OSASers choose to reject Jesus’ warnings about losing salvation!

[PrincetonGuy]

Maybe a poor choice of words. We've been told that the regenerate can, by their own actions, lose/forfeit/pick your term salvation. Yet they are sure they are doing whatever necessary to maintain this salvation. And I am wondering how they can be so sure.

I know, as did the Apostle Paul, “whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.” (2 Tim. 1:12)

 

[Jack Terrence]

I know, as did the Apostle Paul, “whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.” (2 Tim. 1:12)

Yet Paul hoped that he would attain the resurrection of the dead.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Moreover, of the five points of theology known today as the five points of Calvinism, the evidence against the point known as the Perseverance of the Saints is the greatest. Not only is there a lack of any evidence that anyone at all, prior to the Protestant Reformation, understood any of the verses or passages in the Bible to teach or support the doctrine, but we have in the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers numerous examples of the teaching of conditional security.

You commit the argumentum ab auctoritate fallacy. Look it up.

 

[OzSpen]

You commit the argumentum ab auctoritate fallacy. Look it up.

Why are you treating us as ignoramuses by not translating the Latin for us? For those who want an English understanding, see: (1) Literature Forum, and (2) Forms of the genetic fallacy.

The argument from authority, that you allege PrincetonGuy is using, is not true. He is asking for information from historical theology to support the OSAS position.

Why don't you produce this historical theology for us instead of producing a false allegation of a logical fallacy? And the fallacy in Latin to boot?

Oz

 

[PrincetonGuy]

You commit the argumentum ab auctoritate fallacy. Look it up.

Let us not confuse an argumentum ab auctoritate with the argumentum ab auctoritate fallacy. An argumentum ab auctoritate is fallacious only when it is misused. I did not misuse it.

 

[DeaconDean]

Google it. Do your own research.

Ham, Just one comment here.

I see the Arminian audience here, keeps demanding proof prior to Augustine.

I must say that the Anti-Nicene fathers are not entirely trustworthy.

Even in their own words, teaching, etc, they conflagulated texts.

Marvin Vincent shows what Patristic quotations are worth:

The habits of the Fathers in quotation were very loose. Having no concordances or indices, or anything resembling the modern apparatus for facilitating reference, and often no manuscript, they were frequently compelled to rely upon memory for their citations. Quoting from memory explains what we so often find, — combinations of different passages, transpositions, and sense-renderings. Though a full summary of the whole gospel life could be composed from the quotations of Justin Martyr, his quotations are careless. He quotes the same passage differently on different occasions. Although he cites written documents, he often quotes from memory, and interweaves words which are given separately by the Synoptists. He condenses, combines, and transposes the language of the Lord as recorded in the Gospel records. Take, for example. Matt. 5:22, 39, 40, 41, and Luke 6:29. In Justin, 1 Apol. XVI, we read τῷ τυπτόντι σοῦ τὴν σιαγόνα πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ τὸν αἴροντα σοῦ τὸν χιτῶνα ἢ τὸ ἱμάτον μὴ κωλύσῃς. ̔́Ος δὲ ἂν ὀργισθῇ ἐνοχός ἐστιν εἰς τὸ πῦρ, παντὶ δὲ ἀγγαρεύοντί σε μίλιον ἀκολούθησον. Here we have several verses massed, apparently from two Evangelists. Luke is literally followed in the first nine words. The order of the Gospel is not observed, and the sense is changed in the words about the coat and the cloke.

Similarly Matt. 5:46 ; comp. Luke 6:27. Justin, 1 Apol. XV: εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τί καινὸν ποιεῖτε; καὶ γὰρ οἱ πόρνοι τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν. Here, instead of "What reward have ye?" Justin has "What new thing do ye do?" For "publicans" he gives "fornicators."

Again, see Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, 4, 36, where Matt. 5:16 is given τὰ ἀγαθὰ ὑμιν ἔργα λαμψάτω, "Let your good works shine."

The Apostolic Fathers are of little value for patristic quotation, since they do not so much quote as blend the language of the New Testament with their own. Fragments of most of the canonical Epistles are embedded in their writings, and their diction is more or less coloured by that of the apostolic books and different passages are combined.

Vincent - History of Textual Criticism

So, we are at another impasse.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Jack Terrence]

The argument from authority, that you allege PrincetonGuy is using, is not true. He is asking for information from historical theology to support the OSAS position.

You should read his post again. He is NOT simply asking for information on historical theology. He is making the assertion that the Ante-Nicene fathers overwhelmingly taught conditional security and expects us to draw the inference that the Perseverance of the Saints doctrine must be erroneous.

Why don't you produce this historical theology for us instead of producing a false allegation of a logical fallacy? And the fallacy in Latin to boot?

Read his post again.

 

[Jack Terrence]

I must say that the Anti-Nicene fathers are not entirely trustworthy.

Even in their own words, teaching, etc, they conflagulated texts.

Exactly!

 

[Jack Terrence]

An argumentum ab auctoritate is fallacious only when it is misused. I did not misuse it.

Uh, you certainly did.

 

[OzSpen]

You should read his post again. He is NOT simply asking for information on historical theology. He is making the assertion that the Ante-Nicene fathers overwhelmingly taught conditional security and expects us to draw the inference that the Perseverance of the Saints doctrine must be erroneous.

Read his post again.

I suggest you return to #252 to read some of the evidence produced by a Presbyterian, John Jefferson Davis, and PrincetonGuy's conclusion:

The results of the search are incontrovertible proof that up until the time of Calvin, the Bible was consistently understood by Christians to teach contrary to what Calvin taught. This could scarcely be more important because, if Calvin correctly understood the New Testament, the New Testament was so very poorly written that no one was able to understand even the doctrine of salvation for 1,500 years; and if that is true, the New Testament was so very poorly written that it cannot possibly be the inspired Word of God but is merely junk literature written by men with extremely poor writing skills. Furthermore, if the New Testament was so very poorly written and thus so very poorly understood, we have absolutely no assurance that anyone correctly understands any of it today. Therefore, we have absolutely nothing upon which to base our Christian faith but 27 books of poorly written junk literature!

He is dealing with 'up until the time of Calvin'.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Ham, Just one comment here.

I see the Arminian audience here, keeps demanding proof prior to Augustine.

I must say that the Anti-Nicene fathers are not entirely trustworthy.

Even in their own words, teaching, etc, they conflagulated texts.

Marvin Vincent shows what Patristic quotations are worth:

Vincent - History of Textual Criticism

So, we are at another impasse.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Dean,

The information reaching us is that the Apostles personally instructed early church fathers such as Ignatius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp. So did these church fathers get it so wrong that their writings cannot be trusted?

From some of the excellent issues you have raised, we need to understand that these church fathers did not have the tools that we have in the 21st century, not the least of these being a copy of the full NT before them. Many of them were relying on oral tradition and oral teaching. Even retaining information on papyrus or velum was not always a possibility.

I wonder how any one of us would do if we had to rely on memory and memorisation to retain our knowledge of Scripture and biblical teaching.

Oz

 

[DeaconDean]

nm

 

[Hammster]

Tens of millions of man hours have been spent investigating the teachings of Calvin, and today we have hugely more evidence that his theology was aberrational than we have evidence that the teachings of Charles Taze Russell and the teachings of Joseph Smith were aberrational. This research has been published in hundreds of thousands of documents in scores of languages. Nonetheless, both Russell and Smith have millions of followers who are just as sure of the truth of their beliefs as are Calvinists sure of the truth of their beliefs. This is not to say that Calvinism is outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity, but only that the quantity of evidence against the truth of Calvinism is hugely greater than the quantity of evidence against the truth of the teachings of Russell and Smith.

Moreover, of the five points of theology known today as the five points of Calvinism, the evidence against the point known as the Perseverance of the Saints is the greatest. Not only is there a lack of any evidence that anyone at all, prior to the Protestant Reformation, understood any of the verses or passages in the Bible to teach or support the doctrine, but we have in the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers numerous examples of the teaching of conditional security.

Here's the irony. For the last few months I've been spending time in the Unorthodox area talking to Mormons. Their theology is the same as Arminians when it comes to salvation, with very few differences.

But besides that little fact, the rest of what you've said is just fluff. They are just grand claims. And since it came on the heels of post telling jan to do the research, it makes it look like you're afraid he might, and you want to wave him off.

I think he should read the writings from Orange and come to his own conclusions. He won't agree with them. But he'll at least see that this isn't a late view.

 

[DeaconDean]

Inconsistancy in the writings of the early church fathers:

Shepherd of Hermas - Some have claimed that the writer of the Pastor of Hermas or Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 155-180) believed that a Christian could lose his or her salvation and quoted the following passage,

They only who fear the Lord and keep His commandments have life with God; but as to those who keep not His commandments, there is no life in them. Shepherd of Hermas, 2.7 (A.D. 155).

Another passage seems to say the same thing,

And he said, “If you do not guard yourself against [anger], you and your house lose all hope of salvation . . . Hermas. Pastor of Hermas. Book 1.4.1.

But just a few sentences away we read this,

“Hear now,” said he, “how wicked is the action of anger, and in what way it overthrows the servants of God by its action, and turns them from righteousness. But [anger] does not turn away those who are full of faith, nor does it act on them, for the power of the Lord is with them. Hermas. Shepherd of Hermas. Book 1-2, Commandment Fourth, Chap. 1.

This passage reveals that the author of the Shepherd of Hermas did not believe that a true Christian could lose his salvation.

Source

Oh well, out to supper with my lovely wife.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[OzSpen]

nm

What does that mean?

 

[OzSpen]

Here's the irony. For the last few months I've been spending time in the Unorthodox area talking to Mormons. Their theology is the same as Arminians when it comes to salvation, with very few differences.

That's inflammatory. Please demonstrate your claims by providing evidence for Mormon soteriology with its alleged 'same as Arminians when it comes to salvation'. It's time to confess up and not just make an assertion.

Make sure you include the Mormons vs Arminians on justification by faith and substitutionary atonement.

 

[Hammster]

That's inflammatory. Please demonstrate your claims by providing evidence for Mormon soteriology with its alleged 'same as Arminians when it comes to salvation'. It's time to confess up and not just make an assertion.

Make sure you include the Mormons vs Arminians on justification by faith and substitutionary atonement.

I can link to the threads, if you'd like. Or maybe you can venture over there yourself and engage them.

www.christianforums.com/f130/

 

[OzSpen]

I can link to the threads, if you'd like. Or maybe you can venture over there yourself and engage them.

www.christianforums.com/f130/

That is not what I asked for. Here is what I asked:

Please demonstrate your claims by providing evidence for Mormon soteriology with its alleged 'same as Arminians when it comes to salvation'. It's time to confess up and not just make an assertion.

Make sure you include the Mormons vs Arminians on justification by faith and substitutionary atonement.
​

It is you who is making the claim.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

That is not what I asked for. Here is what I asked:

Please demonstrate your claims by providing evidence for Mormon soteriology with its alleged 'same as Arminians when it comes to salvation'. It's time to confess up and not just make an assertion.

Make sure you include the Mormons vs Arminians on justification by faith and substitutionary atonement.
​

It is you who is making the claim.

Oz

I'm just telling you my experience. Discussing Soteriology with them is like discussing it with Arminians who actually discuss it.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Here's the irony. For the last few months I've been spending time in the Unorthodox area talking to Mormons. Their theology is the same as Arminians when it comes to salvation, with very few differences.

For the past few years, I have been studying Mormon soteriology, and there are no similarities between Mormon soteriology and the soteriology taught by Arminians—whose theology I have been researching for 18 years and teaching for 11 years.

But besides that little fact, the rest of what you've said is just fluff. They are just grand claims. And since it came on the heels of post telling jan to do the research, it makes it look like you're afraid he might, and you want to wave him off.

It is in the posts by Hammster where we are reading outrageous claims and refusals to provide any documentation for the claims. It is in the posts by Hammster where we find an absence of evidence of familiarity with either the teaching of James Arminius or the teaching of John Calvin.

I think he should read the writings from Orange and come to his own conclusions. He won't agree with them. But he'll at least see that this isn't a late view.

Implying that in the writings from the Council of Orange we find the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints is a seriously false and slanderous implication. Moreover, the writings from the Council of Orange have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and suggesting that anyone should read them at this time is disingenuous.