can we loose salvation ......

Let's get one thing straight:
Because I believe in eternal security in no way makes me a Calvinist. I am not. But then I am not an Arminian either. One doesn't have to ascribe to one system or the other.
What do you believe in: blue or red?
There are other choices.

 

HP: Have you not made your choice ‘Calvinistic’ when you are in lockstep with the basic tenants of Calvinism? Have you not said yourself in at least one post that you have chosen the Calvinistic model? It seems to me that you did, and very clearly.

What I do not understand is why, holding to the very notions that Augustine was clearly the father of such as original sin, you seem to get upset when I point you to the source. You seem unwilling to admit that there are indeed some men that have made a great impact upon what might be seen as ‘orthodox’ theology, and were novel in their influences. It as if though you are not only ignorant of the power and influence Augustine had upon the Church but as to the heathen notions he introduced and forced by his position and actions upon it. To try and point to another source for the dogma of original sin is simply ludicrous in light of the well established historical evidence. The plain truth is that the Church held to no such notion prior to Augustine. It is good to recognize the father of ones notions. In the case of original sin, Augustine is the father of that notion whether or not you desire to believe the truth of the matter or not.

 

Go back to the discussion. It was about whether or not the sin nature was passed down through the man. You gave three choices, only one of which was Scriptural. The Scriptural one was held by Calvin. Does that make me a Calvinist? NO! Of course not. I just happened to agree with him on one point of doctrine. That does not mean I agree with him on his entire system of theology. A little common sense is in order here.

 

Look at the text

The word is sinner not brother

David

 

I scanned back about 40 posts trying to find what Zenas is referencing in his comment to AgnusD as quoted by you David...

Couln't find what that cryptic post snippet above is referencing

David, A little help please.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Now this is a puzzle. The General Baptists and the Free Will Baptists are also using only the Bible, and they come to the opposite conclusion.

Because learned Christians disagree, can we then declare that "once saved always saved" is a non-essential doctrine?

(The down side of OSAS being non-essential, of course, would be to relegate this aspect of salvation to the level of what color shirt to wear on Sunday morning; but it would allow us to put the issue to rest. However, it does seem that anything with salvation in the title should be up near the top of things where there is only one right answer.)

CA

 

Well said.

Which writings of the early church fathers are you referring to? If I could read the chapter and paragraph from the primary sources myself that would be very helpful.

Thanks.

CA

 

Yes, here is the text:

In this instance "sinner" means backslidden brother. You must read v. 20 in light of v. 19.

 

Clement from his first epistle to the Corinthians in the beginning of chapter eleven says:

That sounds like eternal security to me. They say that this letter was written about 97 A.D.

 

I don't think that was the thinking of the ECF's. It really looks like they just assumed that salvation was something that could be lost, and lost quite easily.

The Didache, ch. 16

Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 10

Justin Martyr, in "Other Fragments of the Lost Writings of Justin": Irenaeus, Against Heresies, v. 26

 

DHK has posted the following quotation from Clement of Rome:

With all due respect, I see nothing about eternal security in this passage. In fact, it clearly indicates that salvation can be lost. Look at it with the highlighting on the last clause:

 

Eternal salvation:
The Lord never leaves us nor forsakes us--the promise given to Lot, as we also see in the epistles of Peter. In spite of his "unrighteous" acts, he was declared just and righteous.

Them that depart from him:
This statement was in contrast to those that surrounded Lot--the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. They were wicked and had never trusted the Lord in the first place though they may have heard of him through Lot. At any rate it refers to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah in its context.

 

HP: I cannot count the times on this list that every believer has been called a sinner, and most go as far as to say if you deny you are a sinner and still sinning you’re a liar. Now you go and try to make a distinction between one being a brother and a sinner.

Let’s see how consistent you are. Are you taking the position that a brother is not a sinner or a sinner cannot be a brother?

 

HP: Where do you see one verse that ascribes ‘unrighteous acts’ to Lot?

 

If you offered your two virgin daughters to be abused all night by homosexuals, would you consider that a "righteous act"?

 

Any other early church fathers with this perspective?

CA

 

HP: I agree that it does not appear with the information that we have that such would have been a righteous act, yet I do not see a Just and Holy God, nor His angels there with Lot, condemning him either. God called Lot just, and God’s testimony weighs in favor of us not having or understanding all that there is to know concerning the incident. Certainly we have no right to condemn Lot, calling him unrighteous, when a Just God does no such thing. If God desires to condemn him, so be it, but who are we, with our limited understanding to add to Scripture with our condemnation of him? Who are we to pass a judgment upon another’s servant when we certainly do not have all the facts? I certainly would hope that you or I would have handled it differently, but again God knows all the circumstances and called him just.

There are several possibilities here. I would again agree that it does not sound good, but I was not there and do not know all of what was said or what transpired. It could have simply been a ploy by Lot, knowing that they were homosexuals and would not be interested anyway, yet he would be seen as trying to appease them in some way. He could have been told by the angels to do as he did, or he could have been operating on faith that the angels would not allow anything evil to come of his offer. At any rate, no harm came to his daughters and they escaped with Lot from the city, did they not?

 

Unfortunately almost all the ECF write in such an ambiguous manner that their writings can be taken either way. For example a good case for OSAS can be made from this quote of Justin Martyr:

 

HP: That certainly is not a quote in agreement with the OSAS’ers I listen to on this list. Justin Martyr sounds more like those that are told they believe in salvation by works than a OSAS'er. We are constantly told are works have nothing to do with our salvation and nothing we can do to loose it. Here Justin Martyr states he has proved to God by their good works, while the OSAS’ers tell us that we are all liars (remember DHK?) and all remain as sinners, failing to do that which we desire to do and doing that which we detest.

Sorry DHK, you are going to have to try again if you are going to pin OSAS on an ECF antecedent to Augustine.

 

HP: How can this sound like eternal security to you when he specifically is making mention of the clear possibility of “departing” from the Living God? You have to know God to depart from Him.