- Nov 28, 2003
- 23,736
- 14,179
- 59
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
How do you figure that about the EO? Antioch was established before Rome, as were most of the Churches in Asia Minor.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How do you figure that about the EO? Antioch was established before Rome, as were most of the Churches in Asia Minor.The majority of today's Christians trace their bishop lineages back to the Roman Church. Even EO.
No.
Too bad you didn't keep reading. It tells us that they fell away because they followed a false gospel.
Think about the consequences of rejecting the Biblical doctrine of eternal security for a moment. If we could really lose our salvation, then Hebrews 6:4-6 says that if we ever sin after being saved, we'll be lost forever with no way back, because the Lord would have to be crucified all over again to retrieve us. BTW, it only takes one sin to fall away, right? I mean, one sin before we're saved was enough to condemn us, so one sin after we're saved is enough to condemn us, right? Doesn't this make the New Covenant worse than the Old? Under the Old Covenant, the Israelites were condemned for their actions, but we'd be condemned for our thoughts.
Under the Old Covenant, under the law, the Israelites couldn't murder. We couldn't even be angry. They couldn't commit adultery. We couldn't even have a lustful thought. If you're right, then we lose our salvation by doing less in following the law than the Israelites did!
Is this really the Good News of Jesus Christ? Are these the riches of His Grace, that we have to live in fear of sinning? Are we saved by grace only to be placed under the constraints of an even more severely administered law?
And what of Romans 8:29-30, which says that God predestined those whom He foreknew to be conformed to the image of Christ. If we can lose our salvation and, thus, our conformity to the image of Christ, then does this mean that God's foreknowledge is wrong? That's open theism, which has historically been condemned as heresy by the Church.
How about Jude 24, which says that Christ is able to keep us from falling? If we can lose our salvation, does this mean that Christ is able to keep us from falling, but is merely unwilling? How is that consistent with the Biblical description of Christ?
What do you make of Colosians 3:1-4, which promises that if we have been save, we will appear with Christ in glory? It doesn't say "you might appear with Christ in glory, if you don't lose your salvation". It says "you will appear with Christ in glory". Done deal.
Philipians 1:6 promises us that if Christ has begun a good work in us, that He will finish it. How does He keep that promise if you believe you can lose your salvation?
How do you explain 1 Peter 1:23, which tells us that when we are born again, we are born of incorruptable seed? If we can lose our salvation, then this seed is corruptable and that promise is not true.
Like Colosians 3:1-4, 1 John 3:2 says that we are sons of God now and that when Christ appears, we will be like Him. There is no qualifier. There is no "...if we don't lose our salvation".
Titus 1:2 says that God has promised us eternal life and that He never breaks a promise.
In John 10:27-29, Jesus promises us that He has given us eternal life, that we will never perish, and that we are not only in His hands, but in the Father's hands. How is Jesus' promise in John 10:27-28 consistent with the idea that we can lose our salvation? Is Jesus really incompetent to keep those whom the Father has given Him?
John 5:24 says that if we are saved, we will not come into condemnation but will have eternal life? How can Jesus promise that we will not come into condemnation if He knows we can lose our salvation?
Romans 11:6 tells us that salvation is not by works. If we cannot be saved by works, then how can we lose our salvation by works?
John 14:16-17 tells us that when we are saved, the Holy Spirit indwells us forever. How can the Holy Spirit indwell in us forever if we lose our salvation? Since when does the Holy Spirit dwell in the unsaved?
Ephesians 1:13, 4:30 tells us that we are sealed unto the day of redemption. If we lose our salvation, then how can we still claim to be sealed?
1 Peter 1:4 says that our salvation is "imperishable, undefiled, and unfading". If our salvation is imperishable, how can we lose it? If our salvation is promised by God to be undefiled, how can we defile it?
I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your denial of the Biblical doctrine of eternal security and its logical and Biblical consequences.
Why do some denominations, such as the Church of God, not believe in Once Saved Always Saved, ...
...
even though the Bible clearly outlines that salvation is eternal?
That is, salvation is by grace through faith and it is something that cannot be taken from you.
While I believe that grace covers such Christians and that they are genuinely saved for putting their faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ, it must be somewhat troublesome to think that backsliding will result in you becoming detached from the Lord. It seems like it would hinder someone's growth in the Lord rather than promote obedience.
The thing is that God chooses us and we respond.
He doesn't let go of us once we're a Child of God.
Sometimes it seems like such denominations haven't viewed the Bible in its entire scope, interpreting. What is your take on this subject?
You mean like falling away from the faith by believing heresy. Exactly as I said?
It's clear from all of this that you haven't bothered to understand my position.
If Scripture says, explicitly, that there are those who fall away, become apostate, cease being believing, do we accept what Scripture says or do we explain it away? It would seem that you would suggest we explain it away.
I'm not doubting our security in Christ. I'm not calling into question the indelible promises of God.
I'm saying that when Scripture speaks of the very real possibility of rejecting the faith, then it means the real possibility of rejecting the faith.
Remember, kids, when you have no argument, just demean and insult your opponent.
So, you took one verse out of context in order to make up your own heretical doctrine and that's fine, but because I pointed out that the passage doesn't end with the verse you chose, that means I'm just trying to "explain it away"?
You just said the saved can lose their salvation.
If one rejects the faith, then, by definition, they weren't saved in the first place.
Who saves? according to the Bible.
(This is the basic issue, not all the denominational he said/she said.)
Hello! As far as I can tell, OSAS originated with Calvin in the 16th century. Myself, I'd be skeptical of any doctrine that waited 1500 years before appearing.Why do some denominations, such as the Church of God, not believe in Once Saved Always Saved, even though the Bible clearly outlines that salvation is eternal?...
Good point.Hello! As far as I can tell, OSAS originated with Calvin in the 16th century. Myself, I'd be skeptical of any doctrine that waited 1500 years before appearing.
I don't follow either of those, but I can recognise a gross caricature when I see one. Aren't Christians supposed to keep themselves from bearing false witness?Arminianism, or Finneyism, teaches that salvation is initiated, completed, and kept, by man until he gets bored with it and decides to go off and try something else.
Good point.
Even many Baptist groups (like the Free-Will Baptist) don't hold OSAS as their doctrine.
Hello! As far as I can tell, OSAS originated with Calvin in the 16th century. Myself, I'd be skeptical of any doctrine that waited 1500 years before appearing.
That's not even close to accurate of what those theologies teach. While I do not hold them I was taught them from my youth in the Free-Will Baptist faith. I was always taught that God initiated salvation and that God completed salvation on the Cross.Depends who you ask. The Arminian, or Finneyist, believes man initiates his own salvation. That all man has to do is just say a canned prayer and "accept Jesus as his personal savior". (And don't forget to have the piano player play some nice, soft, emotional music to get the audience good and primed before you tell them "...and now, with every head bowed and every eye closed...")
Whereas, the Reformed believer believes that the elect are chosen from before the foundation of the world, are called via the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit, and regenerated by the Holy Spirit, thus granted the ability to repent and receive Christ.
Reformed theology teaches that salvation is initiated, completed, and kept by God.
Arminianism, or Finneyism, teaches that salvation is initiated, completed, and kept, by man until he gets bored with it and decides to go off and try something else.
That's not even close to accurate of what those theologies teach.
What you posted would be even worse than OSAS.
I'm pretty sure everyone in the 'early churches' thought they were saved.
Might be salvation by reason includes might not be. In the might be saved sects they really don't know, because there is naturally perpetual doubt attached to their status.
s
I posted numerous verses of scripture in defense of the Biblical doctrine of eternal security and the best you can do is "Nuh-uh".
So, really, why should I care what you have to say?
And by denying the Biblical doctrine of eternal security, you call Christ a liar.
I posted numerous verses of scripture in defense of the Biblical doctrine of eternal security and the best you can do is "Nuh-uh".
So, really, why should I care what you have to say?
And by denying the Biblical doctrine of eternal security, you call Christ a liar.
I did not call Christ a liar. I called your definition of two doctrines inaccurate.
Did you miss your coffee this morning?
Read my post again. Then quote where I denied any scripture.
I didn't address any scripture you posted
I said in no uncertain terms you posted a falsehood about two doctrines held by those believing in free will. It wasn't even personal as I'm not of that mindset.
Oh come on now. That is not a logical or even reasonable observation.
squint said:I would consider your sight OK, but somewhat childish and simplistic.
There is a huge difference between, knowing one's current relationship with God, and believing that they can never loose their salvation.I'm pretty sure everyone in the 'early churches' thought they were saved.
Hum... Some (if not all) Gnostic groups did have a OSAS mentality as well.Might be salvation by reason includes might not be. In the might be saved sects they really don't know, because there is naturally perpetual doubt attached to their status.
God being faithful is not questioned by the early Church. Man's faith is another kettle of fish.
We are instructed to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.....not with assurance and pride.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?