A quarter of British Christians do not believe in the resurection

[SteveII]

I don't know what this was supposed to mean. I don't see anything wrong with those writings--which are consistent with the NT.

Yo, S2, did you just change someones post?

No, she edited the post.

---

I hear this line of thinking often repeated here. I just don't see how the interpretation of NT scripture has changed since the beginning. Do you have examples of where the Apostolic Fathers' writings on doctrine differed from Nicea, to Augustine, to Luther, to Calvin, to Wesley to today?

It is readily discovered that the theologians of the primitive age disagreed regarding the soul's immortality.1 Several of them "were persuaded that the soul was mortal by nature but could become immortal by good works, or, as others preferred to stress, by union with the Spirit of God, a teaching they thought to find in St. Paul" (Brady, p. 465). Specifically the teaching of innate immortality is absent from the Apostolic Fathers, those Christian writers who lived nearest to or whose lives partly paralleled the last of the apostles. The trend toward the view of inherent immortality, it will be shown, developed with the subsequent Ante-Nicene Fathers.

http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com...O_iJWdw-Uk

As I said, constantly changing.

I don't think that article comes any where close to "constantly changing" For the first 200 years, we have writings of people going back and forth whether everyone's soul is immortal or just the Christians'. I think the NT canon is pretty clear on the subject. How many of them would have had the entire NT at their disposal in a language that they understood enough to do detailed exegesis?

This particular topic also does nothing to support the argument that the definition of Christianity has changed since the beginning (or can be changed by consensus). At best, it is tangential to the core teachings which define Christianity.