History of OSAS

[yomotalking]

[sarcasm]You're right, Augustine, Ireneaus, and Justin Martyr NEVER taught the idea of eternal security[/sarcasm]

All of them taught that those who endure are saved and took the wording from the Bible. You saw my response on scripture and realized you couldn't argue back, so you decided to appeal to the church fathers. Unlucky for you I'm a church history major.

So go ahead, continue this debate

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ooooh.nasty?

Can I say that?

*looks around*.....

[Khristeeanos]

I have given proof that the teaching of the early church was not OSAS.

Nobody has yet to given any proof that OSAS was the teaching of the original church.

Now what needs to be explained to me is this:

If the Bible teaches OSAS, and the disciples of the apostles didn't teach OSAS, when did conditional security get introduced into the church?

[apothanein kerdos]

I have given proof that the teaching of the early church was not OSAS.

Nobody has yet to given any proof that OSAS was the teaching of the original church.

Now what needs to be explained to me is this:

If the Bible teaches OSAS, and the disciples of the apostles didn't teach OSAS, when did conditional security get introduced into the church?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I showed you how you falsely misread what they said

It was a doctrne taught, it was assumed, true believers, those of true faith, can't fall away.

[Khristeeanos]

It was a doctrne taught, it was assumed, true believers, those of true faith, can't fall away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Explain this to me:

Tertullian (140 to 230 AD),

"Some people act as though God were under an obligation to bestow even on the unworthy His intended gift...For do not many afterwards fall out of grace? Is not this gift taken away from many?"

They fell out of grace and had the gift taken away and yet you can try to claim that this teaches one can't fall away?

[apothanein kerdos]

[sarcasm]You're right, Augustine, Ireneaus, and Justin Martyr NEVER taught the idea of eternal security[/sarcasm]

All of them taught that those who endure are saved and took the wording from the Bible. You saw my response on scripture and realized you couldn't argue back, so you decided to appeal to the church fathers. Unlucky for you I'm a church history major.

So go ahead, continue this debate

Also, pay attention, none of the quotes from Clement, Polycarp, or Irenaeus do not teach a limited salvation. The closest quote that comes to it would be from Irenaeus yet he is quoting partly from a scripture, and "shut out from his kingdom" meant the works of His kingdom and the power of His Kingdom. THe biggest theme among the early church was that they were God's kingdom, His representation on earth. By sinning wilfully and not repenting, we cast ourselves away from His earthly kingdom, we were cast away from the church. THis is what Paul instructed, so that the person may die by Satan's hand, but his soul still belongs to God (this in my other post).

The simple fact is, not only did you mis interpret scripture, but you're mis reading what the early church fathers said

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tell ya what, when you explain this one to me I'll explain Tertullian...who later joined a cult

[Khristeeanos]

[sarcasm]You're right, Augustine, Ireneaus, and Justin Martyr NEVER taught the idea of eternal security[/sarcasm]

All of them taught that those who endure are saved and took the wording from the Bible. You saw my response on scripture and realized you couldn't argue back, so you decided to appeal to the church fathers. Unlucky for you I'm a church history major.

So go ahead, continue this debate

Also, pay attention, none of the quotes from Clement, Polycarp, or Irenaeus do not teach a limited salvation. The closest quote that comes to it would be from Irenaeus yet he is quoting partly from a scripture, and "shut out from his kingdom" meant the works of His kingdom and the power of His Kingdom. THe biggest theme among the early church was that they were God's kingdom, His representation on earth. By sinning wilfully and not repenting, we cast ourselves away from His earthly kingdom, we were cast away from the church. THis is what Paul instructed, so that the person may die by Satan's hand, but his soul still belongs to God (this in my other post).

The simple fact is, not only did you mis interpret scripture, but you're mis reading what the early church fathers said

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tell ya what, when you explain this one to me I'll explain Tertullian...who later joined a cult

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My original post still stands.

[Trust & Obey]

I agree with the consensus here that it matters not what the early church taught. What matters is what God's word SAYS... to this day.

This would transcend to all teachings and doctrines, not just the OSAS debate.

The early church fathers didn't drive automobiles, but I still find it a useful means of transportation.

[apothanein kerdos]

[sarcasm]You're right, Augustine, Ireneaus, and Justin Martyr NEVER taught the idea of eternal security[/sarcasm]

All of them taught that those who endure are saved and took the wording from the Bible. You saw my response on scripture and realized you couldn't argue back, so you decided to appeal to the church fathers. Unlucky for you I'm a church history major.

So go ahead, continue this debate

Also, pay attention, none of the quotes from Clement, Polycarp, or Irenaeus do not teach a limited salvation. The closest quote that comes to it would be from Irenaeus yet he is quoting partly from a scripture, and "shut out from his kingdom" meant the works of His kingdom and the power of His Kingdom. THe biggest theme among the early church was that they were God's kingdom, His representation on earth. By sinning wilfully and not repenting, we cast ourselves away from His earthly kingdom, we were cast away from the church. THis is what Paul instructed, so that the person may die by Satan's hand, but his soul still belongs to God (this in my other post).

The simple fact is, not only did you mis interpret scripture, but you're mis reading what the early church fathers said

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tell ya what, when you explain this one to me I'll explain Tertullian...who later joined a cult

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My original post still stands.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How is that a valid reply to anything I posted?

[Guest Philalitheia]

There is a logical fallacy in this argument that assumes that if something is a more recent discovery it is not true. This is logically fallacious. Man doctrines have developed over time as the contents of scripture have been fleshed out.

So the Apostles were idiots?

I believe in the final authority of the Scriptures, but to assume that we can just open the Bible without 2,000 years of presuppositions, language barriers, and theological corruption is rather pretentious.

While it's true that old does not always mean true, who has a greater probability to be right? The earliest fathers taught by the Apostles, or us?

True, doctrine did develop over time, but not in opposition of the fathers. They did not preach against the Trinity or the two natures of Christ, they just did not have it all worked out. The same cannot be said for Eternal Security as the Christian world knows it today.

History is important - are we to assume that the truth was immediately and completely lost, only to be rediscoverd by Augustine and Calvin?

Eternal Security - A Historical Examination

Edited July 30, 2005 by Philalitheia

[Khristeeanos]

How is that a valid reply to anything I posted?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because no quotes have been given that indicate unconditional security and I have given some that indicate conditional security.