Did the early church believe eternal security?

I heard somewhere that the ECF's rejected the book of Hebrews as inspired as they thought it rejected eternal security, though it was later accepted and found to not reject ES. Maybe you can use that to do a search. My apologies, but that is as much as I recall.

 

The Church Fathers are heretics. Look at the historical development in the church fathers. The Post-Nicene Church Fathers are Catholic in doctrine through and through. The Post-Nicene Fathers are a logical development of the Nicene Church Fathers (Augustine and Chrysostom) and the Nicene are the logical development of the Ante-Nicene church Fathers. In the Ante-Nicene church fathers we have the origin of baptismal regeneration, elder rule, church salvation, etc.

The Church Fathers have been preserved by Roman Catholic Monks for a very good reason -their historical heritage. True New testament Christianity is treated and perverted as the "heretics" in these preserved and edited pages by Roman Catholic monks.

 

One thing to be mindful of is that biblical "salvation" is much more than "saved from hell, going to heaven"

Iraneus mentioned being "disinherited" by God. Our inheritance is called salvation in scripture. It's a reward to the faithful. Not every believer is faithful. That's why Barnabas was concerned that "we" might be among the called but not the chosen. It concerns the same issue.

The earliest weren't saying unfaithfulness would send a believer to hell. Instead, they were concerned that believers would not have an inheritance in the Kingdom.

In short, they were espousing Free Grace doctrine - that it is entirely possible for a believer to fail to mature, to fall away, and to lose our inheritance for disobedience.

 

It is difficult to find because Romish Monks have edited and perverted their enemies in order to make themselves look like the true apostolic church and all others who opposed their doctrine look like apostates. The Donatists complained that Augustine perverted their positions and did not rightly portray them. The Montanists were characterized by Montanus and his two prophetesses and yet denied any prophets among them or any of the other wild accusations brought against them due to Montanus. The Paulicians complained that the Roman Catholic monks falsely charged them with the error of Manicheanism when they repudiated that doctrine. The Waldenses claimed the same kind of perversions by Rome. The Reformation evangelical Anabaptists also complained of being misrepresented as the Munster paedobaptists extremists whom they repudiated. The trail of true doctrine is traced more by blood of those Rome consistently called the "Anabaptists."

 

Good post. Even after all the wickedness Israel had done in the wilderness after leaving Egypt (unbelief, disobedience, murmuring, idolatry, fornication, rebellion, etc.), and even with Balaam wanting so badly to curse Israel, God made Balaam to declare:

He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob; Neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: Jehovah his God is with him, And the shout of a king is among them. Nu 23:21
(Blessed is the man to whom, the Lord will not reckon sin. Ro 4:8)

AND, throughout all their wandering/chastening in the Wilderness He still yet gave them shade by day and light by night, He fed them manna, gave them water, their clothes never wore out, their feet didn't blister, etc., He was with them always even though He granted them no repentance to enter into His Rest. They wandered in the Wilderness for the rest of their lives when they could have spent it in the Land of Milk & Honey had they only believed and obeyed the gospel that it was their's for the taking.

 

James, that is an interesting point of view. Are you talking about the apostolic Fathers or the later Ante-Nicene Fathers. The Ante-Nicene Fathers were for the most part just plain heretics, however, the apostolic Father's were more orthodox. By "apostolic" Fathers I am speaking of Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, etc. Iraneus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian were among the more conservative Ante-Nicene Father's and yet they were sowing some seeds of heresies.

 

Two quick points, (1) why do we care if the ECF understood eternal security? Lots of mistaken views take hold in church history, and (2) when we speak of loss of salvation, are we talking about the loss of rewards due to misplaced or defective ministry, or somehow arranging to be "unborn anew" and reversing the process that made us a new creation.

The OASIS doctrine, once actually saved, its settled is valid. Matthew 7 tells us that folks engaged in ministry and proclaiming Lord, Lord, were never born anew. They did not lose salvation, they never had it.
Scripture tells us [or some of us ] that our faith, if we are born anew is protected by the power of God, and thus we can never lose it. So it may be that the people who profess Christ, and then later deny Christ were never born again. Otherwise, in their heart of hearts, they would still love Jesus, or so it seems to me.

 

John T. Christian's two volumes "A History of the Baptists." Verduin's "The Reformers and their Step children."

 

Yes, as it was taught to them by Jesus and His Apostles!

 

I would say since Paul wrote extensively about it in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians that they did believe in Eternal Security. Not sure how a person could not believe in it today. I mean, grieve not the Holy Spirit of God whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption. Sealed until we get to heaven. Pretty simple to my simple brain.