• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Did the early church believe eternal security?

Former Member Amorphous

Nephilim Slayer
Can anyone provide examples of the church fathers discussing eternal security?

Here are some questions used against ES

Barnabas said, “We ought therefore, brethren, carefully to inquire concerning our salvation. Otherwise, the wicked one, having made his entrance by deceit, may hurl us forth from our life.” (c. 70-130, Vol. 1, p. 138)

Barnabas said, “The whole past time of your faith will profit you nothing, unless now in this wicked time we also withstand coming sources of danger….Take heed, lest resting at our ease, as those who are called, we fall asleep in our sins. For then, the wicked prince, acquiring power over us, will thrust us away from the kingdom of the Lord….And you should pay attention to this all the more, my brothers, when you reflect on and see that even after such great signs and wonders had been performed in Israel, they were still abandoned. Let us beware lest we be found to be, as it is written, the ‘many who are called,’ but not the ‘few who are chosen.’” (c. 70-130, Vol. 1, p. 139)

Hermas said, “If you do not guard yourself against [anger], you and your house will lose all hope of salvation.” (c. 150, Vol. 2, p. 23)

Justin Martyr said, “I hold further, that those of you who have confessed and know this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back for some reason to the legal dispensation [i.e., the Mosaic Law], and have denied that this man is Christ, and have not repented before death – you will by no means be saved.” (c. 160, Vol. 1, p. 218)

Irenaeus said, “We should not, therefore, as the presbyter remarks, be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of olden times. Rather, we should fear ourselves, least perchance, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sin, but are shut out from His kingdom. And for that reason, Paul said, ‘For if [God] spare not the natural branches, [take heed] lest He also not spare you.’” (c. 180, Vol. 1, p. 499)

Irenaeus said, “It was not to those who are on the outside that he said these things, but to us – lest we should be cast forth from the kingdom of God, by doing any such thing.” (c. 180, Vol. 1, p. 500)

Irenaeus said, “Those who do not obey Him, being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.” (c. 180, Vol. 1, p. 525)

Clement of Alexandra said, “God gives forgiveness of past sins. However, as to future sins, each one procures this for himself. He does this by repenting, by condemning the past deeds, and by begging the Father to blot them out. For only the Father is the one who is able to undo what is done….So even in the case of one who has done the greatest good deeds in this life, but at the end has run headlong into wickedness, all his former pains are profitless to him. For at the climax of the drama, he has given up his part.” (c. 195, Vol. 2, p. 602)

Tertullian said, “Some think that God is under a necessity of bestowing even on the unworthy what He has promised [to give]. So they turn His liberality into His slavery….For do not many afterwards fall out of [grace]? Is not this gift taken away from many? These, no doubt, are they who…after approaching to the faith of repentance, build on the sands a house doomed to ruin.” (c. 203, Vol. 3, p. 661)

Tertullian said, “God had foreseen…that faith – even after baptism – would be endangered. He saw that most persons – after obtaining salvation – would be lost again, by soiling the wedding dress, by failing to provide oil for their torches.” (c. 213, Vol. 3, p. 639)

Origen said, “A man may posses and acquired righteousness, from which it is possible for him to fall away.” (c. 225, Vol. 4, p. 266)

Origen said, “Certain ones of those [heretics] who hold different opinions misuse these passages. They essentially destroy free will by introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost.” (c. 225, Vol. 4, p. 308)

Commodianus said, “Being a believing man, if you seek to live as the Gentiles do, the joys of the world remove you from the grace of Christ.” (c. 240, Vol. 4, p. 214)

Cyprian said, “I ask…that you will grieve with me at the [spiritual] death of my sister. For in this time of devastation, she has fallen from Christ.” (c. 250, Vol. 5, p. 298)

Cyprian said, “There is need of continual prayer and supplication so that we do not fall away from the heavenly kingdom, as the Jews fell away, to whom this promise had first been given.” (c. 250, Vol. 5, p. 451)

Cyprian said, “In the Gospel according to Matthew: ‘Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit will be cut down and cast into the fire’….Even a baptized person loses the grace he has attained, unless he remains innocent. In the Gospel according to John: ‘Look, you are made whole. Sin no more, lest a worse thing happen to you’. Also, in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: ‘Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God abides in you? If anyone violates the temple of God, God will destroy him’. Of this same thing in the Chronicles: ‘God is with you, while you are with Him. If you forsake Him, He will forsake you’.” (c. 250, Vol. 5, p. 542)


Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Internet Theologian

Well-Known Member
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 Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 

JamesL

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 

Former Member Amorphous

Nephilim Slayer
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.
Are there any early first (outside the bible), second, third century sources that show history of true doctrine?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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."
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
...
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.

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.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.

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.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Can anyone provide examples of the church fathers discussing eternal security?

Here are some questions used against ES

ONLY question here is did Jesus and His Apostles teach and hold to it? YES they all did, so if every Church father was against it, really, so what?


Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
 

Former Member Amorphous

Nephilim Slayer
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."
What are some sources you would recommend reading?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
 
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.
 
Top