The origin of Once Saved Always Saved?

PatricaMcKay · 10-08-2011 10:39PM #1

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 · 10-08-2011 10:49PM

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 · 10-08-2011 10:55PM

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 · 10-08-2011 11:11PM

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 · 11-08-2011 12:03AM

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 · 11-08-2011 12:55AM

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 · 11-08-2011 01:50AM

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 · 11-08-2011 01:13PM

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 · 11-08-2011 02:04PM

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 · 11-08-2011 03:37PM

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 · 12-08-2011 08:28AM

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 · 12-08-2011 10:07AM

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 · 12-08-2011 10:30AM

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 · 12-08-2011 01:15PM

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 · 12-08-2011 11:54PM

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 · 13-08-2011 08:52PM

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 · 13-08-2011 10:16PM

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 · 13-08-2011 10:32PM

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 · 14-08-2011 02:57AM

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 · 14-08-2011 09:00AM

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 · 14-08-2011 08:57PM

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 · 14-08-2011 09:03PM

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 · 14-08-2011 09:12PM

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 · 14-08-2011 09:23PM

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 · 14-08-2011 09:24PM

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 · 14-08-2011 09:28PM

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 · 14-08-2011 09:30PM

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 · 14-08-2011 11:29PM

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 · 15-08-2011 02:36AM

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 · 15-08-2011 02:42AM

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 · 15-08-2011 10:57AM

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

The origin of Once Saved Always Saved?

Comments