distortion of the facts. These ideas are the ideas that men like Calvin and Knox, et.al. would say applied to individual believers, not the visible church. They would apply them to the invisible church not the visible church alone. They would also redefine the visible church to not include the corpus mixtum.

Their predecessors, on the other hand, prior to the Reformation, did include these persons in the invisible church. Ambrose said that the church was composed of both, in that there were those who were baptised who were unresponsive to grace, but nevertheless they were part of the church and thus regenerate. The pre-Reformation fathers did so based on synecdoche in their exegetical reasoning. They did this very freely. The whole of a thing was spoken of as a part or a part of the whole. Thus, they taught conditional security in light of this. The church as a whole could be taught as imperishable, indefectable, and perpetual, but not the salvation of individuals, who could fall away. By synecdoche, the visible church,the hagian ekklesian, which was imperishable, indefectible, and perpetual, was inclusive of all persons who had received baptism and were thus regenerate, but not all of them would persevere and thus would "lose their salvation," while the church as a whole would never lose it and could never do so.

The Reformers did not do this. They reasoned that the whole can not be greater than the sum of its parts. They did not employ this kind of thinking in their writing, thus, the ideas regarding perpetuity, imperishability, and indefectablity could be interpreted, rightly, with respect to individuals themselves. They agreed that the visible church might include unbelievers, but the invisible church never would and that both were imperishable, indefectible, and perpetual, the former because it included all true believers and the latter because God would see to it that they would never fully and completely fall away, and, if they did, they were not truly regenerate at all.

Thus, very clear, the doctrine of perseverance of the saints was, in fact, alive and well in the pre-Reformation church, but it was applied only in one direction, towards the visible church as an institution. At the time of the Reformation, it was applied to individuals, in part, because of the excision of synecdoche from free use in exegesis.

Now, as for the inclusion of Ernst Käsemann in your views, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't he a follower of Bultmann, and, if so, are you also in agreement with Bultmann's views?

 

Gene,

I am quite familiar with these things, and I addressed them and wrote,

 

I'm just gonna go ahead and spoil the ending guys. If you kill a baby in a womb, and you are unrepentant, you are going to burn in hell for a thousand years. It doesn't really matter how many church fathers think it was OK, or if it was less than involuntary manslaughter but worse than drowning a little girl's kitten. All sin is worthy of death in God's eyes, and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. Do you suppose for a moment that if Elizabeth had gone after John the Baptist with a coathanger, that it would have been acceptable if it was in the first three months?

The bible tells us to beware the traditions of men , and not without reason. It doesn't really matter how many baptists believed you could kill babys if you got to them before the three month rule took affect. Unless you can show it from scripture its a tradition.

Matthew 19
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

How can you kill a baby without arbitrarily forbidding him to come to know the Lord? Murder...Murder...Murder...Murder...Murder...

 

13. Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them.
14. But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
15. After laying His hands on them, He departed from there. (NASB, 1995)

Dear Brother James,

I find it just a bit difficult to believe that the little children being brought to Jesus for Him to bless them were first trimester fetuses! Notice that Jesus expressly says, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me.” And Matthew expressly tells us that before departing from there, Jesus laid his hands on the children. Personally, I believe that this was a real, historic event rather than a spiritualization of some deeper truth. Jesus literally laid his hands upon those real live boys and girls and blessed them.

Several years ago I was strolling through a large public park where homeless families go to find some comfort from the shade of the trees, the plush lawns, the beautiful flowers, the drinking fountains, and the public restrooms. On this particular day there were some small children there who were most pitifully suffering from severe want, and I could see by looking into their faces that their suffering was not just a happenstance of that one day, but that their suffering characterized their very lives. And less than 100 yards away were several hundred Christians from some very large and extremely wealthy churches who were marching and carrying signs and banners protesting abortion while some other homeless people were out scouring for food in the trash cans so that those children could eat a few bites of garbage.

There are approximately 2,000 references in the Bible to poverty—but not even one reference to voluntary abortion. The priorities of God could not be more obvious, but of course an anti-abortion bumper sticker is a much cheaper way to assuage one’s guilt than to provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for the hundreds of thousands of children in the United States who suffer everyday from severe want, not to mention literally millions of other children world-wide who suffer everyday from an even more severe want!

If 50,000 evangelical Christians in one of the richest cities in the entire world cannot afford to care for those children in their own city park, the evangelical Christians in America have a much greater problem to worry about than first trimester fetuses.

In a single day I have enjoyed both the snow of the mountains and a warm sunny beach. In a single day I have also seen both the eyes of a child who is living a life of severe poverty and the eyes of a child whose parents possess more wealth than most of us could possibly imagine. In the eyes of the child living a life of severe poverty I have seen an unspeakable dimness and despair; and in the eyes of the child living in the very lap of luxury I have seen a bright sparkle of joyous expectation. I do not believe that God has called me to save the life of a first trimester fetus so that one day it can stare at me with those eyes filled with hopelessness and despair.

As long as there is even one pair of those eyes filled with hopelessness and despair, they are going to be my priority; and the thought of being responsible for another pair of those eyes coming into this world is a thought too horrible for me to contemplate.

 

Some thoughts and observations on what has been a somewhat vexed thread, in the hope of shedding more light than heat...

Craig, although you are correct in that abortion is not specifically mentioned in Scripture, nevertheless it is full or references (eg: Ps 139, Jer 1 plus other verses that others quoted) that make it pretty clear that God regards the embryo-fetus-unborn child as human, made in His image, and that destruction of that entity according breaches "Thou shalt not murder". Therefore, it is a fair statement to say that the sinfulness of abortion can be rightly inferred from Scripture. In addition, although I don't have my copy immediately to hand, the Didache IIRC prohibits abortion; that's a post-Scriptural source that arguably predates most of the other Patristic writings and can be dated to a generation or two of the NT period and can be regarded therefore as a fairly reliable commentary on that particular point.

Re your statement about our brothers and sisters over 1600 years - I think we first have to determine whether or not we think they genuinely were our brothers and sisters. I make no comment there other than to say it will doubtless be a moot point here; plus it is of course a rather circular argument for some!

Michelle, re your comment about private interpretation of Scripture, unless we have a hierarchy like the Catholics telling us what to believe and trusting in faith that they've got it right, we all ultimately privately interpret Scripture; if we didn't, we'd all agree. Of course, we trust that we do so under the Holy Spirit's guidance and inspiration, and doubtless you try and do that, as do I. But the fact remains that all of us are fallible humans and can and do get it wrong. Christians interpret the eschatological Scriptures you've quoted (and all the others) in different ways - pre-mill, post-mill, a-mill, preterist, pre-trib rapture, mid-trib rapture, early Acts mid-Acts and late Acts dispensationalists, etc - all believing they are guided by the Spirit. Who's to say who's right? Not me, not you, only God.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Oh, and KJVO-ism is a classic example of a doctrinal innovation that is way off-beam. It's also rather bad news for all those Christians who lived prior to 1611 or who don't speak English

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

--------------------------------------------------
I find it just a bit difficult to believe that the little children being brought to Jesus for Him to bless them were first trimester fetuses! Notice that Jesus expressly says, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me.” And Matthew expressly tells us that before departing from there, Jesus laid his hands on the children. Personally, I believe that this was a real, historic event rather than a spiritualization of some deeper truth. Jesus literally laid his hands upon those real live boys and girls and blessed them.
--------------------------------------------------


So, was Jesus only a "fetus" when he was in the first trimester stage in Mary's womb? To consider a forming baby in the womb to a fetus, is despicable in my opinion.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
As long as there is even one pair of those eyes filled with hopelessness and despair, they are going to be my priority; and the thought of being responsible for another pair of those eyes coming into this world is a thought too horrible for me to contemplate.

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

I hope I am not misunderstanding you here, but is seems to me as though you are advocating abortion, which is murder plain and simple. Let me ask you, what then did YOU do to help these poor children? Did you give them the gospel of Jesus Christ? This is truly what they need, above that of food, shelter and water, and materialistic things. All things will be destroyed by God. It is the souls we should be concerneed with most, the rest second place to this. Abortion has much to do with the soul of the person doing the act, and the murder of another human being, before they have even had a chance to live! I think that if you approached those children, and gave them a choice, would they rather be here now living, or aborted before birth, and not ever having a chance to live, they would choose life, not death. What about you? What would your choice be? By the way, God says that those who love death, hate God.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, re your comment about private interpretation of Scripture, unless we have a hierarchy like the Catholics telling us what to believe and trusting in faith that they've got it right, we all ultimately privately interpret Scripture; if we didn't, we'd all agree. Of course, we trust that we do so under the Holy Spirit's guidance and inspiration, and doubtless you try and do that, as do I. But the fact remains that all of us are fallible humans and can and do get it wrong. Christians interpret the eschatological Scriptures you've quoted (and all the others) in different ways - pre-mill, post-mill, a-mill, preterist, pre-trib rapture, mid-trib rapture, early Acts mid-Acts and late Acts dispensationalists, etc - all believing they are guided by the Spirit. Who's to say who's right? Not me, not you, only God.

Yours in Christ

Matt
--------------------------------------------------


I guess none of us can ever be absolutely sure about anything I guess, by your above opinion. Do you think God desires us to be unsure? Why then does God tell us this:


John 14

13. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
15. If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
19. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
20. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
21. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23. Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
25. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
27. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.


If we do not understand, nor are given understanding, how then can we obey?


In fact God also tells us this:

2 Tim. 2

15. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18. Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
19. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Oh, and KJVO-ism is a classic example of a doctrinal innovation that is way off-beam. It's also rather bad news for all those Christians who lived prior to 1611 or who don't speak English

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


And your false labeling of those who warn others of the dangers of the mv's doesn't make it so. KJVO is a label, a false labeling of those sharing the truth place upon them by those who refuse to see the truth and warnings they bring to others. This is being done to detract from the truth they bring, and many do not want to face or recognize the truth of what has been done to God's word in these modern days. It is called compromise of truth, to condone and try to justify these things God warns not to do to his word. This false label has unfortunately blinded many to the truth regarding that issue. It is not that we are King James Only, but Only King James out of the plethora of mv's and reject them for valid and BIBLICAL reasons.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, you're not denying that "onlyism" (no matter what translation you select) is a NEW doctrine, are you?
--------------------------------------------------


The problem Dr. Bob, among many including yourself, is that you look at God's words of truth, the scriptures as "versions" and the construction and preservation by man. There is only one version of God's word of truth, not many. There is one God, One Saviour, and One Bible, One truth, One church (spiritual) not a plethora of differing ones. God is not the author of confusion, nor strife among the bretheren. He is the God of peace, love and truth. Those who are in Christ Jesus, are in the Same Spirit, and there is a unity in the Spirit. The Holy Spirit of truth, is also the AUTHOR of the scriptures, and will NOT CONTRADICT himself, nor will he take away, nor add to, nor weaken the doctrines of Jesus Christ and the testimony of him. The Holy Spirit of God glorifies the Son. The mv's contain God's word, but show forth they have ALTERED and CORRUPTED the pure word of God. We who love God and his word, and his truth, and our Saviour, and others, should not condone such things as God has given clear warning to those who would, and we should heed the warnings, and obey them accordingly. You all look at the label of King James attached to the scriptures, and attack that, and look ONLY at that, rather than the scriptures within. This is the problem many have when approaching this issue.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle, the Only One True Version (TM) of the Bible are its original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts, which have been lost - unless you're claiming you have them? I presume you are at least fluent in the languages concerned?

If we are so sure of Biblical interpretations, how come we come with so many different ones?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

There is only one version of God's word of truth, not many. There is one God, One Saviour, and One Bible, One truth, One church (spiritual) not a plethora of differing ones.

There is not one version. There is only one original which we do not have.

God is not the author of confusion, nor strife among the bretheren.

So why do you and try to confuse the truth?

The Holy Spirit of truth, is also the AUTHOR of the scriptures, and will NOT CONTRADICT himself, nor will he take away, nor add to, nor weaken the doctrines of Jesus Christ and the testimony of him.

Amen.

The mv's contain God's word, but show forth they have ALTERED and CORRUPTED the pure word of God. You all look at the label of King James attached to the scriptures, and attack that, and look ONLY at that, rather than the scriptures within.

The text was corrupted long before modern translations, the KJV and even the TR.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, the Only One True Version (TM) of the Bible are its original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts, which have been lost - unless you're claiming you have them? I presume you are at least fluent in the languages concerned?
--------------------------------------------------


Not true, as God has promised to preserve his words, every one of his pure words to every generation and for his saints. This promise is also to me and all his saints, and to which He has provided. I do believe I have them, in my own language. Do you not? If not, how then, can you believe ANYTHING in your bible and therefore even call it the word of God/word of truth and your authority in all matters of faith and practice?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

-----------------------------------------------------
If we are so sure of Biblical interpretations, how come we come with so many different ones?
--------------------------------------------------

Because unfortunately many rely upon their own human reasoning and logic, rather than doing what the Lord commands, and that is:

2 Tim. 2

15. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18. Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
19. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.


Luke 8

11. Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
12. Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
13. They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
14. And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.
15. But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.
16. No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light.
17. For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.
18. Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
There is not one version. There is only one original which we do not have.

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

Sure we do. God has promised to preserve his word, and indeed has shown that He has.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
So why do you and try to confuse the truth?
--------------------------------------------------

I don't. I share and encourage the truth. The mv's are the ones that have brought division and strife, doubt and confusion among the bretheren.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle