TULIP POLL

[JonC]

Certainly Calvinists can redefine words to create a distinction but eternal security (OSAS) and the fifth point (P) agree in that aspect.

Calvinists only believe the "P" because it removes free-will.

 

[Iconoclast]

P is not once saved always saved.

The Inadequate Historical Precedent for
“Once Saved, Always Saved”
Steve Witzki

John Jefferson Davis wrote an article titled: “The Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine” [Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 34:2 (June 1991)]. Three things make this article of great value. First, it was written by a well-known and highly respected Calvinist theologian. Second, it covers the key people and church groups on the topic. Third, it demonstrates that “once saved, always saved” or unconditional eternal security was not a doctrine that was taught by the ancient church, nor for that manner, by any well-known theologian before John Calvin.

This doctrine is, in fact, completely foreign in the history of Christianity.

While the first extensive discussion of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is found in Augustine’s Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance, written around A. D. 429, Augustine believed it was possible to experience the justifying grace of God and yet not persevere to the end. Augustine did believe God’s elect would certainly persevere to the end, but he denied that a person could know they were in the elect and he also warned it was possible to be justified but not among the elect. Not until Calvin was unconditional election, permanent regeneration, and certitude of final perseverance all connected.

James Akin, a Catholic theologian, said in a debate with Calvinist theologian James White that no one before Calvin taught that predestination to grace automatically entails predestination to glory.

You can check that out for yourself. I did. I searched multiple books and called half a dozen Calvinist seminaries, talking to their systematic theology and church history professors, and no one could name a person before Calvin who taught this thesis. They all said Calvin was the first. I even called John Jefferson Davis, a scholar who published an article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society on the history of this doctrine, a man who is himself a Calvinist, but who has researched the history of this doctrine thoroughly, and he said Calvin was the first to teach it.

This poses a problem even for those who claim that they take their teachings exclusively from Scripture, namely, "How could a doctrine this important--if true--remain completely undiscovered for the first 1500 years of Church history and, if Jesus comes back any time soon, for three quearters of all of Church history?"

Other important doctrines have been known all through Christian history. Christians always knew, even when heretics denied it,that Jesus Christ was God. Christians always knew, even when heretics denied it, that Jesus Christ is fully man as well as fully God. And Christians always knew, even when heretics denied it, that they were saved purely by God's grace.

So when it turns out that Christians never knew that true Christians can never fall away, and then suddenly 1500 years later someone starts claiming it, one has to ask who is conveying the true teaching of the apostles and who is teaching the heresy “Are All True Christians Predestined to Persevere?”


Akin’s remarks are accurate and problematic for Calvinist scholars. Furthermore, the Calvinist does not fare any better when one looks even more deeply into what the early Christians believed about this issue. In 1998, Hendrickson Publishers printed A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers. Under the topic heading of “Salvation,” we find the question, “Can those who are saved ever be lost?” After several Scriptural passages are quoted [2 Chron 15:2; Ezek 33:12; Matt 10:22; Luke 9:62; 2 Tim 2:12; Heb 10:26; 2 Pet 2:20-21], five pages of quotes are given from the writings of early Christian leaders. These quotes give evidence that the early church did not believe in “once saved, always saved.” They taught that it was possible for a genuine believer to reject God and wind up eternally separated from God in hell [pp. 586-591].

David Bercot, editor of this dictionary, also wrote a provocative book called, Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up? It takes today’s Evangelical Church, both its lifestyle and teaching, and looks at it in the light of early Christian teaching. It is an interesting book that comes from someone who has read through the entire works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers more than once. He writes,

Since the early Christians believed that our continued faith and obedience are necessary for salvation, it naturally follows that they believed that a “saved” person could still end up being lost. For example, Irenaeus, the pupil of Polycarp, wrote, “Christ will not die again on behalf of those who now commit sin because death shall no more have dominion over Him…. Therefore we should not be puffed up…. But we should beware lest somehow, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins but rather be shut out from His kingdom” (Heb. 6:4-6) [p. 65].
What the Christian Church historically believed about the security of the believer is not the ultimate test for determining our stance on this issue today, but the lack of historical precedent should serve as a warning. Before John Calvin, the teaching of unconditional eternal security was not a doctrine that was taught by the universal church through the centuries. Therefore, while the Scriptures are the ultimate test for truth on this issue, “once saved, always saved” teachers need to acknowledge that their doctrine is historically an anomaly. Furthermore, the brand of “once saved, always saved” teaching that tells people that they can stop believing and still be on their way to heaven (but with less rewards) is nowhere to be found in historic Christianity prior to the twentieth century.

 

[Van]

What is absurd is your failure to understand the term perseverance.
Once you get ahold of that, than look at the quotes of the osas people you would discover the difference,but I know you will not....Bogus claim is rejected.

All they have folks is denial and disparagement. Calvinism claims once a person is saved, they are saved forever. Iconoclast denies this truth.

They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

 

[Van]

Calvinists only believe the "P" because it removes free-will.

They deny that once saved always saved is their doctrine, but it is true. Yes, some Calvinists add baggage so as to muddy the waters and claim special knowledge, but the core assertion is eternal security, once a person is placed in Christ by God alone, God keeps the person by the power of Almighty Gold.

 

[AustinC]

They deny that once saved always saved is their doctrine, but it is true. Yes, some Calvinists add baggage so as to muddy the waters and claim special knowledge, but the core assertion is eternal security, once a person is placed in Christ by God alone, God keeps the person by the power of Almighty Gold.

Eternal security is not exactly like once saved always saved.
In my experience with OSAS, they are almost always semi-pelagian synergists. They teach salvation by saying the sinners prayer. Once you say the prayer, no matter how wickedly you act in your life, the sinners prayer saved you.
Reformed don't teach a "repeat after me" prayer that saves you. Reformed teach that God chooses to make a person alive because the person is adopted and found in Christ by grace. God gives his adopted child faith to believe. God gives his child good works to do. God trains and disciplines his child in love. God gives his child strength to endure. God keeps his child as his own through water or fire.

What is the difference? For the Reformed it is the pre-eminence of God. For the OSAS synergist it is the act of their prayer which binds God to save them no matter what. It is a cheap grace.

 

[Van]

Eternal security is not exactly like once saved always saved.
In my experience with OSAS, they are almost always semi-pelagian synergists. They teach salvation by saying the sinners prayer. Once you say the prayer, no matter how wickedly you act in your life, the sinners prayer saved you.
Reformed don't teach a "repeat after me" prayer that saves you. Reformed teach that God chooses to make a person alive because the person is adopted and found in Christ by grace. God gives his adopted child faith to believe. God gives his child good works to do. God trains and disciplines his child in love. God gives his child strength to endure. God keeps his child as his own through water or fire.

What is the difference? For the Reformed it is the pre-eminence of God. For the OSAS synergist it is the act of their prayer which binds God to save them no matter what. It is a cheap grace.

OSAS is consistent with the "P" of the TULIP. It starts out as "once saved." We do not agree with Arminians as to the mechanism of salvation, but once a person is actually saved, they will remain saved forever. No need for all this distinction without a difference claims.

 

[JonC]

They deny that once saved always saved is their doctrine, but it is true. Yes, some Calvinists add baggage so as to muddy the waters and claim special knowledge, but the core assertion is eternal security, once a person is placed in Christ by God alone, God keeps the person by the power of Almighty Gold.

I can see how the "P" divorced from the other points would be OSAS.

The reason I see it as different is OSAS is directly taken from the Bible where P is developed from Calvinistic philosophy. But as a doctrine they are identical.

 

[Miss E]

I have seen more truth on wiki, than the bogus site you posted that suggests salvation was only potential.

You call my sources bogus just because you don't agree with them, yet Wiki is known to be a source where anyone, especially nonbelievers (who take joy in spreading lies) can edit pages. But then again, since Calvinism is an unbiblical, pride-puffing club for only the special men and woman who God has shown partiality/favoritism to, then I guess you can read what you like, because either way, it's all lies.

Scripture to Remember (Romans 2: 1-11)

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on another. For on whatever grounds you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2And we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, O man, pass judgment on others, yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4Or do you disregard the riches of His kindness, tolerance, and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?

5But because of your hard and unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God “will repay each one according to his deeds.”a 7To those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, He will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow wickedness, there will be wrath and anger.

9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil, first for the Jew, then for the Greek; 10but glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, first for the Jew, then for the Greek. 11For God does not show favoritism.

 

[Iconoclast]

carnal philosopher's ,and natural men exchange the truth of God for a lie.
some prefer lies.
Others can not see any difference in the two positions, but what can you do?
We live in a day where truth is marginalized.
A person can claim anything:
water is wet and dry at the same time.
the sun is bright and dark, hot and cold.
I believe in all 5 points,but like no one else in history, I am unique and if I declare it, it must be so.
Truth is presented but not considered.
It is easy to just call names as if that replaces dealing with truth presented.

 

[Yeshua1]

They would be 3 or 4 point Arminians!

 

[Yeshua1]

Calvinists only believe the "P" because it removes free-will.

How can one remove what does not even exist?

 

[timtofly]

This is an absurd statement by timtofly.

I agree, reformed theology is absurd. The truth about reformed theology is that it is absurd. When any one replaces a free will choice as the total act of God it is absurd.

God set it up so that by one man, slavery to sin happened. Atonement was God’s plan, that only God Himself could reverse the result of slavery and afford a new life in Christ. Two separate conditions. Just one free will choice to choose one or the other. God through the Holy Spirit prepares us, yet the choice is ours alone to make.

Otherwise, in Reformed theology God does the choice, and that one act of God is the full Atonement. That God decides sounds great, unless the fact of the matter is actually absurd. Yes, it takes 5 statements to cover up the absurdity, and pretend it is a beautiful flower.

 

[timtofly]

While the first extensive discussion of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is found in Augustine’s Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance, written around A. D. 429, Augustine believed it was possible to experience the justifying grace of God and yet not persevere to the end. Augustine did believe God’s elect would certainly persevere to the end, but he denied that a person could know they were in the elect and he also warned it was possible to be justified but not among the elect. Not until Calvin was unconditional election, permanent regeneration, and certitude of final perseverance all connected.

You do realize that no one could have persevered for 1990 years? In the acceptance of the fact that the end was always near, and that great tribulation could happen at any minute, how can this equal the mindset of someone 400 years ago. They realized 400 years ago a false doctrine based on over 1000 years of experience. What are we persevering?

Nothing.

Salvation has nothing to do with long life. When are we going to just let some verses go without any interpretations whatsoever? 90% of doctrine is based on vapor. Not that the Word of God is unimportant. Most church doctrine and theology is not important. Avoid sin, yes. Confess sin, yes. Sin does not need books and attempted perseverance doctrines. We all know what sin is. We should crucify the flesh daily. We should be living as "used to be" people. Are we sinless? NO! Do we have to live addicted to sin? By God’s Grace, NO. It is the guilt of sin that Satan destroys us with. Sin has no power, or it should not, because the Holy Spirit gives us the power to overcome. We do not take control of our thoughts, and that is sin. If we did, we would not act on our thoughts. Salvation is not the perseverance against addiction. Even Paul lived with a thorn, in the flesh, God would not remove. An addiction is a thorn. There are many addicts who live without "falling off the wagon". They do not have to even worry about the guilt of their past sin. But even non-believers are addicts. Perseverance is not about keeping one's self in Christ. It is about staying faithful in tribulation. Adding it to Reformed theology does not make reformed theology better one bit. It is just "p" on the doctrine.

It is neither osas nor God keeping them saved, anymore than God keeps lost addicts from destroying themselves or civilization. The Holy Spirit prevents more in this world, than most people even want to consider. When people realize that God let's human decide, they claim it makes God weak. God is constantly preventing Satan from acting in billions of people's lives. God is not weak, and we are not programmed. Nothing we can do can take away God’s power or control. Saying God is weak on this point, is just calling God a liar.

 

[Iconoclast]

tfly
when you want to address scripture get back to us.

 

[timtofly]

Eternal security is not exactly like once saved always saved.
In my experience with OSAS, they are almost always semi-pelagian synergists. They teach salvation by saying the sinners prayer. Once you say the prayer, no matter how wickedly you act in your life, the sinners prayer saved you.
Reformed don't teach a "repeat after me" prayer that saves you. Reformed teach that God chooses to make a person alive because the person is adopted and found in Christ by grace. God gives his adopted child faith to believe. God gives his child good works to do. God trains and disciplines his child in love. God gives his child strength to endure. God keeps his child as his own through water or fire.

What is the difference? For the Reformed it is the pre-eminence of God. For the OSAS synergist it is the act of their prayer which binds God to save them no matter what. It is a cheap grace.

One problem with God giving us all that power. If we never act, how will any one know we are different? Does God make us move without us making a single decision? Does our decision making process get turned off, and we can only do God’s will? If that is the case, God is not doing much, because a lot of Christians, I know go through motions that deal with God 2% of their life. Is God making them live 98% for the flesh and the world?

 

[JonC]

How can one remove what does not even exist?

No. But people can remove what does.

 

[timtofly]

tfly
when you want to address scripture get back to us.

When you want to interpret Scripture your way, let me know.

I am not going to use Scripture to create false doctrines. If you are offended, it is not by my choice.

I am not attacking Scriptures and verses. I am pointing out issues with human thinking. If I gave verses, you would change your views on them? You would interpret them differently?

 

[JonC]

When you want to interpret Scripture your way, let me know.

I am not going to use Scripture to create false doctrines. If you are offended, it is not by my choice.

I am not attacking Scriptures and verses. I am pointing out issues with human thinking. If I gave verses, you would change your views on them? You would interpret them differently?

That is typically the issue. People do hold philosophical ideas and worldviews that influence their doctrine. This is natural. But people also need to be able to identify, discuss, and defend those ideas when applied to Scripture.

Many cannot as they see their ideologies and worldviews as Scripture itself even when it is absent the Biblical text.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

That is typically the issue. People do hold philosophical ideas and worldviews that influence their doctrine. This is natural. But people also need to be able to identify, discuss, and defend those ideas when applied to Scripture.

Many cannot as they see their ideologies and worldviews as Scripture itself even when it is absent the Biblical text.

That has to be true, if anything can be. Some things we hold as foundational may depend on ideas introduced to us so young that we cannot easily distinguish them. Even the very structure of our language can affect how we think, or circumvent the process.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

True, but to be a true Calvinist, must hold to all 5 points!

To be a true Calvinist you must believe in infant baptism.