Question about why the early church didnt believe in biblical doctrine

Neostarwcc · Sep 27, 2019

So I'm evangelizing to an unbeliever and was asked a really good question that I cannot answer as I don't really know much about the early church. He asked if Christ and the apostles taught Eternal Security and the fact that you couldn't lose your salvation and a majority of the five points of Calvinism than why wasn't this believed by the early church and not even Luther himself? Why did it not become a majority belief until AFTER the reformation in the 18th century? I honestly don't have an answer for him. Why did the early church reject what Christ and the apostles taught? Why did it take almost 1,700 years for the right doctrine to emerge despite scripture being the same for centuries?

For those of you who don't believe these things are taught in the Bible how do you explain away VERY clear statements made by Christ and the apostles? I've already given the scriptures over and over again in my previous threads. I'm sorry, but when God says that the Holy Spirit will live inside of us for forever I BELIEVE HIM! When God says that none that the father gives to Jesus will be lost, I BELIEVE HIM! When Paul says that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit upon our salvation GUARANTEEING what is to come, I believe God. When Peter says that we are born of INCORRUPTIBLE seed and kept secure by the power of God, I believe him! When the writer of Hebrews says that by Christs sacrifice we are perfected for ALL time I believe them!

Imo to say that a born again believer can become unborn again by leaving the faith is calling God and the apostles LIARS! Because they say the exact opposite ALL throughout scripture! But you can go ahead and try to twist the word of God into saying whatever you want it to. I on the other hand, will rest in Gods promises.

Anyway I had to rant about that sorry. Back on topic though. Why didn't the early church actually bother picking up their bibles for almost 2,000 years? Why did the teachings of Christ and the Apostles die away?

Not David · Sep 27, 2019

Maybe because Eternal Security is not what the Bible authors wrote and what people added later.

timothyu · Sep 27, 2019

Maybe you and others assume that 'being in the faith' automatically means you are chosen.

St_Worm2 · Sep 27, 2019

Hi @Neostarwcc, one place to begin your research might be with St. Augustine and donum perseverantiae (the gift of final perseverance).

--David

.

com7fy8 · Sep 27, 2019

Neostarwcc said:
So I'm evangelizing to an unbeliever and was asked a really good question that I cannot answer as I don't really know much about the early church. He asked if Christ and the apostles taught Eternal Security and the fact that you couldn't lose your salvation and a majority of the five points of Calvinism than why wasn't this believed by the early church and not even Luther himself?

If you want to know what Jesus Christ's church has been doing, you can read what Paul and Jude and James and John have written > the obedient church has always lived and loved, like this. But these gentle and humble people possibly never have been reported in historical records. My opinion is their main pursuit has been personal with God, and they did not let themselves get sidetracked with public arguing and warring and bloodshed about doctrine and practices (2 Timothy 2:4). All that fighting was outside their realm > they ministered quietly and by example >

1 Timothy 2:1-4

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

Possibly > my opinion > these were not busy with arguing about who is the world religious leader, or if you could lose your salvation or not; but they were busy with reaching souls for Jesus and ministering for us to be conformed to the image of Jesus. Our doctrinal belief system is not our image or identity!! How we become because of Jesus in us is getting our attention, much more than public conforming.

And Jesus' sheep do not follow tyrants and other unqualified and immature people. Our Apostle Paul is clear about what qualifies a man just to be considered to be trusted with the "care of the church of God" > see 1 Timothy 3:1-10. You can see for yourself if these standards were met by different more publicly known individuals and groups who have claimed to be the early church.

So, I would say the obedient leadership has been first with their attention to how to become conformed to Jesus and how to personally submit to how our Heavenly Father rules us in His own peace >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

This is what we "in one body" are all called to and we have been doing this, as Christ's obedient . . . all along. But ones have called attention elsewhere, and claimed they were the church, but they have not first made a point of talking about and ministering how to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and how to become conformed to the image of Jesus and how to personally submit to how God rules each of us in our "hearts" > Colossians 3:15. Attention to this, I would say, is the first priority of where an approved leader leads our attention. And I think anyone who knows history and ones claiming to be Christian leaders can see if each one has clearly done this or not.

I would say do not let someone decoy your attention elsewhere. An unsaved person is possibly going to give you decoy questions, and needs you to help guide him or her to get on track.

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 27, 2019

Neostarwcc said:
So I'm evangelizing to an unbeliever and was asked a really good question that I cannot answer as I don't really know much about the early church. He asked if Christ and the apostles taught Eternal Security and the fact that you couldn't lose your salvation and a majority of the five points of Calvinism than why wasn't this believed by the early church and not even Luther himself? Why did it not become a majority belief until AFTER the reformation in the 18th century? I honestly don't have an answer for him. Why did the early church reject what Christ and the apostles taught? Why did it take almost 1,700 years for the right doctrine to emerge despite scripture being the same for centuries?

For those of you who don't believe these things are taught in the Bible how do you explain away VERY clear statements made by Christ and the apostles? I've already given the scriptures over and over again in my previous threads. I'm sorry, but when God says that the Holy Spirit will live inside of us for forever I BELIEVE HIM! When God says that none that the father gives to Jesus will be lost, I BELIEVE HIM! When Paul says that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit upon our salvation GUARANTEEING what is to come, I believe God. When Peter says that we are born of INCORRUPTIBLE seed and kept secure by the power of God, I believe him! When the writer of Hebrews says that by Christs sacrifice we are perfected for ALL time I believe them!

Imo to say that a born again believer can become unborn again by leaving the faith is calling God and the apostles LIARS! Because they say the exact opposite ALL throughout scripture! But you can go ahead and try to twist the word of God into saying whatever you want it to. I on the other hand, will rest in Gods promises.

Anyway I had to rant about that sorry. Back on topic though. Why didn't the early church actually bother picking up their bibles for almost 2,000 years? Why did the teachings of Christ and the Apostles die away?

The early church had just the Old Testament for about the first 25 years of its existence before the first letters of Paul were circulated. Peter, Paul and the Apostles taught about Jesus from the Old Testament. The focus was getting Jews and pagans converted to Christ.

The teachings of Christ and the Apostles didn't die away. There are successive writings of the church fathers which kept the teaching of Christ and the Apostles in front of believers one generation after another. When the church evolved into the Roman Catholic Church, the teaching was put into the hands of priests, and the Bible was written mainly in Latin which only the priests who were educated in Latin could read the Bible. Consequently for 1000 years, ordinary people had no access to the Bible, because, firstly, copies were handwritten, so there were so few of them, and there may have been only one copy in a church and that was held by the priest.

It was only when Luther, in the Reformation, along the invention of the printing press, that more copies of the Bible were printed, and Luther had the Bible translated into German, printed and circulated. Godly men were burned at the stake because they translated the Bible and circulated in opposition to the policy of the church, and to do that was, in those days, a capital offence. Then the English Reformers translated the Bible into English, which resulted in the King James Version. It was called the Authorised version because it was authorised by the King of England, after the Roman Catholic church lost its dominance in England through King Henry VIII who broke from Rome and formed the Church of England (which at that time was Catholic, but with its own Archbishop instead of being led by the Pope of Rome).

Starting with the Reformation, the original teaching of Christ and the Apostles was successive being restored to the Reformed churches, starting with Justification by Faith alone in Christ. Luther was not a systematic theologian, but John Calvin was, and he put the first Reformed systematic theology together in an organised form. True, it wasn't perfect, but Calvin was a man of his time, and his theology was ground-breaking at the time. Contrary to some opinions, Calvin's own theology as indicated in his Institutes of Religion, did not have extremist teaching in predestination and election. But some of his followers took that teaching to extremes, which caused not a few problems which exist right up to this day.

The main mission of the Reformers, Calvinists, and Puritans was to teach an alternative to Roman Catholic salvation theology and to show that salvation comes by faith alone in Christ and not, as RCC theology teaches, faith plus works. Also, there was a move right away from the rituals, ceremonies, candles, beads, mediating priests, incense, that was, and still is, an essential part of the Catholic view of the practice of holiness. The Reformed churches also rejected church tradition as equal to Scripture concerning what the Holy Spirit was saying to believers, and placed it second to the overall authority of Scripture (sola scriptura).

That is just a thumbnail sketch of the progress of Christ's and the Apostles' teaching that waned and waxed through the centuries until this day.

I present this just as information from the way I see it, and I am not open to debate about it.

Tolworth John · Sep 28, 2019

Neostarwcc said:
'm evangelizing to an unbeliever and was asked a really good question that I cannot answer....
He asked if Christ and the apostles taught Eternal Security

Yes it is an interesting question, but it is also a red herring. What relevence does that question have for him and his relationship with Jesus.
As for Jesus not teaching eturnal security neither of you have read
John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.

Neostarwcc · Sep 28, 2019

David Cabrera said:
Maybe because Eternal Security is not what the Bible authors wrote and what people added later.

So you keep claiming but yet, have provided zero proof. But, I can try to tackle this issue.

Most of today's modern Bible translations use the oldest manuscripts available to us today (The Codex Alexandrinus copies which are from about 400 AD about 360 years after Christ died) while the KJV or other translations use the Textus Receptus which are from around the 1,500's or so. This is because the Alexandian copies weren't discovered until the 18th century or so, so the KJV translators couldn't have used them. Otherwise, they probably would have used the older copies as well. Which do you think are going to be more "accurate" But, regardless every single bible translation has the verses I quoted in the OP. But, you're claiming that even the earliest copies of the Greek bible that we have were tainted with. It's impossible to disprove your claim because none of the original manuscripts are still around today. But, they WERE around from when Paul and the apostles wrote them (or shortly after their deaths, forgive me idk exactly when the apostles died). So I want you to just use your brain for a moment, don't you think if the Codex Alexandrinus was not the same as the original copies and the scholars of that time hitched a grand scheme to change what Christ and the apostles wrote that other people and scholars would have noticed? That the very CHURCH would have noticed? Especially when you're talking about major changes in how salvation works.

Also, if they were caught doing so that would have been an ultimate heresy and they would have been put to death and also, cursed by God (Revelation 22:18, Deuteronomy 4:2). Most scholars were in fact, Christians and It's highly likely that they had a large fear of God in their hearts. Because if they HAD changed the Bible they could possibly get away with it from man (highly unlikely but possible) but, God would have seen it and don't you think that if God saw his word changed that we would have changed it "back"! So, I find it highly unlikely that scholars messed around with the original manuscripts. Especially when both Paul and Peter made the claim that "ALL scripture is God breathed." they seemed to have "kept" that piece of scripture in *eyeroll*

Don't forget there were also other writings "supposedly" written by Paul, Enoch, Mary Magdeline, and many other famous characters that were ALL rejected around the 2nd century BECAUSE of the original copies of the NT that they had. These writings were contradictory to each other and were not written by "Insert X character here" but instead were written by false random people using popular names in attempts to gain fame. These false people also, were put to death and were likely not Christian but men looking to gain fame.

So no, the Codex Alexandrinus and every earlier copy of the Bible was written down exactly as the apostles recorded them and directly from Christ's revelations. If they were messed around with, people would have noticed and put them to death. Especially when in AD 400 we more than likely still HAD the original copies.

Neostarwcc · Sep 28, 2019

Tolworth John said:
Yes it is an interesting question, but it is also a red herring. What relevence does that question have for him and his relationship with Jesus.
As for Jesus not teaching eturnal security neither of you have read
John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.

Yes, I used several verses to convince him which is why he asked the question. Afaik the believing Jews at the time, still believed in this doctrine as did one of the first

Here's an interesting article I read this morning about the early churches beliefs in salvation:

https://chnetwork.org/2010/03/16/salvation-from-the-perspective-of-the-early-church-fathers/

Neostarwcc · Sep 28, 2019

Oscarr said:
The early church had just the Old Testament for about the first 25 years of its existence before the first letters of Paul were circulated. Peter, Paul and the Apostles taught about Jesus from the Old Testament. The focus was getting Jews and pagans converted to Christ.

The teachings of Christ and the Apostles didn't die away. There are successive writings of the church fathers which kept the teaching of Christ and the Apostles in front of believers one generation after another. When the church evolved into the Roman Catholic Church, the teaching was put into the hands of priests, and the Bible was written mainly in Latin which only the priests who were educated in Latin could read the Bible. Consequently for 1000 years, ordinary people had no access to the Bible, because, firstly, copies were handwritten, so there were so few of them, and there may have been only one copy in a church and that was held by the priest.

It was only when Luther, in the Reformation, along the invention of the printing press, that more copies of the Bible were printed, and Luther had the Bible translated into German, printed and circulated. Godly men were burned at the stake because they translated the Bible and circulated in opposition to the policy of the church, and to do that was, in those days, a capital offence. Then the English Reformers translated the Bible into English, which resulted in the King James Version. It was called the Authorised version because it was authorised by the King of England, after the Roman Catholic church lost its dominance in England through King Henry VIII who broke from Rome and formed the Church of England (which at that time was Catholic, but with its own Archbishop instead of being led by the Pope of Rome).

Starting with the Reformation, the original teaching of Christ and the Apostles was successive being restored to the Reformed churches, starting with Justification by Faith alone in Christ. Luther was not a systematic theologian, but John Calvin was, and he put the first Reformed systematic theology together in an organised form. True, it wasn't perfect, but Calvin was a man of his time, and his theology was ground-breaking at the time. Contrary to some opinions, Calvin's own theology as indicated in his Institutes of Religion, did not have extremist teaching in predestination and election. But some of his followers took that teaching to extremes, which caused not a few problems which exist right up to this day.

The main mission of the Reformers, Calvinists, and Puritans was to teach an alternative to Roman Catholic salvation theology and to show that salvation comes by faith alone in Christ and not, as RCC theology teaches, faith plus works. Also, there was a move right away from the rituals, ceremonies, candles, beads, mediating priests, incense, that was, and still is, an essential part of the Catholic view of the practice of holiness. The Reformed churches also rejected church tradition as equal to Scripture concerning what the Holy Spirit was saying to believers, and placed it second to the overall authority of Scripture (sola scriptura).

That is just a thumbnail sketch of the progress of Christ's and the Apostles' teaching that waned and waxed through the centuries until this day.

I present this just as information from the way I see it, and I am not open to debate about it.

Actually what you said makes A LOT of sense and is the best post so far. Thanks!

Neostarwcc · Sep 28, 2019

com7fy8 said:
If you want to know what Jesus Christ's church has been doing, you can read what Paul and Jude and James and John have written > the obedient church has always lived and loved, like this. But these gentle and humble people possibly never have been reported in historical records. My opinion is their main pursuit has been personal with God, and they did not let themselves get sidetracked with public arguing and warring and bloodshed about doctrine and practices (2 Timothy 2:4). All that fighting was outside their realm > they ministered quietly and by example >

1 Timothy 2:1-4

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

Possibly > my opinion > these were not busy with arguing about who is the world religious leader, or if you could lose your salvation or not; but they were busy with reaching souls for Jesus and ministering for us to be conformed to the image of Jesus. Our doctrinal belief system is not our image or identity!! How we become because of Jesus in us is getting our attention, much more than public conforming.

And Jesus' sheep do not follow tyrants and other unqualified and immature people. Our Apostle Paul is clear about what qualifies a man just to be considered to be trusted with the "care of the church of God" > see 1 Timothy 3:1-10. You can see for yourself if these standards were met by different more publicly known individuals and groups who have claimed to be the early church.

So, I would say the obedient leadership has been first with their attention to how to become conformed to Jesus and how to personally submit to how our Heavenly Father rules us in His own peace >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

This is what we "in one body" are all called to and we have been doing this, as Christ's obedient . . . all along. But ones have called attention elsewhere, and claimed they were the church, but they have not first made a point of talking about and ministering how to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and how to become conformed to the image of Jesus and how to personally submit to how God rules each of us in our "hearts" > Colossians 3:15. Attention to this, I would say, is the first priority of where an approved leader leads our attention. And I think anyone who knows history and ones claiming to be Christian leaders can see if each one has clearly done this or not.

I would say do not let someone decoy your attention elsewhere. An unsaved person is possibly going to give you decoy questions, and needs you to help guide him or her to get on track.

I just figured I'd do some soul winning and if I can bring these people to Christ by answering their questions, all the better! I'm not a pastor though so I don't know everything (Even though I've always wanted to become a pastor. Maybe I'll get a degree in Theology instead of Computer science lol)

com7fy8 · Sep 28, 2019

Neostarwcc said:
if Christ and the apostles taught Eternal Security

I understand they taught it, but not necessarily how ones represent it today. With some people, that is all you hear > no mention of becoming perfected in God's love so that "as He is, so are we in this world" (in 1 John 4:17), for one example > this, by the way, would be another eternal security verse > saying that because we have been perfected in God's own love, we have "boldness for the day of judgment". But there are eternal security people . . . now . . . who say not a word about becoming "as He is" "in this world". But this is clearly given by our Apostle John; so they knew this.

And ones claiming eternal security . . . now . . . can give no attention to personally submitting to how our Father rules us in His own peace, as part of our basic Christian calling > "in one body" (in Colossians 3:15).

Also, when the Thessalonians became saved, Paul says they became "examples" (1 Thessalonians 1:7) . . . not only believers in certain doctrines and practices. They could minister their example of how to live God's word. And we see how the Christian wives could win disobedient husbands, "without a word" > by their example > 1 Peter 3:1-4. Plus, Paul says the Corinthians themselves are "an epistle of Christ" > 2 Corinthians 3:1-3. So, always we have had our people who are the living meaning of God's word, I see from this.

Neostarwcc said:
the Codex Alexandrinus and every earlier copy of the Bible

To my knowledge the Codex was found in Egypt, while the KJV manuscript was functioning in the Greek church; they were found in rather distantly separate locations. So, it is possible, I would say, that killers in Greece would not be enforcing their doctrine and manuscript in Egypt, and vice versa. And Rome, possibly, would not be effective in Egypt . . . and vice versa.

Plus, I understand, the obedient of Jesus were not killing people, in order to force their good example on people. They were gentle and quiet and humble and kind, and they knew the gates of hell can't stop us; so they knew they did not "need" to kill anyone in order to protect God's word. According to what I get through 1 Timothy 3:1-10, our qualified leaders were not into killing. But certain public political leaders could make it seem like they were the exemplary church.

com7fy8 · Sep 28, 2019

Neostarwcc said:
I just figured I'd do some soul winning and if I can bring these people to Christ by answering their questions, all the better! I'm not a pastor though so I don't know everything (Even though I've always wanted to become a pastor. Maybe I'll get a degree in Theology instead of Computer science lol)

Yes, I agree with answering questions, but also help their attention. And yes we can keep learning more. Thank you for making yourself clear

and taking the time to answer.

Neostarwcc · Sep 28, 2019

com7fy8 said:
I understand they taught it, but not necessarily how ones represent it today. With some people, that is all you hear > no mention of becoming perfected in God's love so that "as He is, so are we in this world" (in 1 John 4:17), for one example > this, by the way, would be another eternal security verse > saying that because we have been perfected in God's own love, we have "boldness for the day of judgment". But there are eternal security people . . . now . . . who say not a word about becoming "as He is" "in this world". But this is clearly given by our Apostle John; so they knew this.

And ones claiming eternal security . . . now . . . can give no attention to personally submitting to how our Father rules us in His own peace, as part of our basic Christian calling > "in one body" (in Colossians 3:15).

Also, when the Thessalonians became saved, Paul says they became "examples" (1 Thessalonians 1:7) . . . not only believers in certain doctrines and practices. They could minister their example of how to live God's word. And we see how the Christian wives could win disobedient husbands, "without a word" > by their example > 1 Peter 3:1-4. Plus, Paul says the Corinthians themselves are "an epistle of Christ" > 2 Corinthians 3:1-3. So, always we have had our people who are the living meaning of God's word, I see from this.

To my knowledge the Codex was found in Egypt, while the KJV manuscript was functioning in the Greek church; they were found in rather distantly separate locations. So, it is possible, I would say, that killers in Greece would not be enforcing their doctrine and manuscript in Egypt, and vice versa. And Rome, possibly, would not be effective in Egypt . . . and vice versa.

Plus, I understand, the obedient of Jesus were not killing people, in order to force their good example on people. They were gentle and quiet and humble and kind, and they knew the gates of hell can't stop us; so they knew they did not "need" to kill anyone in order to protect God's word. According to what I get through 1 Timothy 3:1-10, our qualified leaders were not into killing. But certain public political leaders could make it seem like they were the exemplary church.

But the punishment for religious heresy has ALWAYS been death up until a few hundred years ago. The rest of what you said is very helpful and I agree with. Thank you for your advice!

bcbsr · Sep 28, 2019

Neostarwcc said:
Anyway I had to rant about that sorry. Back on topic though. Why didn't the early church actually bother picking up their bibles for almost 2,000 years? Why did the teachings of Christ and the Apostles die away?

Because a little leaven leavens the whole lump. The rise of Catholicism early on was the whole lump being leavened.

com7fy8 · Sep 28, 2019

Neostarwcc said:
the punishment for religious heresy has ALWAYS been death up until a few hundred years ago

I don't see that with Jesus and the New Testament scriptures, though. So, I can see it has not been death done by Jesus Christ's obedient church.

"Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition," (Titus 3:10)

It does not say to kill the person.

renniks · Sep 28, 2019

Neostarwcc said:
So I'm evangelizing to an unbeliever and was asked a really good question that I cannot answer as I don't really know much about the early church. He asked if Christ and the apostles taught Eternal Security and the fact that you couldn't lose your salvation and a majority of the five points of Calvinism than why wasn't this believed by the early church and not even Luther himself? Why did it not become a majority belief until AFTER the reformation in the 18th century? I honestly don't have an answer for him. Why did the early church reject what Christ and the apostles taught? Why did it take almost 1,700 years for the right doctrine to emerge despite scripture being the same for centuries?

For those of you who don't believe these things are taught in the Bible how do you explain away VERY clear statements made by Christ and the apostles? I've already given the scriptures over and over again in my previous threads. I'm sorry, but when God says that the Holy Spirit will live inside of us for forever I BELIEVE HIM! When God says that none that the father gives to Jesus will be lost, I BELIEVE HIM! When Paul says that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit upon our salvation GUARANTEEING what is to come, I believe God. When Peter says that we are born of INCORRUPTIBLE seed and kept secure by the power of God, I believe him! When the writer of Hebrews says that by Christs sacrifice we are perfected for ALL time I believe them!

Imo to say that a born again believer can become unborn again by leaving the faith is calling God and the apostles LIARS! Because they say the exact opposite ALL throughout scripture! But you can go ahead and try to twist the word of God into saying whatever you want it to. I on the other hand, will rest in Gods promises.

Anyway I had to rant about that sorry. Back on topic though. Why didn't the early church actually bother picking up their bibles for almost 2,000 years? Why did the teachings of Christ and the Apostles die away?

You have it backwards.... you are the one getting it wrong.

Not David · Sep 28, 2019

Neostarwcc said:
So you keep claiming but yet, have provided zero proof. But, I can try to tackle this issue.

Most of today's modern Bible translations use the oldest manuscripts available to us today (The Codex Alexandrinus copies which are from about 400 AD about 360 years after Christ died) while the KJV or other translations use the Textus Receptus which are from around the 1,500's or so. This is because the Alexandian copies weren't discovered until the 18th century or so, so the KJV translators couldn't have used them. Otherwise, they probably would have used the older copies as well. Which do you think are going to be more "accurate" But, regardless every single bible translation has the verses I quoted in the OP. But, you're claiming that even the earliest copies of the Greek bible that we have were tainted with. It's impossible to disprove your claim because none of the original manuscripts are still around today. But, they WERE around from when Paul and the apostles wrote them (or shortly after their deaths, forgive me idk exactly when the apostles died). So I want you to just use your brain for a moment, don't you think if the Codex Alexandrinus was not the same as the original copies and the scholars of that time hitched a grand scheme to change what Christ and the apostles wrote that other people and scholars would have noticed? That the very CHURCH would have noticed? Especially when you're talking about major changes in how salvation works.

Also, if they were caught doing so that would have been an ultimate heresy and they would have been put to death and also, cursed by God (Revelation 22:18, Deuteronomy 4:2). Most scholars were in fact, Christians and It's highly likely that they had a large fear of God in their hearts. Because if they HAD changed the Bible they could possibly get away with it from man (highly unlikely but possible) but, God would have seen it and don't you think that if God saw his word changed that we would have changed it "back"! So, I find it highly unlikely that scholars messed around with the original manuscripts. Especially when both Paul and Peter made the claim that "ALL scripture is God breathed." they seemed to have "kept" that piece of scripture in *eyeroll*

Don't forget there were also other writings "supposedly" written by Paul, Enoch, Mary Magdeline, and many other famous characters that were ALL rejected around the 2nd century BECAUSE of the original copies of the NT that they had. These writings were contradictory to each other and were not written by "Insert X character here" but instead were written by false random people using popular names in attempts to gain fame. These false people also, were put to death and were likely not Christian but men looking to gain fame.

So no, the Codex Alexandrinus and every earlier copy of the Bible was written down exactly as the apostles recorded them and directly from Christ's revelations. If they were messed around with, people would have noticed and put them to death. Especially when in AD 400 we more than likely still HAD the original copies.

By "added", I mean interpretation.

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 28, 2019

Neostarwcc said:
I just figured I'd do some soul winning and if I can bring these people to Christ by answering their questions, all the better! I'm not a pastor though so I don't know everything (Even though I've always wanted to become a pastor. Maybe I'll get a degree in Theology instead of Computer science lol)

It's never too late! I gained a Mastorate in English Literature in 1992, and started a Mastorate in Divinity 5 years ago at the age of 66. It took me three years to finish and it was a great journey. It did it online through Nations University, which I thoroughly recommend as a sound Evangelical Bible College. Their ministry is to third world countries, and they don't charge tuition for students from there. But they do charge for selected Western countries. My student advisor became a good friend, and she was just an email away at any time. I thought I knew the Bible, but doing the degree showed me how much I didn't know. The degree also involves aspects of practical worship and ministry, and needs involvement in a local church as part of some of those assignments. My 50 page research assignment was on the ministry of healing, and I got 95% for it! They have a website if you are interested.

The degree gave me a good foundation as an elder and lay-preacher until at the age of 71 I have decided to slow down a bit and position myself on the back row of the church with the backsliders!

BobRyan · Sep 29, 2019

Neostarwcc said:
So I'm evangelizing to an unbeliever and was asked a really good question that I cannot answer as I don't really know much about the early church. He asked if Christ and the apostles taught Eternal Security and the fact that you couldn't lose your salvation and a majority of the five points of Calvinism than why wasn't this believed by the early church and not even Luther himself? Why did it not become a majority belief until AFTER the reformation in the 18th century?

1. I doubt that OSAS is a majority belief among non Catholics.
2. It is not the Bible because it was not taught by Bible writers.
3. OSAS does not pass the "sola scriptura test".

Ezek 18 -- forgiveness revoked -- salvation revoked
Matthew 18 "forgiveness revoked" teaching of Christ - loss of salvation
Matthew 13 - loss of salvation doctrine seen in the teaching of Christ seed sown among thorns
Gal 5:4 you have been "4 You have been severed from Christ, .... you have fallen from grace "
John 15:1-5 "branches in ME" that are cut off and burned in the fire
1 Cor 9:27 "I buffet my body and make it my slave LEST after preaching the Gospel to others I myself should be disqualified from it"
Rom 11 "you stand only by your faith - should FEAR for If He did not spare them He may not spare you either"

Seventh-day Adventists, Pentecostals, most Methodists, Free Will Baptists, some non-denominational churches all teach that a Christian can 'fall from grace' and lose their salvation.

And as Christianity Today pointed out in Feb 2015 Seventh-day Adventists are the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world.

And since you said "the majority belief" and did not limit it to "among evangelicals" or "among protestants" -- then we have to also include the Catholic church in the group of Christians that also do not teach OSAS -- and never did (and I don't think the OC teaches it either).

So your "majority" statement can only be "majority within some select minority"

Neostarwcc said:
So I'm evangelizing to an unbeliever and was asked a really good question that I cannot answer as I don't really know much about the early church. He asked if Christ and the apostles taught Eternal Security and the fact that you couldn't lose your salvation and a majority of the five points of Calvinism than why wasn't this believed by the early church and not even Luther himself? Why did it not become a majority belief until AFTER the reformation in the 18th century? I honestly don't have an answer for him. ...

For those of you who don't believe these things are taught in the Bible how do you explain away VERY clear statements made by Christ and the apostles?

Question about why the early church didnt believe in biblical doctrine

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.

I'm back!

Well-Known Member

Simul Justus et Peccator

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I'm back!

Senior Veteran

Junior Member

Similar threads