The origin of Once Saved Always Saved?

antiskeptic · 15-08-2011 11:54AM

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 · 15-08-2011 01:13PM

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 · 15-08-2011 01:25PM

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 · 15-08-2011 01:43PM

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 · 15-08-2011 06:34PM

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 · 15-08-2011 07:11PM

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 · 15-08-2011 08:00PM

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 · 15-08-2011 08:05PM

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 · 15-08-2011 08:09PM

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 · 15-08-2011 09:59PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Source?

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

gimmebroadband · 15-08-2011 11:30PM

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 · 15-08-2011 11:30PM

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 · 15-08-2011 11:51PM

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 · 15-08-2011 11:56PM

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 · 16-08-2011 12:10AM

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 · 16-08-2011 12:52PM

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 · 16-08-2011 01:07PM

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 · 16-08-2011 01:21PM

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 · 16-08-2011 02:38PM

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 · 16-08-2011 04:14PM

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!

santing · 16-08-2011 10:52PM

Slav wrote: »

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.

Thanks for your Greek grammar lesson ... on which tradition did you build that? But I am glad that you agree (although you did not acknowledge it as such) that your previous posting about the tense of the verse was incorrect. Let me remind you of what you said before:

Slav wrote: »

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

Now you do agree with me that this verse actually gives the aorist, but you are changing your tune again?
But if required, another Greek lesson:

In the following sentences from the Greek New Testament, all of the verbs, with the exception of "we desire" are in the subjunctive mood:

Teacher, we desire that whatever we might ask you, you would do for us. (Mk. 10:35)
If you would have faith and would not doubt, not only the thing of the fig tree would you do, but also to this mountain you would say...(Mt. 21:21)

The subjunctive mood in English is increasingly relying on indicators of contingency other than the words should, might, would, et al.
The subjunctive mood of a verb is generally used to express potential or possibility.

So even if it is subjective Aorist, it doesn't contain a hint of "habitually, continuous". The Aorist simply denotes the fact itself, or making it subjunctive "whenever you did eat..."

I could have also pointed to a verse just two chapters before where the Lord Jesus switches the tenses to emphasize his message:

Jesus said to her, "Everyone who (habitually) drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever (once) drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." (Joh 4:13-14 ESV)

This contains all the same elements, also speaks about food (well, drink) and tells the Samaritan woman that she only needs to drink once. She got that part all right according to verse 15...

Slav wrote: »

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

I would consider it extremely unlikely that someone who grew up in "Galilee of the Gentile" would not speak Greek. But who of us was there? What is a fact though is that God gave his Word to us in Greek.

PatricaMcKay2 · 16-08-2011 11:02PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

.. 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

I presume you meant Roman Catholic by Catholic, and unfortunately Roman Catholics put authority (and particularly Papal authority) before Tradition (otherwise the radical changes of Vatican II could never have happened). Its the Orthodox and Monophysites who really take up their positions from tradition aswell as the conservative Old Catholics.

I do think Tradition (genuine tradition at least) is important, just not as important as Scripture and if it doesnt contradict scripture it should be listened too.

santing · 16-08-2011 11:24PM

Slav wrote: »

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?

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?

Protestants / Evangelicals would argue that to get the "original" faith, you have to let go of the traditions first, as they have been added and corrupted the original faith. The Early Church had only the words of the New Testament as their guidance, if we find the doctrine in there, we have the original doctrine.
Now as I was reading St Patrick recently:

I must not, however, hide God's gift which He bestowed upon me in the land of my captivity; because then I earnestly sought Him, and there I found Him, and He saved me from all evil because - so I believe - of His Spirit that dwells in me. ... Hence, then, I give unwearied thanks to God, who kept me faithful in the day of my temptation, so that today I can confidently offer Him my soul as a living sacrifice - to Christ my Lord, who saved me out of all my troubles.

Compare this with:

And He has poured forth upon us abundantly ...
the Holy Spirit, the gift and pledge of immortality, who makes those who believe and obey sons of God the Father and joint heirs with Christ;

and finally:

on that day without doubt we shall rise in the brightness of the sun, that is, in the glory of Christ Jesus our Redeemer, as sons of the living God and joint heirs with Christ, to be conformed to His image; for of Him, and by Him, and in Him we shall reign.

Slav · 17-08-2011 12:49PM

santing wrote: »

But I am glad that you agree (although you did not acknowledge it as such) that your previous posting about the tense of the verse was incorrect. Let me remind you of what you said before:
Now you do agree with me that this verse actually gives the aorist, but you are changing your tune again?

Sorry I was not clear enough, I meant aorist in indicative mood by that, thought it was pretty obvious. Aorist itself does not define the action as repetitive or momentary but indicative (and only indicative) aorist moves the action to the past so we could say that even if the action is repetitive then at very least a limited number of repetitions is enough.

So even if it is subjective Aorist, it doesn't contain a hint of "habitually, continuous"

Absolutely. Same as subjunctive aorist does not say it has to be once-off.

I could have also pointed to a verse just two chapters before where the Lord Jesus switches the tenses to emphasize his message:
This contains all the same elements, also speaks about food (well, drink) and tells the Samaritan woman that she only needs to drink once. She got that part all right according to verse 15...

Yes, I guess you can go 2 chapters back for the context of 6:53 if you assume that the blood in John 6 is the same thing as water in John 4. For me the context of chapter 6 itself as well as the context of the Last Supper and the Lord's Prayer would be a more obvious choice.

Slav · 17-08-2011 12:57PM

santing wrote: »

Protestants / Evangelicals would argue that to get the "original" faith, you have to let go of the traditions first, as they have been added and corrupted the original faith. The Early Church had only the words of the New Testament as their guidance, if we find the doctrine in there, we have the original doctrine.

The question is not whether OSAS is correct or not, or whether the Early Church Fathers corrupted the original faith or they did not. The question is: can we find OSAS clearly and undoubtedly established in the Early Church by studying ECF writings we have at hand.

In itself it would not prove or disprove the validity of OSAS. If we don't find OSAS in ECF it could mean that the relevant artefacts have not survived or the ECF considered it so obvious that they did not write about it. If we do find OSAS clearly defined in their writings it could mean that ECF expressed in this part the corrupted faith and not the originally believed doctrine. But it would be interesting to see it nevertheless.

santing · 17-08-2011 07:34PM

Slav wrote: »

Sorry I was not clear enough, I meant aorist in indicative mood by that, thought it was pretty obvious. Aorist itself does not define the action as repetitive or momentary but indicative (and only indicative) aorist moves the action to the past so we could say that even if the action is repetitive then at very least a limited number of repetitions is enough.

Absolutely. Same as subjunctive aorist does not say it has to be once-off.

Well, now we have established the right (grammatical) interpretation it is easy to weigh the option. The alternative for OSAS is salvation that is only achieved through a continuous process finalizing in death. The verse doesn't support the second at all, so the first option is established as a more likely meaning.

Slav wrote: »

Yes, I guess you can go 2 chapters back for the context of 6:53 if you assume that the blood in John 6 is the same thing as water in John 4. For me the context of chapter 6 itself as well as the context of the Last Supper and the Lord's Prayer would be a more obvious choice.

We were not interpreting the meaning of the verse as such, but the meaning of the tenses used in the verse. The verse in chapter 4 is a very good parallel verse, which also established that (whatever language Jesus spoke) He was able to convey the meaning of "once" drinking to get eternal life versus "again and again" drinking and being thirsty again.

santing · 17-08-2011 07:36PM

Slav wrote: »

The question is not whether OSAS is correct or not, or whether the Early Church Fathers corrupted the original faith or they did not. The question is: can we find OSAS clearly and undoubtedly established in the Early Church by studying ECF writings we have at hand.

And is the New Testament not part of the ECF? When I read the ECF they say it over and over again: listen to the Word, read God's Word ...

antiskeptic · 19-08-2011 01:01PM

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

I presume you meant Roman Catholic by Catholic, and unfortunately Roman Catholics put authority (and particularly Papal authority) before Tradition (otherwise the radical changes of Vatican II could never have happened). Its the Orthodox and Monophysites who really take up their positions from tradition aswell as the conservative Old Catholics.

The discussion's context sees gimmebroadband state conclusions a "Fundamentalist Christian" ought to be coming to.

Although aware that he (as a Roman Catholic) stands on Tradition as authoritative, his doing so isn't something the "Fundamentalist Christian" is bound by in his coming to conclusions.

And so the basis of his argument as to why a "Fundamentalist Christian" ought to conclude what gimmebroadband thinks should be concluded, disappears down the plughole.

-

If a Tradition for which there is firm scriptural support then I've no problem with it. I wouldn't be one for Tradition which isn't contradicted by scripture since that permits all sorts not specifically excluded by scripture.

Slav · 22-08-2011 05:48PM

santing wrote: »

Well, now we have established the right (grammatical) interpretation it is easy to weigh the option. The alternative for OSAS is salvation that is only achieved through a continuous process finalizing in death. The verse doesn't support the second at all, so the first option is established as a more likely meaning.

Now we are getting back to where we have started from. I personally see John 6 alone as neither clearly supporting nor as clearly debunking OSAS unless we start reading some traditions (whether they are correct or not) into it. As for me (as I explained my reasons in #47), judging from the context of John 6:53-54 I would rather conclude that eating the Body and drinking the Blood is a habitual process though I would not derive any doctrines on this based in John 6 alone. I still fail however to understand your reasons which lead you to the opposite opinion.

We were not interpreting the meaning of the verse as such, but the meaning of the tenses used in the verse

We cannot do that. Put in that particular form the verbs for eat and drink just don't have that information. Subjunctive aorist is not even a tense really, it's only aspect. It's only the context where that sort of information can possibly come from. This is exactly the same as present indefinite tense in English: without context it's hard to tell whether the action is habitual or momentary. For example,

"if you eat your lunch you have less chances of getting gastritis",

and

"if you eat your lunch you can have this ice cream".

The action in the latter is momentary, you only need to finish your lunch once in order to have that portion of ice cream. Knowing that we cannot however say that having a proper lunch only once would be enough to reduce your chances of getting gastritis.

santing wrote: »

And is the New Testament not part of the ECF? When I read the ECF they say it over and over again: listen to the Word, read God's Word ...

Well, this all goes back to your post #15 back on page 1. You said that the Early Church believed in OSAS and mentioned ECF and I was curious what evidence did you have in mind. If you hold the opinion that OSAS is clearly in the Scriptures and hence it's the Early Church belief then it's all fine and understandable but why mention ECF then?

santing · 22-08-2011 07:21PM

Slav wrote: »

Now we are getting back to where we have started from. I personally see John 6 alone as neither clearly supporting nor as clearly debunking OSAS unless we start reading some traditions (whether they are correct or not) into it. ...

"if you eat your lunch you can have this ice cream".

...

Well, this all goes back to your post #15 back on page 1. You said that the Early Church believed in OSAS and mentioned ECF and I was curious what evidence did you have in mind. If you hold the opinion that OSAS is clearly in the Scriptures and hence it's the Early Church belief then it's all fine and understandable but why mention ECF then?

[/QUOTE]

I can understand your confusion in relation to the ECF. I agree with the RC that tradition was slowly developed over the years, however, I see in the tradition a lot of corruption of truth ... So we if we want to know what was taught in the early centuries, we first turn to the Scriptures, and then to the writings of the ECF to see how they interpreted the Scriptures. We do not take the culmination of centuries of additions and other errors we have today and then see what the ECF have to say about that. For instance if we take the word "hope" in todays RC meaning it is something that is uncertain. Check the meaning of the word "hope" in the Bible and then you see it means something that is certain, but still in the future. Now if I read the word "hope" in the works of ECF I presume they still had the Biblical meaning rather than the corrupted meaning of today.

Back to the first point.

Slav wrote: »

"if you eat your lunch you can have this ice cream".

Does this really mean if you eat your lunch for the rest of your life, you may get an ice-cream before you die? Because that is the interpretation you give to "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. (Joh 6:54 ESV)" Now if you have children, you know that the ice-cream is due immediately after the lunch!

The origin of Once Saved Always Saved?

Comments