Once Saved Always Saved?

[Thinkingstuff]

The point you are trying to make eludes me!

What Zenas is asking you for is historical documents showing where people holding to the belief of eternal security made comments regarding that doctrine. His point is that there are none because no one held that view until the time of the Reformation. You claim that eternal security is mentioned in the bible and was originally taught by the apostles to their followers which would be evident in writings of the churches since the NT wasn't canonized until the end of the 4th century. So that could only mean the church was wipe out until reestablished during the reformation or it was hidden which would mean they weren't very effective until the reformation.

See the point?

 

[DHK]

What Zenas is asking you for is historical documents showing where people holding to the belief of eternal security made comments regarding that doctrine. His point is that there are none because no one held that view until the time of the Reformation. You claim that eternal security is mentioned in the bible and was originally taught by the apostles to their followers which would be evident in writings of the churches since the NT wasn't canonized until the end of the 4th century. So that could only mean the church was wipe out until reestablished during the reformation or it was hidden which would mean they weren't very effective until the reformation.

See the point?

For every doctrine being taught there seems to be an opposite doctrine being taught.
Let's start on the other foot so to speak. If what he says is true, then he should be able to establish that one can lose their salvation after being saved. This is a doctrine in and of itself. Where is it taught? By which early church father? By which early group of people? Where is the evidence? Don't make assertions without evidence. Why are you putting the onus on us to provide evidence when you can't provide the evidence that they believed that they lost their salvation. The shoe fits the other foot. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Look at CARM's statement of faith. That is about as orthodox as one can get.
It is here:

http://www.carm.org/statement-faith

I question aspects of Carm orthodoxy. For instance reading it like that there are many things I agree with however, I started one thread about Justification. Dikaioo the translation of this greek word would put a total different spin on how justification works. Also it seems the Divine election nullifies the definition of salvation as being by faith alone through christ works alone or justification which is by faith alone. BTW lots of alones. It would seem divine election the elect would be saved by christ works alone period. No faith or anything else. Since we're elected God has the faith for us and gives us the faith. So divine election seems contradictory to the salvation statement and the justification statement.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

For every doctrine being taught there seems to be an opposite doctrine being taught.
Let's start on the other foot so to speak. If what he says is true, then he should be able to establish that one can lose their salvation after being saved. This is a doctrine in and of itself. Where is it taught? By which early church father? By which early group of people? Where is the evidence? Don't make assertions without evidence. Why are you putting the onus on us to provide evidence when you can't provide the evidence that they believed that they lost their salvation. The shoe fits the other foot. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Do you want me to provide evidence that the early church leaders believed in apostacy? Give me a little time to pull out my tomes and I think I can as a matter of fact there is one book I think I can point too but just to make sure I'll have to pull it down from the shelf.

 

[DHK]

I question aspects of Carm orthodoxy. For instance reading it like that there are many things I agree with however, I started one thread about Justification. Dikaioo the translation of this greek word would put a total different spin on how justification works. Also it seems the Divine election nullifies the definition of salvation as being by faith alone through christ works alone or justification which is by faith alone. BTW lots of alones. It would seem divine election the elect would be saved by christ works alone period. No faith or anything else. Since we're elected God has the faith for us and gives us the faith. So divine election seems contradictory to the salvation statement and the justification statement.

The sovereignty of God and the free will of man do not contradict each other; but rather complement each other. As one theologian put it; they are like the twin pillars of a great temple rising far above the clouds and meeting together where the human eye cannot see.

 

[DHK]

Do you want me to provide evidence that the early church leaders believed in apostacy? Give me a little time to pull out my tomes and I think I can as a matter of fact there is one book I think I can point too but just to make sure I'll have to pull it down from the shelf.

No, that is easy to do. Origen is a good example, and obviously there are other as well. In my first post I said quote from those that believe in "orthodox" doctrine apart from cults and RCC doctrine. If you can't do that then you fail to prove your point, and put before us an impossible task as well. Why do you want us to prove something that is impossible for you to prove. Don't you see the ridiculousness of this situation?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, that is easy to do. Origen is a good example, and obviously there are other as well. In my first post I said quote from those that believe in "orthodox" doctrine apart from cults and RCC doctrine. If you can't do that then you fail to prove your point, and put before us an impossible task as well. Why do you want us to prove something that is impossible for you to prove. Don't you see the ridiculousness of this situation?

With the limitations you've applied; you've got a point. Which is why I asked about cults but I misunderstood your statement. You said cults and the RCC church. I thought you included the RCC as a cult for that time period. Still the point remains there is no evidence of Churches holding this doctrine until the reformation. Yet excluding the writings you have stated from the discusion there is nothing the other way so we are at an impasse.

Just a note though. Isn't that what revisionist do with history?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The sovereignty of God and the free will of man do not contradict each other; but rather complement each other. As one theologian put it; they are like the twin pillars of a great temple rising far above the clouds and meeting together where the human eye cannot see.

Ah but thats the point of election since Adam fell man has been born in sin therefore his will is tainted and not entirely free which is why God elects. So there is some contradiction. Because in sin man cannot choose God. His soul is tainted and must like Adam hide his nakedness. There is nothing free about man. So God has to do the works to justify him. So Christ works alone justifies man with the doctine of the elect.

 

[DHK]

Ah but thats the point of election since Adam fell man has been born in sin therefore his will is tainted and not entirely free which is why God elects. So there is some contradiction. Because in sin man cannot choose God. His soul is tainted and must like Adam hide his nakedness. There is nothing free about man. So God has to do the works to justify him. So Christ works alone justifies man with the doctine of the elect.

I'm going to ignore this post because you are starting to derail the thread.
Let's get back to the OP. I pointed you to a statement of faith which was fairly extensive. You didn't have to agree with every point in it. That wasn't the point. It was an example. We don't need to discuss CARM and his position on Calvinism or election.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I'm going to ignore this post because you are starting to derail the thread.
Let's get back to the OP. I pointed you to a statement of faith which was fairly extensive. You didn't have to agree with every point in it. That wasn't the point. It was an example. We don't need to discuss CARM and his position on Calvinism or election.

Ok.... But then the limitiations you give to the discussion make it impossible to discuss.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Hey,

Let you know, I am on the vacation in Florida, visiting parents. I will right back home next week on Friday.

I want to say something on OSAS with scriptures.

Whilst myself was a securist. I used to believed two things that a person could lose salvation - received the mark 666, and if anyone removed words from God's Word, God would removed or blot person out of the book of Life (Rev. 22:18-19).

In year 2002, I learned and realized that there are lot of scriptures in Bible showing me there are conditional salvation. It is so much overwhelmed on me. That why I am no longer myself as osas. I rather follow the Bible than what men saying according Col. 2:8.

Matt. 25:14-30 showing us that salvation is very clear conditional. This passage is talking about three servants with their talents. Remember, ALL three servents did received talents from THEIR same Lord(master). Master expects all three servants to use talents(do their duty or task). When they face their master. The first of two servants did do their talents, and master saying to them, "Well faithful servant". This is the picture of judgment seat of Christ. But the last third servant with one talent. He hide his talent from his master, and being shame, and not use it. Then, the master saying to him, "You evil slothful(lazy) servant!" Then, lazy servant is cast away into everlasting fire.

This passage doesn't say that a servant will suffer loss "reward", and still saved. This passage tells us very clear that, lazy servant will loss salvation, BUT will cast away into everlasting fire-lake of fire! - Matt. 25:30.

Matt. 25:14-30 is very strong speaking against OSAS doctrine, because many Christians who did not serve the Lord, will find out and shocked at the judgment seat of Christ/great white throne, that they will be end up cast away into lake of fire. They thought they are already saved, because of what many securists told them. But, they are deceived.

That servant HAVE talent with him, show that he was belong to Lord's at the first place, but, not use it. Prove this is conditional salvation, if we OBEY and serve the Lord and endure it till the end, then we shall be saved -Matt. 10:22; and Matt. 24:13.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[DHK]

Ok.... But then the limitiations you give to the discussion make it impossible to discuss.

There are historical sources. What do they say? What did they believe? Were they evangelical? Those are the basic questions.

 

[ajg1959]

Can I assume you own a Bible. I believe most of it, though written before 100 AD, was compiled after 100 AD.

you beleive most of the bible? How do you decide which parts to believe and which parts not to believe?

If any part of it is a lie then it all is a lie.

AJ

 

[Amy.G]

you beleive most of the bible? How do you decide which parts to believe and which parts not to believe?

If any part of it is a lie then it all is a lie.

AJ

I think you misunderstood him.

He means that most of the bible was written before 100 AD, but it wasn't compiled until after that.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There are historical sources. What do they say? What did they believe? Were they evangelical? Those are the basic questions.

Those are the historical sources I want to use but you won't accept that. There were no modern day evangelicals from 100 AD to 1550 AD. Now Christianity Entire was evangelical in the sence that the christians were busy evangelizing. And It was done through what was know at that time as the Catholic Church because up until around 1050 AD all christians went by the name Catholic with the exceptions of Heretical movements. These early churches all point to early christian documents such as Clement, Papias, etc... get my meaning? You can't say don't use those documents and then say there were documents. Show me what documents you mean out side of the Catholic Church during those dates.

 

[DHK]

Those are the historical sources I want to use but you won't accept that. There were no modern day evangelicals from 100 AD to 1550 AD.

Christ's promised failed?

There was no Christianity for almost 1500 years??

Add another 100 years and you sound like a KJVO. :laugh:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Christ's promised failed?

There was no Christianity for almost 1500 years??

Add another 100 years and you sound like a KJVO. :laugh:

Fie on you KJO nooooooo! :laugh:


Christianity Yes. Modern evangelicals no. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[DHK]

Fie on you KJO nooooooo! :laugh:


Christianity Yes. Modern evangelicals no. :smilewinkgrin:

Who said anything about modern?
Evangelical:
"Evangel" "the gospel"
"Evangelist" One who proclaims the gospel"
"evangelical" those engaged in the promotion of the gospel.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Who said anything about modern?
Evangelical:
"Evangel" "the gospel"
"Evangelist" One who proclaims the gospel"
"evangelical" those engaged in the promotion of the gospel.

I mentioned modern evangelical and I made the distinction between them and being an evangelist. From the post you quoted from me. My contention is that the very writers you want to exclude from the discussion are the early evangalest and christians of their day. Not some non documented churches.

 

[DHK]

I mentioned modern evangelical and I made the distinction between them and being an evangelist. From the post you quoted from me. My contention is that the very writers you want to exclude from the discussion are the early evangalest and christians of their day. Not some non documented churches.

If they are "evangelical" then:
1. They will be saved individuals, not simply RCC type "Christians."
2. They will be known by their faith in Christ (evangelism) in spreading the gospel. A good example of this is found in the "Trail of Blood," though it may have some inaccuracies in it.