Do You Believe in "Once Saved, Always Saved"

[Thaddaeus]

Ovedya,

Time is not the measure of authenticity. For centuries Christians gave exaltation to Mary - to equal stature and Christ - and yet in tems of history the Reformation is not that long ago.

Actually it is. If I was living in the second century and I was bombarded with all the personal interpretations that I see today, I'm not sure which way I would have gone. However, the longer the Gospel exists without change, as it now has for 2000 years, it is and can only be the authentic work of the Holy Spirit in preserving that Gospel within His Church.

Are you saying you doubt the power of the Holy Spirit? That He cannot preserve His Church, His Body in this world with the Gospel?

Or, are you saying that the Gospel needs to be undated, brought into the 21st century? More suited to the modern way of thinking.

As comparison, all I see is a host of personal opinions as to what a Bible might be saying. A partial record besides. Hardly, the consistant work of the Holy Spirit, or is this how you see Him at work, preserving the One True Faith, the original ALL Truth given to the Apostles? Do you find it anywhere in that Bible that He left you a Book? Does it say that one has the personal right to add to that Gospel that He gave ONCE, for all. Is He preserving your interpretation or is He preserving His whole Gospel?

Size and popularity is not the measure of authenticity.

I was not appealing to size or popularity.

All the major reformations and signficant recoveries of vital Scriptural truths began with small unpopular groups of believers, many of whom were persecuted for their beliefs.

I am still awaiting these scriptural truths that you seem to think got lost. It seems to me quite strange that the Holy Spirit's work needs reform, that He somehow failed to keep the entire Gospel preserved?

many of whom were persecuted for their beliefs.

persecution for a cause does not authentic any cause. All it means is that some so believed in what they held that they were willing to die for that cause or belief.

But the real question is: are there any who would die for a cause that has been shown to be false? A cause that had a lot of martyrs. Now, lets look at protestantism. It would be incumbent upon you to check first to see if the Apostles died for their cause. If you find that they did, they surely believed in that cause. Did their immediate proteges die for the same cause/belief? Has the Church suffered persecution and martyrdom throughout history all the while maintaining the same Truth, same practice and belief?

Now, if Protestantism and all of its variations is actually the Truth, rather than the historical record of that Truth, would all of these martyrs have died for a false cause/belief, knowing that it was false?

So, far, it has not proven to be a false belief. All you have shown is that Protestantism is a belief, actually many beliefs whereby many are willing to die for that particular protestant cause/belief. That is wholly and totally logical and reasonable.

But are you then dying for the original belief, or the belief either developed by some much later individual or even your own?

But having been on both sides, being formerly protestant, and now Orthodox, I would not die for what I beleived as a Protestant vs what I now understand as the Once Gospel Given to the Saints a long time ago.

The main problem with protestantism is that it is all born as anti-Roman Catholicism. It was in the 16th century and still is today. Protestants revolted due to some very erroneous teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. However, the Roman Catholic Church was outside of that historical Church for 500 years at the time of the Reformation.

That is but a very brief, and incomplete picture. You can be the Berean and check the history for yourself and then go with what you think is authentic.

[Smalcald]

But Thaddius, where would we be today without the Reformation? Christianity today would look like Catholicism looks in most of Western Europe, pretty much dead.

Certainly there was and is a cost to opening the bible, to opening the Gospel to all individuals not shutting it up and hiding it and you point that cost out well. But there is a great great benefit, and that is true lasting faith, which can only come from direct access to the Word of God and the Holy Spirit working that faith in us, this is what preserves the Word and the faith.

How many Orthodox around the world today read the bible or attend mass on a regular basis? Certainly I understand the yearning for ancient tradition and there are many good believers in your ranks, and yes God has used them, but faith does not need some sort of human lineage or historical authenticity, it proves itself.

I would rather have seen us still be one, but for whatever reason it was not to be, and God allowed this division to happen for good reasons, I see the proof of those reasons every day as the Gospel continues to spread.

[apothanein kerdos]

Thaddeus -

Augustine, as well as other sects of Christianity taught Eternal Security as early at the 4th and 5th century. Likewise, it didn't become a big issue until Calvin during the Reformation - the reason is the sects of Christianity were too busy arguing against the blood thirsty Catholic Church to cover this issue.

Also, I find it funny no one could respond to Kawbod's posts.

[Thaddaeus]

Ovedya,

The Scriptures are clear that one can call themselves a Christian and yet not posess the life that is consistent with being a true believer. Yes, there are only believers and unbelievers, but the tares in the kingdom are nominal Christians. They are Christians in name and in appearance, yet without the Triune God. (Matt. 13:25; 38; cf. 2 Pet. 2:13-14; 17-22; 2 Tim. 2:16-21)

Ah, yes, but they are still a believer. As you say, they could even be a canal beleiver, just a short step from becoming an unbeliever. the Bible does not make that distinction. You are playing judge here and taking God's role and applying to nebulous factors and claiming you know what constitutes a "true believer'. In reality the only 'true' believer is a dead believer who has entered heaven and has been given the inheritance of the promise for being faithful.

Matt 13:25, the parable of the sower, is a clear depiction which sinks OSAS. Only the very first example, the seed falling on the road, where birds ate it, depicts outright rejection of the gospel heard, the seed. All the others were believers in some stage fo growth. But believer they all were. Some just never took root, but dried up. Some got pushed aside by the cares/pleasures of this world, but those that were growing, maintained health, (faith) bore fruit. Some believers, even bear fruit for a time before they fall away. We are not to pluck those tares either, for they may only appear tares but might just be look-a-likes or could actually be authentic believers with some more help. Every one of those parables is teaching believers to be aware of the trial, tribulations, sin, temptations that come do not cause them to lose faith.

II Pet 2:13-14, To bad you did not read verse 15. you have your answer. They are indeed fallen beleivers, strayed. But you would say they strayed from unbelief? Hardly, they were believer, full-blown believers.

II Tim 2:16-21 Same thing. Paul even puts names to the false teachers. Teachers who were within the Body of Christ, beleivers. Believers who thought that they could self interpret scripture, that they knew more than the apostles. It even tells you here that Christ knows who are his. We don't need to make that judgement. They are or were in the Body of Christ, they are either hidden or become manifest. See Heb 6 for that example.

The biblical definition of who constitutes a believer, who is a member of the Body of Christ, is one who is baptised. One who has put on Christ, has been illumined. See Rom 6 the baptism chapter.

A true follower of Christ is one who follows Him because he is "of Him." Everybody knows the difference between having another life and being obedient to that life, and not having the life of God at all and simply following out of intellectual agreement. Going to church does not make one a Christian. Yet there are perhaps millions of people in the world that go to church because they believe it's "the right thing to do."

I cannot disagree with you on what you say here. But the Bible never says that you are the judge and final determiner of who is or who is not a True beleiver. That is left to God. That is why there will be many in that day, that He will say, I never knew you. They will be those intellectuals and church goers possibly.

But everyone that has fallen was a follower of Him, truly and authentically for a time. He was accepted by God. God gave to that person the Holy Spirit, as Romans 6 clearly points out as a result of baptism.

What the Lord spoke about was those being faithless, those not having faith at all in the first place. The endurance of the saints produces eternal rewards, it does not produce salvation itslf. Salvation is secured the moment someone believes into the death of Christ.

You find any verse that confirms what you say here. I do not know of a single verse in a probable amount close to 200 that any were referring to those who never had faith. None, not a single one is addressing unbelievers. The endurance of FAITHFUL saints produces more than just rewards. It is eternal life with God forever, plus the rewards. You will not get any rewards if you do not win the prize, Christ.

We are saved through faith. Thus faith is the journey, not the end. It is a means to that end. Inheriting the promise upon faithfulness. Find me any text that says we are not saved through faith. Or you can also do the inverse, find me any text that says we will also be saved by either faithlessness, or being unfaithful, or no faith?

Salvation is secured the moment someone believes into the death of Christ.

Yes, this is so. It is very scriptural. But if you only take it this far you are missing about 80% of the NT which spends an inordinate amount of ink explaining to you that you must endure, must remain in Him, must abide, must maintain that initial faith, must not depart that faith and etc, etc, etc. Our initial faith is but a security against the whole. It is no different than any other kind of covenant. Both parties must fulfill the contract. If you make a downpayment on our house and take a mortgage for the balance, do you own the house? Can you lose that house? Can you lose it if you miss a years payment on that mortgage? Is the bank just going to look at you and say, well that is ok, you paid a little, (beleived for a short time) we will award you the house anyway.

I think you think you can take advantage of God, if you think He will award you eternal life with Him on just a simple ascent of faith, and never be held accountable for that faith for the duration.

Then that ability to make the determination - with or without the gift is superior to the gift itself - if that is true. Eternal life is either eternal or it is not.

First, part of that gift you cannot reject. Eternal life is granted to all men. No one will perish as a result of death, the judgement against Adam. Now, what is in question, is where you will spend eternal life. Will you be with Christ or without Him. That is the gift, the union and communion that He is offering to you freely. He created you just so you could make that choice, He saved you from the fall, so you could be restored to be able to make that choice. That work, you cannot do anything about. But the fact He created you specifically to make that free choice of BEING IN HIM or outside of HIM. That is the question. God does not force you. Why would He? He created Adam free to make that choice. Adam plunged mankind into death which precluded that choice, but thanks be to Christ, He saved us from destruction and the bondage to death and sin. You may not like it the way He created you, saved you, but that is what He has revealed to you. You will make a choice, whether you think you do or not. It is not a passive one.

It has the power to save absolutely or it does not.

It has absolutely. So absolutely that not a single human being has been left to die permanently. All of mankind will be raised the last day. All have been redeemed from the fall. Christ is the first born of the dead. None will be left in the grave. All WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. Just how weak is that salvation?

If God's power to save is greater than man's flawed ability to choose Good (which it is), then there is no choice involved at all. God cannot be all-merciful and all-powerful if His eternal life (Which is His nature) is limited by man's flawed ability to choose.

There is no flaw, only in your understanding of the Gospel. Man was created to be in union, communion with God. Adam was talking, working, with God in the Garden. It was the intent of God to have a creature that was free to work, willingly with Him. He did not want an inanimate tool, He did not create you as a puppet. He wanted mutual, loving, obedient creatures to work with Him. That is what we fell from due to the fall. We are not being saved from this, but saved to do this. This is the salvation of your soul. Fortunately, for you, God thought it very desireable not to let any be detroyed by death. He desires that all be saved, soul saved, so He restored mankind to and eternal existance, immortality, just so we could fulfill our created mandate. Therefore the choice willingly, desireously made, but also consequences for rejection. Eternal life apart from Christ. We are being held responsible for that choice. It is all about the choice. Freely made, willingly follow Him, being obedient to His will. He does not force our will by His will. He cannot, since His will created us free.

Edited February 21, 2007 by Thaddaeus

[Thaddaeus]

Cardcaptor,

I cannot add anything to your post #1213. I surely could not have given a better statement. I concur fully with it.

[Thaddaeus]

pabrain,

My comment is.

Verse 40, in no way alters what is said in verses 37-39. Just what do you think is meant by the expression, "All that the Father gives me", does this body of persons consist of those who will, and also those who wont accept Him?, How can Jesus "by no means cast out", those in that group who will not accept Him?

It alters it to the extreme. These verses are not duplicates, redundant.

Vs 39 is referencing the work of Christ on the Cross. Christ is the redeemer of the World. He redeemed mankind from death. All mankind was given to Christ. Or the vernacular, He saved all of mankind from the fall. From the judgment of Adam, death. This relates to a lot of verses that support this including Rom 11:32, Rom 5:18-19, I Cor 15:20-22. Col 1:20 speaks of Christ reconciling the world. How could this possibly contain any kind of limitation on His saving work.

All men will be raised in the last day.

Then verse 40 makes the distinction from general to particular. To those that see and beleive. They will also be raised but also inherit everlasting life. The life with Christ.

I asked you, "Is Jesus able to do His Fathers will, yes, or no?". If you answer "no", then you are insulting my Lord and saviour Jesus, if you answer "yes", then you are proving my point.

you were making this comment to Vicki, but what it shows is that you have a total misunderstanding of scripture. The real point is, Jesus is doing the will of His Father, are you doing the will of Him as well? He is not going to make the choice that you follow Him. He commanded that you do so, continually.

[Thaddaeus]

Smalcald,

But Thaddius, where would we be today without the Reformation? Christianity today would look like Catholicism looks in most of Western Europe, pretty much dead.

And the reformation is alive? I might agree that it is alive, but like an ameba, growing, growing and growing until it will fall in on itself from the sheer weight of conflicting gospels.

Certainly there was and is a cost to opening the bible, to opening the Gospel to all individuals not shutting it up and hiding it and you point that cost out well. But there is a great great benefit, and that is true lasting faith, which can only come from direct access to the Word of God and the Holy Spirit working that faith in us, this is what preserves the Word and the faith.

The Bible and the Gospel are not the same. The Bible is only the written portion of that Gospel.

I don't question the work of the Holy Spirit, even as a protestant. I would not be where I am today without protestantism. But it led me to the True Faith. You may disagree, and discount that, but that is the conviction of the Holy Spirit in my life. But neither that part, the written, confirms or gives individuals the permission to interpret, that is determine what that Gospel means. That was done by the Holy Spirit, given to the Apostles. That perogative is reserved for Christ Himself. He imparted His authority to the Apostles, they inturn to subsequent individuals, making up His Body. They received ALL Truth. They imparted that Truth, verbally for several decades, established practicing Churches all over the Roman Empire at that time. They recorded some, ONLY, because they could not personally travel back to those Churches. Thus, every single Book of the NT, except Romans was written on the basis that the subject had already heard, had been practicing Christianity for some time. That written was considered inspired, as much as the Oral teachings from which it originated. That Gospel is preserved in and through the saints, being indwelt by the Holy Spirit within the Body of Christ. It has retained that same Truth with consistancy since the Beginning. You can trace it from one century to the next unchanged.

The Gospels were the very last Books written. They are also the historical record of the life with Jesus on this earth, as the writers were taught and witnessed.

How many Orthodox around the world today read the bible or attend mass on a regular basis? Certainly I understand the yearning for ancient tradition and there are many good believers in your ranks, and yes God has used them, but faith does not need some sort of human lineage or historical authenticity, it proves itself.

I have no idea, but I do know that individual Orthodox are not any different than any other human beings. They do not have one up on that score. They are no better surely, but they also will be accorded much severer punishment for either rejection or not being faithful to that One True Faith. You may like to believe that it does not need either lineage or authenticity but the Bible portrays that as necessary. Paul gives adament instructions to Timothy on that very point. The laying on of Hands is that transfer in Human terms the Power of the Holy Spirit which He promised to His Church. Christ is Head of that Body, the Holy Spirit works only within that Body, made up of Believers.

You may be willing to condone all the myiad truths that have been developed since the 16th century. You might even be willing to condone all the changes made within the Roman Catholic Church as well. I was simply unwilling to consider that the Holy Spirit could be so confusing. That if what He actually stated in Scripture, was True, and I had put my faith in Him, then I should accept that along with that faith. If He did indeed preserve that Gospel, the All Truth, from the Beginning as stated in Jude 3 with the same unity as He prayed for in John 17, then I should accept that with that same faith as well. If I did not believe so, then all else is moot and vainglory.

I would rather have seen us still be one, but for whatever reason it was not to be, and God allowed this division to happen for good reasons, I see the proof of those reasons every day as the Gospel continues to spread.

If you see reasons, you must have special insight, because the Bible clearly states Christ is not divided, nor will there be many faiths. ONE Faith, ONE Lord, He established His Church for the purpose to assist those IN Him to live faithfully and to preserve that ONCE given Gospel.

The Church has never placed authority in one individual, nor even groups, not even Councils, not even a single Apostle(started with twelve) They all met in Jeruselem to mutually agree on the issue of circumcision. The authority lies in the Body which is Christ, made up of all beleivers from beginning till present. It is the rule of faith, the ONE faith that is preserved in that Body.

But which gospel are you referring to? Gods as He gave it, or all the varied interpretations from only a partial portion of it?

And that goes to an earlier statement in your post: what faith is being preserved?

[Thaddaeus]

apothanein Kerdos,

Augustine, as well as other sects of Christianity taught Eternal Security as early at the 4th and 5th century. Likewise, it didn't become a big issue until Calvin during the Reformation - the reason is the sects of Christianity were too busy arguing against the blood thirsty Catholic Church to cover this issue.

That may be but Augustine's teachings were not ever accepted by the Church. He was not incorrect on some, but whatever good or correct he may have written, was discounted by the several that were not true to the "rule of faith". That Calvin and Luther picked up on it, is for two reasons. He is a western influence and both Calvin and Luther were Augustinians. They were well taught. You might also note that Augustine is also, often called the Father of the Roman Catholic Church as well. Many of the false teachings I am referring to were influencial in several of the new dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, developed by subsequent individuals.

But, no teachings of a single person, makes Church doctrine, at least not in the Orthodox and ancient Holy Tradition of the Apostles.

[Thaddaeus]

Ovedya,

Then the question is, after the fall did man retain his perfect free will? Or did the fall corrupt every aspect of man's being?

He retained his will, now no longer good. But man still was able to use that will. Man still had an innate sense of the divine. See Rom 1. The problem is that man invariably converted it to worshipping something other than the True God.

The bigger problem, is that unless God would send a redeemer, to save mankind, all the free will in the world, even perfect free will, would not have saved mankind, nor what it was purposed for, to be in union and communion with God. Man was through Adam's judgment headed to inevitable death. Death precludes any kind of union, even temporary, communion in this life, which God did have with man, as recorded in the OT.

But Christ redeemed mankind, restored our human natures to immortality. Now man had an eternal existance. But he also still had a fallen nature in this life. Thus God promised a lot of help, He, the Father would teach all men, All would be called to repentance. He poured out the Holy Spirit upon ALL flesh, so that they Holy Spirit could work that conviction in all men. The salvation from the fall, freed mankind from the bondage to death and sin, so that we could freely choose between having an existance with Christ or absent from Him.

[Openly Curious]

What we are saying is that it's foolish not to consider the teaching of those who are wiser than ourselves. This is Scriptural.

I think according to scripture that a wise person will increase their knowledge as they are teachable but a foolish person will not. I consider the things that I hear and weigh them with the scriptures. But I also know that God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise. So my ear is also open to the uneducated who seem to be unwise and foolish in this world's eyes and minds. I would be a fool not to be open to everyone in order to learn as I am one who can learn from everyone I am in contact with even if that sounds foolish and not found in textbooks. There is a wisdom that comes from God a friend recently told me and that is what I am reaching out to attain. I do think I consider what I'm told but that doesn't mean one has to accept every view point from those in whom think themselves to be the wisest among us.

This is what happens when we approach the Scriptures with presuppositions So far, on all three accounts (Hosea, Israel and Jonah) you have ignored what is blatantly obvious:

I however did not ignore everything that was blantantly obvious as I responded to this in a previous post and I'll do so here again.

1.Gomer rebelled, Hosea pursued her. Hosea FORCED her to return to him.

2. Israel rebelled, God pursued her. God FORCED Israel to return to Him.

3. Jonah rebelled, God pursued him. God FORCED Jonah to obey Him.

First off you keep using the word "forced" but provide no scripture to back this claim up as Hosea did not "force" his wife Gomer to "return" to him. Gomer returned of her own freewill and Hosea lovingly took her back in his arms even though she went astray.

Second, Israel as a nation was in rebellion against God's covenant they were not obeying it as they broke the covenant with God they had entered into with God as they said that they would obey but they stopped obeying you can read this in Exodus 24:3-8; & Hebrews 9:19-20 concerning where they had agreed to the terms of God's covenant. Israel rebelled many times over breaking God's covenant. God used the voice of the prophets to call His chosen people to repentance and even raised up judges to deliver his people when they got in bondage again because of sin and breaking God's covenant. In all those case never did God "force" anyone to return. You give no scripture to back up your claim of force being used. For repentance has to come from a willing heart to return after one realizes the error of their ways and this can be learned through God's chastisement but even after chastisement one can still remain stiffnecked and hard towards God and not return. But God never forces us to return unto Him but bids us "come" and whoo's us by His gentle spirit to return or be eternally lost. As God said that He was married to the backslidder and He is longsuffering not willing that any should perish. God also said that He would heal our backslidding as He can remove the things the sins that are in between our relationship with God and reconcile us back together. But if one does not want to be reconciled then that is there free will choice as God will not force one to come to a place of repentance.

Third, Jonah did rebell against what God wanted him to do and that was to go preach to Nineveh the capital city of Assyria being a Gentile nation as Jonah was to go preach repentance unto salvation unto them. As Jonah was the sign that was given as a type and shadow of Christ who would be in the heart of the earth three days and nights and be resurrected the third day and salvation would be preached unto the Gentiles nations as well as to the Jews as the Jews rejected Messiah and as a result salvation came unto the Gentiles in order that God's glory would fill the earth. God never forced Jonah to obey Him as Jonah went willingly of his own accord after the fish spit him up on the shore as once again God used Jonah as a sign of salvation message going to the Gentile nation as a result of Israel's rejection.

In each case there was willful disobedience, rebellion, and complete rejection of God. In each case, the covenant was not dependent upon the obedience of the person/persons involved. In each case, GOD fulfilled the covenant...by force when necessary. Same with Abraham. God inacted the covenant, and God fulfilled the covenant Himself (even when Abraham tried to do it on his own, producing Ishmael).

In each case there was wilfull disobedience, rebellion but I do not agree to the fact of all three cases having a complete rejection of God. As Jonah repented and went to Nineveh and they repented and was spared judgment. Gomer was restored in her marriage as Hosea took her back in willingly. I do not think you understand covenants by what you say as a covenant is always between to parties and both parties agree to abide by the terms of the covenant made between them and it was always sealed by blood. A covenant is always based on the obedience of both parties or it is broken it becomes a breach of promise as was the case in Numbers 15:34. A covenant is never fulfilled by force either one keeps their end of the bargain or they do not if they do not then the covenant is broken between them it's that simple. But when a covenant is entered into always there was a death that had to be made a sacrifice and it was the blood that made it binding. The old covenant was sealed by blood with Moses. The covenant of promise was sealed by blood with Abraham and the new covenant was sealed with the blood of Christ. God's covenant had conditions and criteria that had to be met by those who entered into covenant with God. It was Jesus Christ who fulfilled the covenant with Abraham and all born again believers are heirs of the promise of eternal life which was by promise given to Abraham before the law was given.

If there was no force, why did Gomer return? Was it by her own choice? Has Israel returned to God? Has God abandoned His covenant with Israel in her defiance? Again, you approach the Scriptures through the lens of your presupposition (that salvation is conditional). Instead of approaching them with an openness to learn what is true.

Gomer returned because Hosea like God loved his wife even though she went astray from him being unfaithful Hosea took her back in and sought her out there was no force only love. Gomer did come back of her own choice willingly. Unfortunately Israel has not entirely come back to God but there are those who are of the Jews still being saved today as the salvation message is also going out to the Gentile nations as well. In the book of Numbers 15:34 you see where God did abandon His covenant with that generation and was grieved with them for forty years in the wilderness. As they broke the covenant with God and God did not honor his part of the covenant with them as a result of their unbelief and God breached his covenant with them. God didn't force them to go in the promise land and take it after they believed the bad report from the ten spies. I do not think you can make any kind of judgment toward me in regards to how I see or approach scriptures nor can you judge my heart to being open to learn what is true.

OC