Once Saved Always Saved?

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

Trail of blood is a fantasy. Its speculation. There is no verification of that historical perspective. That's my point. Since Trail of Blood is not true then it stands to reason that there were real christians who were evangelist but called themselves Catholic like Mawyn Saket (spelling)- St. Patrick. or if you insist that non of these were "real" christian then the church was hidden or Apocryphal.

Quid est Veritas?

 

[DHK]

Trail of blood is a fantasy. Its speculation. There is no verification of that historical perspective. That's my point. Since Trail of Blood is not true then it stands to reason that there were real christians who were evangelist but called themselves Catholic like Mawyn Saket (spelling)- St. Patrick. or if you insist that non of these were "real" christian then the church was hidden or Apocryphal.

Quid est Veritas?

BTW, St. Patrick was not a fictional character, nor was he Catholic.

Be that as it may, you are far too prejudiced. For more information on a balanced discussion on the Trail of Blood, read here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=57414

 

[Thinkingstuff]

BTW, St. Patrick was not a fictional character, nor was he Catholic.

Be that as it may, you are far too prejudiced. For more information on a balanced discussion on the Trail of Blood, read here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=57414

I will start another thread dealing with the trail of Blood. I'm reading it now and automatically came across a few problems from a historical perspective.

 

[DHK]

I will start another thread dealing with the trail of Blood. I'm reading it now and automatically came across a few problems from a historical perspective.

First, I said, "a good 'example' of this is found in the Trail of Blood. I was using the booklet as an example.
Said, I admitted right away that it did have some inaccuracies in it.
Third, the theme or premise of the author is hard to dispute: that there are in every generation since the time of Christ assemblies of believers outside the RCC who believe similar to the way we believe. In other words God has preserved Bible-believing Christians in every generation since Christ.

If that isn't true; if there was a time where there were no Christians, then Christianity would have died out and you or I would be a Hindu which existed before Christianity, or perhaps some other religion.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First, I said, "a good 'example' of this is found in the Trail of Blood. I was using the booklet as an example.
Said, I admitted right away that it did have some inaccuracies in it.
Third, the theme or premise of the author is hard to dispute: that there are in every generation since the time of Christ assemblies of believers outside the RCC who believe similar to the way we believe. In other words God has preserved Bible-believing Christians in every generation since Christ.

If that isn't true; if there was a time where there were no Christians, then Christianity would have died out and you or I would be a Hindu which existed before Christianity, or perhaps some other religion.

First of all I'm suggesting Catholic as used in the early terms. The entire Christian Church was Catholic until about 1050 when the Orthodox began their more immediate seperation. Roman Catholic distiguishes the churches under the Roman bishop as apposed to Catholic universal. Roman Catholic is a relitavely modern terminology given more affluence during the reformation. St. Patrick was Catholic in the ancient sense. He practice liturgy. We see that Ireland though created its own brand of Christianity quickly submitted to the bishop of Rome and joined the rest of Europe. Strange if they didn't feel that Rome's brand of Christianity was not christians. Especially when you consider the move under St Cuthbert.

 

[DHK]

First of all I'm suggesting Catholic as used in the early terms. The entire Christian Church was Catholic until about 1050 when the Orthodox began their more immediate seperation. Roman Catholic distiguishes the churches under the Roman bishop as apposed to Catholic universal. Roman Catholic is a relitavely modern terminology given more affluence during the reformation. St. Patrick was Catholic in the ancient sense. He practice liturgy. We see that Ireland though created its own brand of Christianity quickly submitted to the bishop of Rome and joined the rest of Europe. Strange if they didn't feel that Rome's brand of Christianity was not christians. Especially when you consider the move under St Cuthbert.

The Bible speaks more of "churches" rather than a "church" universal. Paul went on three missionary journeys and established over 100 churches. Every letter in the NT is written either to a local church or a pastor of a local church. In the Book of Revelation Christ writes 7 letters to 7 pastors of 7 different local churches. The emphasis throughout the NT is on the local church.
Denomination is never mentioned in the NT; the concept never even inferred.

The RCC was conceived when Constantine made Christianity a state-religion, and began to introduce many pagan idols into Christianity. He, in effect, paganized Christianity. It was at this point that the state-church of the RCC (in the early 4th century) began. But the Lord has always preserved His Word and His people through Bible believing local churches outside of apostate institutions such as the RCC.

 

[OldRegular]

First of all I'm suggesting Catholic as used in the early terms. The entire Christian Church was Catholic until about 1050 when the Orthodox began their more immediate seperation. Roman Catholic distiguishes the churches under the Roman bishop as apposed to Catholic universal. Roman Catholic is a relitavely modern terminology given more affluence during the reformation. St. Patrick was Catholic in the ancient sense. He practice liturgy. We see that Ireland though created its own brand of Christianity quickly submitted to the bishop of Rome and joined the rest of Europe. Strange if they didn't feel that Rome's brand of Christianity was not christians. Especially when you consider the move under St Cuthbert.

Your assertion ignores not only Scripture but Church History!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Bible speaks more of "churches" rather than a "church" universal. Paul went on three missionary journeys and established over 100 churches. Every letter in the NT is written either to a local church or a pastor of a local church. In the Book of Revelation Christ writes 7 letters to 7 pastors of 7 different local churches. The emphasis throughout the NT is on the local church.
Denomination is never mentioned in the NT; the concept never even inferred.

The RCC was conceived when Constantine made Christianity a state-religion, and began to introduce many pagan idols into Christianity. He, in effect, paganized Christianity. It was at this point that the state-church of the RCC (in the early 4th century) began. But the Lord has always preserved His Word and His people through Bible believing local churches outside of apostate institutions such as the RCC.

Not true. Christians were already calling themselves Catholics by AD 90 AD we can see this in Clement's writings. And not only there but other christian writers. Constantine's eddict of Milan was one of Christian toleration. He didn't take over the church and make it Roman Catholic. IF that would be the case he would not have submitted to the bishops of the Nicean Council but forced Arius to have won by imperial decree.

Here are some verses from the book of Acts:

1One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon.

Now this was after Pentecost. They were going to 3:00 prayers? Seems to be their still following Jewish liturgical worship

[QUOTE32]1Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest 2and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem..[/QUOTE] Seems like they are refering to themselves as the Way which is a unifying name even though Paul is chasing them down from Jerusalem to Demascus. Interesting that these independent churches are all calling themselves the way huh. They were unified.

19Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews. 20Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. 21The Lord's hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.
22News of this reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. 23When he arrived and saw the evidence of the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts. 24He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord.

The church of Jerusalem communicating with the Church at antioch huh not so independent. Working together encouraging each other.

The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Huh another unifing title that all believers in Christ go by

1It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. 2He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. 3When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. 4After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.
5So Peter was kept in prison, but the church was earnestly praying to God for him.

Strange if it were churches and not Church you thing the region of the church would be mentioned her but it just says the Church. Hmmm....

22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter:

here a church council is telling other churches what to do. I thought they were all independent? Hmmmm. Obviously the believers thought themselves united in faith and followed a unifing name like the Way or Christians or Catholic.

 

[JSM17]

Matthew 5:13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
-note that Christ is speaking to His disciples here.

Matthew 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

-Conduct plays a part in our eternal destination.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven

-notice it's not enough merely to know that he is Lord, but we must "do" the will of God.

Matthew 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved -

-note that sin/iniquity will cause many to lose their love (just like the church at Ephesus in Rev.chpt2) Also note that it's not how you start the race, but how you finish!

Matthew 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

-this is an interesting parable of the Lord reckoning with "his servants".

Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it

-Both of these individuals heard the word, but only the one who obeys the commands of God can know that he is resting on the rock!

Luke 8:13 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

-note that this person "heard the word", "received the word (with joy)", "believed for a while", but ultimately "fell away". So we see that it is possible to begin the race, but not finish.

Luke 9:25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?

-it is interesting that Christ used the term "cast away"- this term is used by the apostle Paul in I Cor. as well, and refers to the special punishment of an apostate believer.

Luke 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

-self-explanatory verse indeed. Let us not be as Lot's wife, who should have escaped destruction but looked back.

Luke 12:41 Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all? 12:42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? 12:43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. 12:44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

-A few things I would like to draw your attention to. First, this is a "servant" looking for "his LORD". Next notice the statement he makes "my Lord delayeth his coming". This would not be applicable to an unbeliever, as we know they are not looking for the return of Christ. Note that he also begins to live an immoral lifestyle as a result of his judgement that his Lord "delayeth his coming". If he were an unbeliever, he would already be committing these types of sins, not just then entering into them. Maybe most importantly, note that this "evil servant" is given his portion with "the unbelievers" (note it doesn't say with the other unbelievers). The fact that Christ makes this dichotomy, speaks volumes to the fact that this individual was indeed a believer. Also supporting this view, is the fact that Christ further states that a person who "knows the LORD's will" and doesn't do it, is in worse shape than the one who "knew not" the LORD's will!

Also from the gospel of John:

John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. 15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. 15:9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

This parable emphatically renounces the doctrine of o.s.a.s. Note in verse 2 that the branches "IN HIM" that do not bear fruit will be taken away. Notice in verse 6, if a man does not "ABIDE" (or remain/continue) in Christ he is cast forth "withered" (indicating it used to be alive) and cast into the fire.

Look at the parable of the prodigal son.

Luke 15:11 And he said, A certain man had two sons: 15:12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. 15:13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. 15:14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. 15:16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. 15:17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! 15:18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, 15:19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. 15:21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. 15:22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: 15:23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. 15:25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing. 15:26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. 15:27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. 15:28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: 15:30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Just a few quick notes about this parable. Note both of these were SONS (verse 11). Note also that in verse 24 that the son was dead and is alive "AGAIN" (implying he was alive to begin with!) Verse 32 also echoes this thought. Remember Ephesians 2 refers to the time when we were "dead in trespasses and sins" and Jude speaks of those "twice dead".

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your assertion ignores not only Scripture but Church History!

Well first of all I'm citing history. You're just making statements. I like studying history not fiction. St Patrick evangelized Ireland. Ireland celebrated its own form of Christianity with was gaelic in nature (Ie celtic crosses) They established monestaries and are signularily responsible for saving most of western literature as scriptures themselves as they painstakingly copied many text (often with elaberate pictures) Irish Christianity spread to Iona and Scotland. Eventually as England was being evangelized the Christian missionaries and established cleargy in England met with those moving down from Iona and made a pact were the scottish church with celtic influence submitted to Roman Christian's liturgy. That is history. It is only during the reformation that John Knox brought Calvinism to Scotland and emerged the Presbyterians. This is the history of which I was refering to. Now do you have actual historical sources or do you just want to shout statemtents with no validity?

 

[Zenas]

Why not start things off on the right foot.
You post authentic and reliable information that during those years Bible believers outside cults and the RCC et.al believed one could lose their salvation.
That would be a better starting point.

Like I said earlier, there was never a debate over this subject because everyone just understood conditional security to be a fact. No one questioned it. Frankly, I think all you advocates of OSAS know this is true because no one has come forward with a single example of anyone teaching eternal security between 100 and 1550. It is also difficult to debate someone who insists on using his own rules, and when it seems convenient will insist on changing the rules. Nevertheless, here are four examples of apologists who clearly believe in conditional security, all of them before 300 A.D.

Forgiveness of past sins, then, God gives; but of future, each one gives to himself. And this is to repent, to condemn the past deeds, and beg oblivion of them from the Father, who only of all is able to undo what is done, by mercy proceeding from Him, and to blot out former sins by the dew of the Spirit. "For by the state in which I find you will I judge," also, is what in each case the end of all cries aloud. So that even in the case of one who has done the greatest good deeds in his life, but at the end has run headlong into wickedness, all his former pains are profitless to him, since at the end of the drama he has given up his part. Clement of Alexandria, circa 195.

We ought not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, to be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of old time, but ought ourselves to fear, lest perchance, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom. And therefore it was that Paul said, "For if [God] spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest He also spare not thee, Iranaeus of Lyon, circa 175.

And Trypho again inquired, "But if some one, knowing that this is so, after he recognises that this man is Christ, and has believed in and obeys Him, wishes, however, to observe these [Jewish laws], will he be saved?"
I said, "In my opinion, Trypho, such an one will be saved, if he does not strive in every way to persuade other men, ... And I hold, further, that such as have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back from some cause to the legal dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have repented not before death, shall by no means be saved. Justin Martyr, circa 160.

You are still in the world. You are still in the battlefield. You daily fight for your lives so you must be careful. It is a small thing to have first received something. It is a greater thing to be able to keep what you have attained. Faith, itself, and the saving birth do not make alive by merely being received. Rather, they must be preserved. Solomon and king Saul, and many others were able to keep the grace given to them so long as they walk in the Lord's ways. However, when the discipline of the Lord was forsaken by them, grace also forsook them. . . . .
I ask ... that you grieve with me at the [spiritual] death of my sister. For in this time of devastation, she has fallen from Christ. Cyprian of Carthage, circa 250.

All right, you advocates of eternal security, it's your turn. Incidentally, I have a lot more ancient Christian aplogists who also believe in conditional security but this post is already too long.

 

[JSM17]

The earliest Christians taught that perseverance was not guarenteed, and that many true Christians would not finish the race, and would be lost. Intense persecution in the early Church brought this issue to the fore. Some were faithful even to martyrdom, and others forsook the Faith when faced with death or torture. The following quote from Irenaeus (early 2nd cent.) illustrates the early Christian view immediately following the time of the Apostles.

"And to as many as continue in their love towards God, does He grant communion with Him. But communion with God is life and light, and the enjoyment of all the benefits which He has in store. But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God. He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store. Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eternal and never-ending. It is in this matter just as occurs in the case of a flood of light: those who have blinded themselves, or have been blinded by others, are for ever deprived of the enjoyment of light. It is not, [however], that the light has inflicted upon them the penalty of blindness, but it is that the blindness itself has brought calamity upon them: and therefore the Lord declared, “He that believeth in Me is not condemned,” that is, is not separated from God, for he is united to God through faith. On the other hand, He says, “He that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God;” that is, he separated himself from God of his own accord. “For this is the condemnation, that light is come into this world, and men have loved darkness rather than light. For every one who doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that he has wrought them in God.”" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, XXVII, 2)

 

[DeafPosttrib]

My opinion, many people love eternal security or OSAS, because it gives them itching ears, make them feel comfortbale and worry nothing. Same with pretribulation rapture. When a pastor would say to his congregation, "Don't worry, we will not go through Tribulation, we will be rapture first." People love to hear it and shout, "Amen!" These are itching ears.

I believe that, many people do not like to hear sound and truths with warnings from Bible.

That why many churches are mega-churches in America because of positive preachings. Sorry to say it. I am off the track.

But, this is the fact, why OSAS is so popular among churches in America today.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[ray Marshall]

If you can fall from Grace, then is it really Grace? You are regressing back to a works salvation that is based on how you live, and not on grace. If you want to be judged by the Law, you go ahead, but I choose Grace.

Perhaps it wasnt addressed or questioned because it is unbiblical.

AJ

If one can fall from grace and be lost, then through the act of your parents, you were put in perial of damnation, when you had no choice of wheather you wanted to be brough into a workd and be comdemned to Hell if you didn't make a choice to be saved. It would cause you to be your own GOD to save yourself even though you have the spirit of natural man. I am glad that GOD made the choice to save me and not left such a burdon that you cannot make. Who are you talking to when you plea with man to be saved? Is it the natural man or the spiritual man?

 

[JSM17]

Steaver wrote:

Quote:
The bible teaches neither. And I bet if I or someone shows you the application of these scriptures you posted, staying in context, applying hermeneutics and requiring harmony between them, you would not change your mind but would just move on to post some more scriptures which you believe teach your pov.

Do you study scripture applying the rules of context and harmony?

"YES"!!!!!!! I DO IN FACT :The passages certainly speak for themselves and yet even within the context of the small but powerful epistle it is easily seen that Paul's intent in writting to Timothy was very simple and flows fine with the original post:
A. Why is Paul writing?1.
1 Tim 3: 15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. NASU
a. Paul urges Timothy to instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines and not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies. 1:3, 4
b. These things do not further the administration of God which is by the faith.
c. These things lead to fruitless discussions. V.5
d. The point is not to stray from the gospel.
2. Paul urges Timothy to fight the good fight, to keep the faith and a good conscience… 1:18, 19


So even as I put this lesson together I started my lesson by rereading the epistle, then finding the Key verse where Paul explains why he is writting. The context only confirms what I believed, but it is not as if I merited my understand prior to understanding the context.

Why not disprove the ideas from 1 Timothy with the context if they are wrong, go ahead and do what you say I should have done and concider the context and show me how Paul really did not mean what he said concerning those within the church (of the faith).

I do commend you Steaver for being the only one that actually achknowledged the OP and had least responded to the actual text that was used. Six pages of words and no other reponse to 1 Timothy.

So let's do this "STEAVER" let's work through the epistle for everone to see, me and you, let's look at the context and not run to other passages, since you say I won't do it, let's do that very thing and see if your right about me and about the context to which Paul is writting, which I have shown you above.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

I would like to say something.



You are saved (redemption)
You are being saved (sanctification)
You will be saved (glorification)

Paul said in 1 Timothy 6:12 that we must fight the good faith, and HOLD eternal life. Also, he said the same thing on verse 18-19- HOLD eternal life.

This is conditional. If we fail to fight our faith, and we will not hold our eternal life at the end.

Matt. 10:22; and Matt. 24:13 telling us that we ought to endure till the end THEN we shall be saved. This is not speak of physical, rather this is speaking of our spiritual, which relate with salvation.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[OldRegular]

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?

Do you and Zenas have access to all the writings of the Church, all the sermons preached in the first 1600 years of the Church?

 

[Zenas]

Do you and Zenas have access to all the writings of the Church, all the sermons preached in the first 1600 years of the Church?

Probably not, but what we do have access to shows no hint of the doctrine of eternal security. Perhaps you have something that does?

 

[OldRegular]

Probably not, but what we do have access to shows no hint of the doctrine of eternal security. Perhaps you have something that does?

The Scriptures, completely and verbally inspired by God and, therefore, inerrant.

How about that!:laugh:

 

[steaver]

My opinion, many people love eternal security or OSAS, because it gives them itching ears, make them feel comfortbale and worry nothing. Same with pretribulation rapture. When a pastor would say to his congregation, "Don't worry, we will not go through Tribulation, we will be rapture first." People love to hear it and shout, "Amen!" These are itching ears.

I am OSAS, but do worry about some things even though it shows a lack of faith, which could be viewed as sin I suppose.

:jesus: