The origin of Once Saved Always Saved?

PatricaMcKay

When and where did the doctrine that once someone has been in a state of justification that they are saved forever no matter what they do or cease to believe originate?

It is alien to historic Protestantism, it is alien to the early Church and even the radical Reformation, so where did it come from?

PDN

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

When and where did the doctrine that once someone has been in a state of justification that they are saved forever no matter what they do or cease to believe originate?

It is alien to historic Protestantism, it is alien to the early Church and even the radical Reformation, so where did it come from?

Most people who believe in Eternal Security (or Once Saved Always Saved) don't actually believe in wwhat you've described. The usual Calvinist position (and I am not a Calvinist) is that once one is justified then they are saved forever, but that if they are really justified then they will never cease to believe on Christ.

PatricaMcKay

PDN wrote: »

Most people who believe in Eternal Security (or Once Saved Always Saved) don't actually believe in wwhat you've described. The usual Calvinist position (and I am not a Calvinist) is that once one is justified then they are saved forever, but that if they are really justified then they will never cease to believe on Christ.

Yes I know that Calvinists believe in that way. I dont agree with them but I can understand why they believe the way they do.

However there are those who do believe as I described.

PatricaMcKay

There is an elect who God knows will be saved before all creation through His decision.

No one can save him or herself.

So that elect have eternal security. However that eternal security is manifested in confession unto the end.

In this the Calvinists are right.

antiskeptic

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

In this the Calvinists are right.

I don't see how they can show so though.

Whilst they can (scripturally) exclude a person working or willing for their salvation, they cannot exclude all possible things in a person that might cause God to decide to save them. And so cannot show the U in TULIP to be the case.

If indeed conditional in some way on man, then man indeed can have a hand in saving himself. Passages concerning the elect and before world began notwithstanding.

newmug

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

There is an elect who God knows will be saved before all creation through His decision.

Correct, they are definately "in".

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

No one can save him or herself.

Incorrect. Everybody else is on their own. Their choices will determine whether they get "in" or not.

PatricaMcKay

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see how they can show so though.

Whilst they can (scripturally) exclude a person working or willing for their salvation, they cannot exclude all possible things in a person that might cause God to decide to save them. And so cannot show the U in TULIP to be the case.

If indeed conditional in some way on man, then man indeed can have a hand in saving himself. Passages concerning the elect and before world began notwithstanding.

We all deserve damnation and in that sense election is unconditional, its an unmerited act of mercy.

Irresistable Grace is the big problem with both TULIP and OSAS for me.

antiskeptic

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

We all deserve damnation and in that sense election is unconditional, its an unmerited act of mercy.

The way I see it, our having a knowledge of good and evil installed in us is the device which makes our sins morally damnable (we know we do wrong in our doing it) but can also act as a moral pressure to propel us to our knees and produce in that kneeling, our salvation.

Since the two things (deserved damnation and salvation offered) are inextricably linked, it's hard to conceive of the mercy as unmerited.

I'm speaking as one looking in from outside the system btw. From within we would experience the mercy as unmerited.

Irresistable Grace is the big problem with both TULIP and OSAS for me.

Yet as soon as you introduce resist-able grace you've got election dependent on mans response to God. And you seem to hold the view that salvation isn't at all dependent on man.

How is this reconciled?

PatricaMcKay

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet as soon as you introduce resist-able grace you've got election dependent on mans response to God. And you seem to hold the view that salvation isn't at all dependent on man.

How is this reconciled?

I dont think that man can desire salvation without the action of God, but I dont believe either that God wills the salvation of those created in His own image without their consent based on the Bible. Only in a very minor sense can salvation be said to be dependent on man.

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers" (Acts 7:51,52).

antiskeptic

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

I dont think that man can desire salvation without the action of God,

Me neither. And since some will be lost, I don't think man can desire rejection of God without the action of sin. Thus are influences in both directions introduced to which man is subject. The question then must be: the extent of the balance of both forces.

Are they balanced in their exerting a pull on man? If so, then God's role is to present a counter balance to the force of sin. The final choice between the two options lies totally with man. Which would mean man plays a major role in his salvation.

Indeed, if God hadn't provided the opposing force it would be legally impossible to convict man of his sin. Man could plead the extenuating circumstances of the born-addict. So, in his provision of an opposing force unto potential salvation, God simultaneously provides the means for a just damnation. His action is a double-edged sword ..as it were.

santing

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

When and where did the doctrine that once someone has been in a state of justification that they are saved forever no matter what they do or cease to believe originate?

It is alien to historic Protestantism, it is alien to the early Church and even the radical Reformation, so where did it come from?

I wouldn't agree with all these aliens... OSAS comes from the Holy Scriptures.

A "proof" verse that has often been quoted around these boards would be:

The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. (Joh 6:54 NET)

Focus has mainly been on the interpretation of the first part, but it seems the second part of the verse is the real problem!

Slav

Non-OSASers would probably point out that it does not say "the one who once ate my flesh and drank my blood..." and therefore it's logical (and traditional as well) to suggest that eating the flesh and drinking the blood is an ongoing process and cannot be equated with "once saved".

santing

Slav wrote: »

Non-OSASers would probably point out that it does not say "the one who once ate my flesh and drank my blood..." and therefore it's logical (and traditional as well) to suggest that eating the flesh and drinking the blood is an ongoing process and cannot be equated with "once saved".

The once "eat" is carried over from the previous verse, the tense here doesn't allow "keeps on eating." But apart from the that, the promise is associated with this "I will raise him up." Is this promise true or not in this verse?

PatricaMcKay

Slav wrote: »

Non-OSASers would probably point out that it does not say "the one who once ate my flesh and drank my blood..." and therefore it's logical (and traditional as well) to suggest that eating the flesh and drinking the blood is an ongoing process and cannot be equated with "once saved".

The problem also is that Heaven would be worse than hell for someone who hates God, so even if they were saved they wouldnt exactly enjoy their salvation!

Anyway back on topic....Even if you agree with OSAS and argue that its clearly in the scriptures the fact is that millions of Christians for hundreds and hundreds of years didnt see it there...So when did people begin to see in scripture? Thats my question!

santing

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

Anyway back on topic....Even if you agree with OSAS and argue that its clearly in the scriptures the fact is that millions of Christians for hundreds and hundreds of years didnt see it there...So when did people begin to see in scripture? Thats my question!

Why do you think the early Church didn't teach OSAS? They may not have emphasized it, but I would say their teaching mainly implies it. Just as the teaching on election wasn't mentioned, it is stil implied in their writings. For your sake I found an interesting quote from Boniface (about 420):

Pope Boniface to Caesarius wrote: “[Phil. 1:29]–it appears obvious that our faith in Christ, like all good things, comes to individuals from the gift of divine grace and not from the power of human nature. We rejoice that your brotherhood perceived this truth in accordance with catholic faith, when a council of some bishops of Gaul was held. As you have indicated, they decided unanimously that our faith in Christ is conferred on men by the intervention of divine grace. They added that there is absolutely nothing good in God’s eyes that anyone can wish, begin, do, or complete without the grace of God, for as our Savior said, “Without me you can do nothing” [John 15:5]. For it is both a certainty and an article of catholic faith that in all good things, the greatest of which is faith, divine mercy intervenes for us when we are not yet willing [to believe], so that we might become willing; it remains in us when we are willing [to believe]; and it follows us so that we remain in faith.”

wolfsbane

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

When and where did the doctrine that once someone has been in a state of justification that they are saved forever no matter what they do or cease to believe originate?

It is alien to historic Protestantism, it is alien to the early Church and even the radical Reformation, so where did it come from?

I'm not sure where OSAS came from, but it became big in the USA last century.

Maybe it was just a handy justification of sinful lifestyles, dressed up in theological clothes, or a reaction to multiple 'conversions' claimed by individuals of the Arminian camp? It is certainly not Calvinism.

Here's a helpful article:
Non-lordship salvation
http://www.theopedia.com/Non-lordship_salvation

**********************************************************************
Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is certainly not Calvinism.

Are you saying that a person can lose their salvation once saved? If not, then how can OSAS not be a Calvinistic doctrine? Is there a 3rd way?

santing

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you saying that a person can lose their salvation once saved? If not, then how can OSAS not be a Calvinistic doctrine? Is there a 3rd way?

Agree. Saved by grace IMPLIES once saved always saved. The only way around it is twisting "Saved by grace" into things it doesn't mean, like "saved by grace by installments" or "saved by grace by your own faithfulness."

But "saved by grace" also implies a new creation, a new life style, a walk with God. "Saved by grace" or OSAS abhors the idea that "you can do what you like and you are still saved." A person who is saved by grace wants to do the will of God.

PatricaMcKay

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you saying that a person can lose their salvation once saved? If not, then how can OSAS not be a Calvinistic doctrine? Is there a 3rd way?

I think its that Calvinists believe that if someone falls away it was because they were never saved in the first place. If there is no sanctification Calvinists would wonder about whether justification look place, they dont see salvation in terms of just saying the "sinners' prayer" or whatever. You should check out the thread I posted about the similarity between Calvinism and Thomism.

antiskeptic

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

I think its that Calvinists believe that if someone falls away it was because they were never saved in the first place. If there is no sanctification Calvinists would wonder about whether justification look place, they dont see salvation in terms of just saying the "sinners' prayer" or whatever. You should check out the thread I posted about the similarity between Calvinism and Thomism.

By saved I meant 'saved' not 'thought they were saved', 'said a prayer one time', etc.

And if once saved, the person was (I understood Calvinism to say) always saved. That's what I'm reading into the term OSAS in anyways.

wolfsbane

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you saying that a person can lose their salvation once saved? If not, then how can OSAS not be a Calvinistic doctrine? Is there a 3rd way?

OSAS includes much more than the title says. Calvinism agrees with the title, but not the OSAS position that the 'saved' can live like demons the rest of their life and still go to heaven. Calvinism says those who do that prove they never were saved; that it is impossible for any saved person to live an unchanged life.

Being saved involves a new heart, a new nature that will war with the old. When it falls, it arises again. God makes it win.

*********************************************************************
Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

PatricaMcKay

Just out of interest how do Calvinists interpute these verses...

"21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them." (2 Peter 2:21)

"15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. 16 But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness." (2 Peter 2:15-16)

wolfsbane

A big part in the rise of the OSAS must be the prevalence of 'easy-believism' in the late 19th and 20th centuries. This 'cheap grace' idea of conversion, even a justification without repentance, brought multitudes into the Church that had not truly been converted.

Their unchanged lives and frequent return to the mire had to be explained, but in a way that gave hope to their families. A sort of Universalism, at least for all who at any time and in any way professed Christ. Probably the same people go for the salvation of the heathen who never hear the gospel. But I would need to check their statements for that.

Catholicism also has had its 'wider hope' introduced - salvation is no longer only for those within the RCC, but for those who would have been in if they had a proper chance to knowing about it.

Perhaps any Catholics here can tells us the latest on just what one needs to do to be damned?

********************************************************************
Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

PatricaMcKay

wolfsbane wrote: »

Catholicism also has had its 'wider hope' introduced - salvation is no longer only for those within the RCC, but for those who would have been in if they had a proper chance to knowing about it.

Perhaps any Catholics here can tells us the latest on just what one needs to do to be damned?

This link is lying with the list of early Fathers who believed in universal salvation...Only Origien who is considered a heretic by the Eastern Church and Gregory of Nyssa did.

But John Paul II is another story...

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it. (General Audience of July 28, 1999)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Christ, Redeemer of man, now for ever ‘clad in a robe dipped in blood' (Apoc, 19,13), the everlasting, invincible guarantee of universal salvation . (Message of John Paul II to the Abbess General of the Order of the Most Holy Saviour of St Bridget)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• If the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is to convince the world precisely of this ‘judgment,' undoubtedly he does so to continue Christ's work aimed at universal salvation . We can therefore conclude that in bearing witness to Christ, the Paraclete is an assiduous (though invisible) advocate and defender of the work of salvation, and of all those engaged in this work. He is also the guarantor of the definitive triumph over sin and over the world subjected to sin, in order to free it from sin and introduce it into the way of salvation. (General Audience of May 24, 1989)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The new, post-Vatican II Catechism of the Catholic Church also gives us to hope that all will be saved.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• 1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost : ‘Lord, let me never be parted from you.' If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God ‘desires all men to be saved' (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him ‘all things are possible' (Mt 19:26).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• 1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end' and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for ‘all men to be saved.'[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The new Roman Missal and Divine Office do too.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again; bring them and all the departed into the light of your presence . Have mercy on us all. (Eucharistic Prayer II)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Almighty God, we recall how you sent your angel to the centurion Cornelius to show him the way of salvation. Open our hearts to work more zealously for the salvation of the world, so that your Church may bring us and all men into your presence . (Divine Office, Tuesdays, Afternoon Prayer)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales , recently expressed his hope that all will be saved in an interview with a Catholic newspaper.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• We're not bound to believe that anybody's there (in hell), let's face it... I cannot think of heaven without thinking of being in communion with all the saints and with all the people I've loved on this earth… I hope I will be surprised in heaven, I think I will be."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/universal_salvation_roman_catholic.html

wolfsbane

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

Just out of interest how do Calvinists interpute these verses...

"21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them." (2 Peter 2:21)

"15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. 16 But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness." (2 Peter 2:15-16)

They knew the right way, and indeed they walked its paths and gave all appearance of being committed to it - but they were not the sons of God, just alien pretenders.

The Parable of the Sower/Soils teaches us that only the soil prepared by God is good. Some of the rest may produce signs of life for a time, but their true state is eventually revealed. Wayside/Stony/Thorns vs Good.


*******************************************************************
Matthew 13:8 But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. 9 He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”...

23 But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.”

santing

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

Just out of interest how do Calvinists interpute these verses...

"21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them." (2 Peter 2:21)

"15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. 16 But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness." (2 Peter 2:15-16)

By looking at the example of Lot (2 Pet 2:7) who when noone would be able to give the title "righteous" - except the God who knows the heart. And by paying attention to verse 10: "This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority." This makes clear that the people Peter talks about are infiltrators - like Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8.

wolfsbane

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

This link is lying with the list of early Fathers who believed in universal salvation...Only Origien who is considered a heretic by the Eastern Church and Gregory of Nyssa did.

But John Paul II is another story...

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it. (General Audience of July 28, 1999)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Christ, Redeemer of man, now for ever ‘clad in a robe dipped in blood' (Apoc, 19,13), the everlasting, invincible guarantee of universal salvation . (Message of John Paul II to the Abbess General of the Order of the Most Holy Saviour of St Bridget)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• If the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is to convince the world precisely of this ‘judgment,' undoubtedly he does so to continue Christ's work aimed at universal salvation . We can therefore conclude that in bearing witness to Christ, the Paraclete is an assiduous (though invisible) advocate and defender of the work of salvation, and of all those engaged in this work. He is also the guarantor of the definitive triumph over sin and over the world subjected to sin, in order to free it from sin and introduce it into the way of salvation. (General Audience of May 24, 1989)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The new, post-Vatican II Catechism of the Catholic Church also gives us to hope that all will be saved.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• 1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost : ‘Lord, let me never be parted from you.' If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God ‘desires all men to be saved' (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him ‘all things are possible' (Mt 19:26).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• 1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end' and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for ‘all men to be saved.'[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The new Roman Missal and Divine Office do too.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again; bring them and all the departed into the light of your presence . Have mercy on us all. (Eucharistic Prayer II)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Almighty God, we recall how you sent your angel to the centurion Cornelius to show him the way of salvation. Open our hearts to work more zealously for the salvation of the world, so that your Church may bring us and all men into your presence . (Divine Office, Tuesdays, Afternoon Prayer)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales , recently expressed his hope that all will be saved in an interview with a Catholic newspaper.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• We're not bound to believe that anybody's there (in hell), let's face it... I cannot think of heaven without thinking of being in communion with all the saints and with all the people I've loved on this earth… I hope I will be surprised in heaven, I think I will be."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/universal_salvation_roman_catholic.html

They completely ignore the teaching of Christ and the apostles on the reality of hell for many, and substitute their own reasoning about what God should do. Catholicism and Protestantism are growing ever closer together!

********************************************************************
Matthew 13:49 So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, 50 and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

gimmebroadband

wolfsbane wrote: »

Perhaps any Catholics here can tells us the latest on just what one needs to do to be damned?

The illogic of eternal assurance

Eternal assurance is an illogical position – it denies free will and the very existence of sin. If one is eternally assured of salvation after stepping into some “group” of the saved, then what does it matter if we sin? It in fact means that sin does not exist – there are no moral absolutes and there is nothing that will offend God. This means we cannot choose God, and hence do not have free will. If there is no sin and we have no ability to choose sin or God, what need do we have for a savior? Eternal assurance in fact denies the very purpose for Christ's incarnation.


Just one unrepentant Mortal sin would suffice to damn you to Hell!!!


http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1s.htm

PatricaMcKay

wolfsbane wrote: »

Maybe it was just a handy justification of sinful lifestyles, dressed up in theological clothes, or a reaction to multiple 'conversions' claimed by individuals of the Arminian camp? It is certainly not Calvinism.

Charles Finney advocated salvation through works basically so I dont see how it would fit into classical Arminianism. Im not saying its Calvinism either though.

PatricaMcKay

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The illogic of eternal assurance

Eternal assurance is an illogical position – it denies free will and the very existence of sin.

I wouldnt jump in large boots first, this is a complex issue...I would be a good idea to look over what St Augustine has to say.

http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/augustine-predestination.htm

gimmebroadband

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

I wouldnt jump in large boots first, this is a complex issue...I would be a good idea to look over what St Augustine has to say.

http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/augustine-predestination.htm

I would suggest you read the following on the Theology of Augustine and Predestination!

http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm

antiskeptic

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Eternal assurance is an illogical position – it denies free will and the very existence of sin. If one is eternally assured of salvation after stepping into some “group” of the saved, then what does it matter if we sin?

In the first instance, Wolfsbane (as a Calvinist) wouldn't be supposing free will has any part to play in one's salvation. Whilst that might force him to posit a God who perhaps throws dice when it comes to choosing who shall be saved and who should be damned, it isn't illogical to detach freewill from salvation.

Secondly. Just because someone can't anymore be damned for their subsequent-to-OSAS-salvation sinning doesn't mean it doesn't matter if they sin. It can matter for all kinds of reasons without it having to do with their salvation. A OSAS-er can hurt both themselves and God with their sin. That matters doesn't it?

Slav

santing wrote: »

The once "eat" is carried over from the previous verse, the tense here doesn't allow "keeps on eating."

I don't see how, could you explain please? The tense in 6:53 is present which in Greek can denote both continuous and habitual aspects. As far as I can see there is nothing in that verse that would suggest any "once" done action, i.e. no any perfect tense, aorist, etc. Same story in 6:64 but unlike most English translations "eat" and "drink" are not verbs in the original but participles and therefore they have the same aspect as their verb εχω which is again in present tense here (εχει) and so again it's continuous or habitual aspect.

But apart from the that, the promise is associated with this "I will raise him up." Is this promise true or not in this verse?

It is true but it's irrelevant to OSAS. You eat and drink (habitual) in this life and Christ will raise you up "at the last day".

Slav

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

The problem also is that Heaven would be worse than hell for someone who hates God, so even if they were saved they wouldnt exactly enjoy their salvation!

This is actually traditional Eastern understanding. Hell (Lake of fire) and Heaven is essentially the same thing - God, only He's experienced differently: as Hell by some and as Heaven by the others. So unlike a rather common definition of Hell as the absence of God it's completely the opposite: it's the very presence of God that makes the Hell real hell. It's like people on a beach: everybody is exposed to sun but some enjoy sunbathing and some get sunburns and don't enjoy it at all. If some spent all their life in a dark cave and never went out then they don't need much light. They get used to darkness or very dimmed light and manage fairly well there. Now if you get them out to the beach the sun will be painful for their eyes and harmful for the skin. But those who used to expose themselves to sun (or in our Christian terms used to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood) they are likely to enjoy the sunshine.


Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. (Psalm 139:7-12)

Anyway back on topic....Even if you agree with OSAS and argue that its clearly in the scriptures the fact is that millions of Christians for hundreds and hundreds of years didnt see it there...So when did people begin to see in scripture? Thats my question!

In my opinion the born of OSAS became possible when people had stopped seeing salvation as God's mystery and started seeing it as scholastically polished doctrines. Another major factor was reducing the meaning of salvation to justification only, so if you are justified then you are surely saved. With these two it was just a matter of time for OSAS to be formally defined.

Slav

santing wrote: »

Why do you think the early Church didn't teach OSAS? They may not have emphasized it, but I would say their teaching mainly implies it. Just as the teaching on election wasn't mentioned, it is stil implied in their writings. For your sake I found an interesting quote from Boniface (about 420):

This quote from Boniface may well be compatible with the OSAS doctrine but it does not establish it. Also a non-OSASer would have zero problem with this quote.

Essentially this boils down to the question whether the early Church saw salvation as a once off event or an ongoing process. Another important question is what is salvation? What are we saved from? These days the emphasis is often made on God's wrath so we are saved primarily from God's wrath and are now right in God's eyes as if the angry God is the root cause of all our troubles. I think the emphasis of the early Church is quite clear: we are saved primarily from death, from sin (which is the cause of death), from Satan. But Satan still rules this fallen world; Christians still sin, all of them; and finally Christians still die like everyone else.

Given that, can we talk about salvation in a past tense? Only in a limited sense - same as death, being trampled over by Christ's resurrection, has only limited power on us as we all will resurrect. But it's a future event so we can say that now we are only on the way of being fully saved from death.

Also we still sin but we believe that we won't once we are in the Kingdom of God. It probably was not possible not to sin in Adam but it should well be possible not to sin in Christ. But we do sin. Doesn't it indicate that we are not fully in Christ yet?

In other words, salvation is something that manifests itself in resurrection with Christ and finding oneself among the sheep and not among the goats. It's pointless to speculate whether salvation can be lost or not because if has not fully manifested itself before the final judgement. For now we see the creation being restored, therefore we are being saved.

gimmebroadband

Judas Iscariot believed in Jesus Christ, walked with Him, was one of the Twelve and was given the same powers from Him as the others. Yet how many believes that Judas Iscariot went to Heaven? According to this doctrine, I would say Fundamentalist Christians would have to believe Judas is in Heaven as he more than met the requirements of salvation according to OSAS.

antiskeptic

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Judas Iscariot believed in Jesus Christ,

Source?

walked with Him,

Not a factor in the way of salvation according to "Fundamentalist Christians"

..was one of the Twelve and was given the same powers from Him as the others.

Not a factor in salvation either.

gimmebroadband

antiskeptic wrote: »

Source?



Not a factor in the way of salvation according to "Fundamentalist Christians"



Not a factor in salvation either.

Never said it was a factor in salvation! Do you think Judas is in Heaven after betraying his Saviour, then afterwards killed himself????

Also Jesus said to only ONE of the thieves crucified with him, that he would be with Him in Paradise!

wolfsbane

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The illogic of eternal assurance

Eternal assurance is an illogical position – it denies free will and the very existence of sin. If one is eternally assured of salvation after stepping into some “group” of the saved, then what does it matter if we sin? It in fact means that sin does not exist – there are no moral absolutes and there is nothing that will offend God. This means we cannot choose God, and hence do not have free will. If there is no sin and we have no ability to choose sin or God, what need do we have for a savior? Eternal assurance in fact denies the very purpose for Christ's incarnation.


Just one unrepentant Mortal sin would suffice to damn you to Hell!!!


http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1s.htm

It matters because the true Christian will not want to grieve God, and will not want to suffer discipline for the offence. Just as with our earthly parents.

God is offended by sin, be it in the saint or sinner. He will not ignore it in either.

As to free-will, it is free to choose what our nature desires. An evil nature will never choose to follow God; a holy nature always will. But both the unsaved and the saved can act outside their character at times. The former because of conscience and the latter because of the old nature that seeks to re-establish itself. It cannot win, but it will dog us to the grave.

******************************************************************
Matthew 13:49 So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, 50 and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

antiskeptic

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Never said it was a factor in salvation!

Which doctrine are you talking about then? The one that applies to Judas that would indicate he was saved (in order that he be OSAS). How, in other words, did he "more that meet the requirements for salvation"?

According to this doctrine, I would say Fundamentalist Christians would have to believe Judas is in Heaven as he more than met the requirements of salvation according to OSAS.

PatricaMcKay

antiskeptic wrote: »

Source?

Infact doesnt St John say somewhere in his Gospel that Judas didnt believe even when he was with Jesus?

gimmebroadband

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

Infact doesnt St John say somewhere in his Gospel that Judas didnt believe even when he was with Jesus?

No!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08539a.htm

santing

Slav wrote: »

I don't see how, could you explain please? The tense in 6:53 is present which in Greek can denote both continuous and habitual aspects. As far as I can see there is nothing in that verse that would suggest any "once" done action, i.e. no any perfect tense, aorist, etc. Same story in 6:64 but unlike most English translations "eat" and "drink" are not verbs in the original but participles and therefore they have the same aspect as their verb εχω which is again in present tense here (εχει) and so again it's continuous or habitual aspect.

It is true but it's irrelevant to OSAS. You eat and drink (habitual) in this life and Christ will raise you up "at the last day".

The term in 6:53 is the Aorist:
The aorist is said to be "simple occurrence" or "summary occurrence", without regard for the amount of time taken to accomplish the action. This tense is also often referred to as the 'punctiliar' tense. 'Punctiliar' in this sense means 'viewed as a single, collective whole,' a "one-point-in-time" action, although it may actually take place over a period of time. In the indicative mood the aorist tense denotes action that occurred in the past time, often translated like the English simple past tense.

For example: "God...made us alive together with Christ." Eph 2:5
"He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus." Phil 1:6

You are referring to the present tense which occurs in verse 35-44. But as it stands, Jesus switches to the Aorist to make clear that a "once off" is enough.

santing

Slav wrote: »

This quote from Boniface may well be compatible with the OSAS doctrine but it does not establish it. Also a non-OSASer would have zero problem with this quote.

I have no doubts about that... For me a statement from Boniface or the early Church Fathers can only illustrate Scripture, which you have no problem with not believing... What I liked about Boniface statements was e.g. the ending:

divine mercy intervenes for us when we are not yet willing [to believe], so that we might become willing; it remains in us when we are willing [to believe]; and it follows us so that we remain in faith.

The willing is God's work, who made us willing.Since He made us willing in the first place, and His divine mercy follows us, it is only logic that we remain in faith.

Slav wrote: »

Essentially this boils down to the question whether the early Church saw salvation as a once off event or an ongoing process.

In evangelical/protestant circles we would say that we have been saved, we are being saved and we will be saved. All three aspects are visible in God's Word. But each aspect is distinct, and should not be confused with the other aspects. Each aspect has the same foundation: the finished work of our great God and Saviour at Calvary. There the price for our sins, for my sins (all future at that time!) was once for all paid in full. "It is finished" was His cry!
Through this work I have been saved when I came to Christ in faith and gave my life to Him; when He made me a new creation and gave His Spirit to dwell in me forever. Through His work I am daily saved when He corrects, supports and comforts, when He deals with my sins that still follow me. Through His work I will be saved when finally at His coming, I will receive an heavenly body that will know no sin, and will be living with Him for all eternity. These are three aspects of salvation, but all three are true and sure. I do not doubt my future salvation any less than my past salvation, because it is the same Lord who accomplished them all, and His Spirit and His promise that guarantees them all.

santing

gimmebroadband wrote: »

No!

YES!
You probably refer to

Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil." He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.
(Joh 6:70-71 ESV)

antiskeptic

gimmebroadband wrote: »

No!

Assuming you can't support this:

Judas Iscariot believed in Jesus Christ

..how are we to conclude Judas saved in order that OSAS applies to him?

Slav

santing wrote: »

The term in 6:53 is the Aorist:
The aorist is said to be "simple occurrence" or "summary occurrence", without regard for the amount of time taken to accomplish the action. This tense is also often referred to as the 'punctiliar' tense. 'Punctiliar' in this sense means 'viewed as a single, collective whole,' a "one-point-in-time" action, although it may actually take place over a period of time. In the indicative mood the aorist tense denotes action that occurred in the past time, often translated like the English simple past tense.

For example: "God...made us alive together with Christ." Eph 2:5
"He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus." Phil 1:6

This is all true and you can indeed say (with a rather good probability) that the action is once-off if expressed by an aorist in indicative mood (where we can say that the action was in the past). Not strictly based on grammar but rather on a common sense: if I don't eat now but I ate before and as a result I have life in me now - so I don't need to keep eating in order to have life in me and so once-off is probably enough. The problem however that we cannot do that as it's not an indicative aorist in 6:53 but a subjunctive one. Unlike indicative it does not denote past time and only suggest that the action has to be seen as a whole. It does not say anything about the progress or completion of the action. I think the author of John 6 uses subjunctive aorist instead of subjunctive present in 6:53 in order to put emphasis on the action itself rather then on its place in time. In other words, subjunctive aorist is less restricting: while subjunctive present implies an on-going action the subjunctive aorist can mean both once off and continuous in time action, completed or uncompleted. Therefore eating and drinking in 6:53 could be a once-off event as well as continuous or habitual process.

So which one is it? Looking at the grammar and the context of the subsequent verses I think it's clear that it's not a once-off one.

First, in 6:54, 6:56, 6:57 and 6:58 the author uses present participles for eating and drinking instead of aorist participles.

Second, in 6:58 eating the Bread of His Body is compared to eating manna in Exodus, which for Moses and his people was not a once-off event but was a continuous process.

Finally, Christ uses food as the analogy. Food and water is something that we have to keep consuming in order to have life. If you keep eating and drinking you live, if you stop eating you will die within weeks or even within few days if you stop drinking. If the intention was to present the Body and Blood as something to be consumed once He would use a more appropriate analogy, medicine for example. Otherwise it'd be confusing for the listeners.

But as it stands, Jesus switches to the Aorist to make clear that a "once off" is enough.

Well, it's extremely unlikely He was speaking Greek on that occasion. Did Aramaic have aorist tense back then?

Slav

santing wrote: »

I have no doubts about that... For me a statement from Boniface or the early Church Fathers can only illustrate Scripture, which you have no problem with not believing...

The question was whether OSAS was believed by the Early Church but quote from Boniface does not establish anything that would be unique to OSAS and therefore be an indication that OSAS was known to early Christians. For example we can take many 20th century writers and provide many quotes from them that would be undoubtedly point towards OSAS. So the question can we do the same with Early Church Fathers?

In evangelical/protestant circles we would say that we have been saved, we are being saved and we will be saved. All three aspects are visible in God's Word. But each aspect is distinct, and should not be confused with the other aspects. Each aspect has the same foundation: the finished work of our great God and Saviour at Calvary. There the price for our sins, for my sins (all future at that time!) was once for all paid in full. "It is finished" was His cry!
Through this work I have been saved when I came to Christ in faith and gave my life to Him; when He made me a new creation and gave His Spirit to dwell in me forever. Through His work I am daily saved when He corrects, supports and comforts, when He deals with my sins that still follow me. Through His work I will be saved when finally at His coming, I will receive an heavenly body that will know no sin, and will be living with Him for all eternity. These are three aspects of salvation, but all three are true and sure. I do not doubt my future salvation any less than my past salvation, because it is the same Lord who accomplished them all, and His Spirit and His promise that guarantees them all.

Yes, I know that this is the common evangelical position. The question however was about the Early Church and whether she held the same views or not. If I was to defend this position with the help of Early Church Fathers I think I would struggle in the following points:

1) to demonstrate that we can say that Christ "made me a new creation" in past tense as of a completed action,

2) to demonstrate that all Christians were assured of "being saved" so those "corrections, support and comfort" always come from God and would not come from one's own delusion and prelest,

3) to demonstrate that the early Christians did not doubt their "future" salvation and were somehow assured not to find themselves among those described in Matthew 7:21-23 for the same reason as 2) above.

By the way, "I will receive an heavenly body that will know no sin" - does that mean that it's our current body that is the source of sin?

gimmebroadband

antiskeptic wrote: »

Assuming you can't support this:



..how are we to conclude Judas saved in order that OSAS applies to him?

I gave a link with references in the Bible as per Judas! Also TRADITION predates the Bible!

antiskeptic

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I gave a link with references in the Bible as per Judas! Also TRADITION predates the Bible!

Could you quote me the bible verse from that link which supports the notion that:

Judas Iscariot believed in Jesus Christ

The work is yours to perform afterall.

I'm not that interested in what TRADITION says since your argument is directed at the position a..

Fundamentalist Christian

.. ought to hold. Since Fundamentalist Christian don't consider TRADITION in their musings, they ought not be taking up positions based on TRADITION. Otherwise they'd be Catholics

gimmebroadband

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you quote me the bible verse from that link which supports the notion that:



The work is yours to perform afterall.

I'm not that interested in what TRADITION says since your argument is directed at the position a..



.. ought to hold. Since Fundamentalist Christian don't consider TRADITION in their musings, they ought not be taking up positions based on TRADITION. Otherwise they'd be Catholics

The Catholic Church is living proof to me, I rely on the 3 pillars of faith as handed down by the Apostles, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium of the CC!