Jump to content
Online Baptist
  • 0

Early church eternal security


Question

  • Members


I have a question about eternal security and the early church. 
I have been wondering about this for quite some time, but i just can't find a straight- forward answer. 
I've read many websites, forums, old texts, greek terminology in the Bible, etc. and i just can't find anything that is pro-eternal security, from anywhere in the earliest church age. What my pastor and one of the teachers at my church told me, was that the reason it looked like people didn't believe in eternal security in the early church, was because it didn't fit the Catholic doctrine, which was who was domineering at the time. But, via my research, i have seen that there appears to be no evidence, that anyone taught eternal security before the Catholic church, either. 
Why is this? Can you please help me understand? I just find it hard to believe in it because of this and the fact that in the original greek verb tenses of a lot of the verses used to justify eternal security, actually appear not to. With all of this in mind, plus the verses that seem to say you can indeed, forfeit your salvation, i am just having a hard time understanding this. 
I know also, that it didn't seem to be a thing until the reformation movement with calvinists and stuff. So I'm pretty sure the doctrine was based on the belief of predestination. 
I would really appreciate your feedback. 
Thanks! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Answers 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Posts

Just want to add a couple of things. The Manna is used as an illustration to us - illustrations never teach a new truth, they only support a truth. By this I mean in this instance, the Mann

One thing I do avoid is referring to the Greek and Hebrew.  I have heard many people say, "A little Greek is a dangerous thing."  I am confident that the translators of the King James Bible had a far

You have made a very good point. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard people explain away the plain meaning of the Bible by referring to "the original Greek"; an example of this is where

Recommended Posts

  • 0
  • Members
5 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Simplest ppint to look at is what the Lord calls it - it is "eternal life" and "everlasting life" that God calls it. How can something be everlasting if it doesn't last forever?

How can something be eternal if it can end?

I know this is a simplistic argument, but that doesn't make it an irrelevant argument.

This "simple point" must be answered by those who oppose "eternal" eternal life.

I get it. I know what the eternal means, what was confusing to me, though, was for instance, like in John 3:16, they were saying that in the Greek for believeth, was implying a continuance of beleiving, which they were trying to say meant that if you stopped believing, you would not inherit wternal life, after death. 

I'm much more open-minded to osas, now. I have been given information that makes sense to me. I was just needing some mentoring, on this matter. That's why i find it quite saddening, that people were accusing me of not believing the Bible, i felt like they were saying I was trying to be a heretic or something. I was just trying to get help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Administrators

Another possibly over simplification is this: Whose salvation is it? The answer of course is that it the The Lord's salvation. It is not mine to lose once I have received it. Although "the Greek" can be helpful at times, once we start listening to what others say "the Greek" means, we are getting out of the plain meaning of Scripture. Here is one "for instance" that has no human addition to it:

 John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 
 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 
 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 
 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Roselove,

I apologize for allowing that thought to enter in. Sometimes thoughts are best kept to ourselves until more information is available. In other words I inserted my foot into my mouth. Keep seeking after God in Spirit and in Truth and the answers will come. If not now then, in the life to come. Psalms 69:6b

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
1 hour ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Roselove,

I apologize for allowing that thought to enter in. Sometimes thoughts are best kept to ourselves until more information is available. In other words I inserted my foot into my mouth. Keep seeking after God in Spirit and in Truth and the answers will come. If not now then, in the life to come. Psalms 69:6b

I accept your apology, thank you for saying this

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
8 hours ago, DaveW said:

Simplest ppint to look at is what the Lord calls it - it is "eternal life" and "everlasting life" that God calls it. How can something be everlasting if it doesn't last forever?

How can something be eternal if it can end?

I know this is a simplistic argument, but that doesn't make it an irrelevant argument.

This "simple point" must be answered by those who oppose "eternal" eternal life.

It can be both "everlasting" but also conditional.

It can be "eternal" but receipt of it can be conditional.

No one "opposes" "eternal" life....

They oppose non-conditionality.

Even you don't believe eternal life is granted unconditionally.  You believe that faith in Christ is necessary for receiving that gift to begin with.  The difference is that you view it as a Once-only proposition.

Those who disagree would contend that those who do not continue in the faith will not receive life eternal....

"Eternality" is not even the issue........it's conditionality that is at issue.

The point of the opposing argument is that "eternal" life is granted upon certain conditions.

This "simple point" must be answered by those who oppose "eternal" eternal life.

They don't oppose "Eternal" life...

they oppose a one-time-walk forward during the fifteenth verse of "Just as I am"- then live like the Devil-and believe whatever you want-and discontinue in belief at all-and still be a recipient of Eternal Life- even if you fall away from belief and begin practicing Buddhism.........................kind of Conditionality.................

 

Every verse in the Bible assures BELIEVERS of Eternal Life....No verse assures the "I once believed but have abandoned the Faith".

That's the question....Whether those who genuinely once believed can fall away into disbelief:

 

Luke8:13
 
 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
 
Heb. 6:4
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

 Heb 6:5

And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

 Heb 6:6

If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

 

Edited by Heir of Salvation
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Perhaps I'm too simple-minded in my understanding, reading, and study...

If the Lord Jesus Christ said that no man can pluck us from his (or the Father's hand), then "no man" would include ourselves (John 10:25-30).

That, together with the fact that if someone "goes out from us", it is proof that "they were not of us". If someone leaves the faith, they were never truly in the faith (1 John 2:19).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Perhaps I'm too simple-minded in my understanding, reading, and study...

If the Lord Jesus Christ said that no man can pluck us from his (or the Father's hand), then "no man" would include ourselves (John 10:25-30).

That, together with the fact that if someone "goes out from us", it is proof that "they were not of us". If someone leaves the faith, they were never truly in the faith (1 John 2:19).

 

No one can "pluck" them from the father's hand....

But, who would describe an errant sheep who willingly "leaves" the fold and walks away as having been "plucked"????

You "pluck" an apple off of a tree.

If it's over-ripe, and falls to the ground (of it's own accord).  You do not describe it as having been "plucked".

No one can "pluck" Christ's sheep from the fold...........

That says nothing about whether a sheep can walk away.

And that action cannot reasonably be described as "having been 'plucked' ".

I don't think that verse proves your point....especially in context:

Consider the preceding verse:

Jhn 10:27

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

That is a CONDITION for being a sheep....his sheep "follow" him. (Or that is at least a faithful and fair way to understand the passage).

Conceivably, those who do NOT continue to follow him...are no longer classified as "sheep".

 Jhn 10:28

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

If OSAS is true (and it may very well be) this passage doesn't, I think, prove the point.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
47 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Nice double-talk, but if it can be lost it is not eternal in that instance, and cannot therefore be called eternal until the end.....

In ANY instance........

You seriously just accused me of "double-talk"????

Really?

Because I presented fair arguments....and even conceded numerous points in favour of the OSAS position?

Points I didn't HAVE to concede.

Such as explaining that while it's indeed true  (and it is) that the ancient Fathers don't seem to support an OSAS position....that that should not be of significant concern to Roselove and that the Scriptures themselves should be consulted........

Let's see....

Please see if you can explain in any real detail and without sounding preposterous how I engaged in "double-talk"...

You are acting like precisely what Roselove is complaining about........

Someone genuinely asking questions...and seeking to hear contrary arguments held up with Scripture...

And you just condemn and insult and falsely accuse and scream "heresy".

I may be mistaken.

OSAS may be true...

But I've not engaged in "double-talk".

I presented my argument as fairly and reasonably as possible with my KJV verses quoted:

You responded as you did because.....

Your arguments simply aren't as good as mine......so you defaulted to insult and false accusation.

And you know it.

By the way "double-speak"....is preferable to "double-talk"...if that's what you want to accuse me of...just sayin'

 

Edited by Heir of Salvation
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
27 minutes ago, Heir of Salvation said:

No one can "pluck" them from the father's hand....

But, who would describe an errant sheep who willingly "leaves" the fold and walks away as having been "plucked"????

You "pluck" an apple off of a tree.

If it's over-ripe, and falls to the ground (of it's own accord).  You do not describe it as having been "plucked".

No one can "pluck" Christ's sheep from the fold...........

That says nothing about whether a sheep can walk away.

And that action cannot reasonably be described as "having been 'plucked' ".

I don't think that verse proves your point....especially in context:

Consider the preceding verse:

Jhn 10:27

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

That is a CONDITION for being a sheep....his sheep "follow" him. (Or that is at least a faithful and fair way to understand the passage).

Conceivably, those who do NOT continue to follow him...are no longer classified as "sheep".

 Jhn 10:28

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

If OSAS is true (and it may very well be) this passage doesn't, I think, prove the point.

 

 

 

Hence my inclusion of the verses from 1 John.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
12 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Hence my inclusion of the verses from 1 John.

Maybe...

But preface it with vs. 17 only two verses earlier.................

and it could take on a whole new meaning:

1Jo 2:17

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

That could help to preface vs. 19............since it provides context.

It creates a condition....for who Christ's sheep are...

and mind you John is warning us about heretics who deny Christ...they, I would argue are those who are spoken of.  Genuine "anti-Christs" who deny Christ has come in the flesh.

 

 

 

Edited by Heir of Salvation
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 minute ago, Heir of Salvation said:

Maybe...

But preface it with vs. 17 only two verses earlier.................

and it could take on a whole new meaning:

1Jo 2:17

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

That could help to preface vs. 19............since it provides context.

 

 

 

I think that I agree to an extent (verse 18 appears to start a new line of thought); however, if 18 doesn't start a new line of thought, verse 17 lends even more credence and cements the fact...

No one (including ourselves) can pluck us from his hand. Yet, if one willingly walks away, they certainly weren't "plucked", yet 1 John is clear that if one walks away, they weren't truly saved...in my understanding.

As to verse 17...what is the will of God? I'm not asking you to answer...just giving food for thought. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
16 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I think that I agree to an extent (verse 18 appears to start a new line of thought); however, if 18 doesn't start a new line of thought, verse 17 lends even more credence and cements the fact...

No one (including ourselves) can pluck us from his hand. Yet, if one willingly walks away, they certainly weren't "plucked", yet 1 John is clear that if one walks away, they weren't truly saved...in my understanding.

As to verse 17...what is the will of God? I'm not asking you to answer...just giving food for thought. :)

I don't think your assessment is very far off...

I said before that I am "skeptical" about OSAS, not that I'm dyed-in-the-wool against it.

I'm being treated by some as though I am....but that's another matter.

John provides us the answer though, I think in vs. 22 and I think my initial assessment is correct:

He identifies those "anti-Christs" those who (were not of us)...in vs. 22

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

I am not yet convinced that those who can walk away are those who were never truly believers....

That argument is dangerously close to a "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I don't think all OSAS believers who use that verse are guilty of it, because they believe in an a-priori impossibility of falling away (such as yourself I would guess).

But, I think the context is, frankly....the entire book, not just a few preceding verses...and those spoken of who are "anti-Christ"...who never were "of us"...are, and always were, genuine non-believers....wolves in sheep's clothing...not those who may have genuinely believed and have abandoned the faith.

The non-OSAS position (the only reasonable one) provides that a person who may have GENUINELY believed at some point can walk away....I think John is indeed speaking of those who CLEARLY never did...

And he's warning us against wolves who never believed...

Frankly, I believe he's warning against Docetism which already infected the faith by then.

See I John 4:2

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

I think that's a better way to understand the passage.

Thank you for your insight :)

 

Edited by Heir of Salvation
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 minutes ago, Heir of Salvation said:

I don't think your assessment is very far off...

I said before that I am "skeptical" about OSAS, not that I'm dyed-in-the-wool against it.

I'm being treated by some as though I am....but that's another matter.

John provides us the answer though, I think in vs. 22 and I think my initial assessment is correct:

He identifies those "anti-Christs" those who (were not of us)...in vs. 22

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

I am not yet convinced that those who can walk away are those who were never truly believers....

That argument is dangerously close to a "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I don't think all OSAS believers who use that verse are guilty of it, because they believe in an a-priori impossibility of falling away (such as yourself I would guess).

But, I think the context is, frankly....the entire book, not just a few preceding verses...and those spoken of who are "anti-Christ"...who never were "of us"...are, and always were, genuine non-believers....wolves in sheep's clothing...not those who may have genuinely believed and have abandoned the faith.

I think that's a better way to understand the passage.

Thank you for your insight :)

 

I agree with your "whole book" reference. Thank you for the kind exchange. I need to attend to other things...plus I despise pecking out one letter at a time on my phone...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I agree with your "whole book" reference. Thank you for the kind exchange. I need to attend to other things...plus I despise pecking out one letter at a time on my phone...

I enjoyed sharpening iron with you...

God bless you brother :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
1 hour ago, 1Timothy115 said:

 

Roselove, I know it may be after the fact but, you did look at Strongs Concordance as a source for defining the "believeth" in John 3:16? I don't know Greek so I have to use my Strong's. Just didn't want to leave a stone unturned.

I have never used that before, is that something that you can use online?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
7 minutes ago, Roselove said:

I have never used that before, is that something that you can use online?

Okay, i found a page on Bible Hub about it. It's a little confusing to understand. But I'm able to get a litte out of it, that i get. 

A lot of it is just in Greek, which makes it more confusing. Do you know of like a beginners website or something? Sorry, since I'm new to this, Idk how it works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 minutes ago, Roselove said:

Okay, i found a page on Bible Hub about it. It's a little confusing to understand. But I'm able to get a litte out of it, that i get. 

A lot of it is just in Greek, which makes it more confusing. Do you know of like a beginners website or something? Sorry, since I'm new to this, Idk how it works.

I'm not a fan of Bible Hub, but it seems to be the easiest to use.

  1. Go to the link below.
  2. Click a book of the Bible that you want to read.
  3. Hover your mouse pointer over a word(s) to see the Strong's definition (not really sure if it's Strong's or not...sorry).

http://biblehub.com/kjvs/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
9 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I'm not a fan of Bible Hub, but it seems to be the easiest to use.

  1. Go to the link below.
  2. Click a book of the Bible that you want to read.
  3. Hover your mouse pointer over a word(s) to see the Strong's definition (not really sure if it's Strong's or not...sorry).

http://biblehub.com/kjvs/

Thanks! I looked it up, it was helpful! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
19 hours ago, Roselove said:

Thanks! I looked it up, it was helpful! 

Sometimes I just assume everyone has the same information I do. I really am sorry I didn't mention the Strong's earlier. I have to use it for Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek definitions. Now, good hunting.

NN, thanks for helping Roselove get the feel for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
On 3/19/2017 at 6:13 AM, 1611mac said:

Something simple to think about....  If something is known to be true and it is accepted fact then it usually doesn't get written about (and thus there is no "controversy" untill later when some apostate starts pushing false doctrine.   So silence on ANY subject MAY simply mean that it was generally accepted as truth.

I think this line of reasoning also applies to gifts  of the Holy Spirit. I imagine the early churches accepted faith hope and love as remaining gifts without needing to declare for a long time.  Then with Pentecostalism and Charismatic influence later you see the reasoning of the cessation of spiritual gifts aside from faith hope and love being written about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

For Roselove,

Here is an inexpensive bible program that I have been using for many years   It is reasonable in price, is updated every couple of years and I have met the author of the program.  If you have a question and email him he will personally respond to the email which is incredible in this day and age.

You can down load it free of charge for thirty days.  http://www.swordsearcher.com/

 

Edited by Orval
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
On April 6, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Orval said:

For Roselove,

Here is an inexpensive bible program that I have been using for many years   It is reasonable in price, is updated every couple of years and I have met the author of the program.  If you have a question and email him he will personally respond to the email which is incredible in this day and age.

You can down load it free of charge for thirty days.  http://www.swordsearcher.com/

 

Thank you, i will do that! I appreciate it! 

Sorry for the late response, I haven't been on, in a week or so!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 6:29 PM, Roselove said:

i just can't find anything that is pro-eternal security, from anywhere in the earliest church age. 

While I have not searched for (extra) writings from the early centuries on E.S. The only early writing you need, is what is preserved in our bible today (KJV). Which certainly is "pro-E.S.".

I haven't read the 50+ current answers here but i'll myself say to my knowledge that most, if not all, the early writings of Christians after 100 AD were not preserved as they were not scripture. Plus by the time Catholicsim came in, they soon enough burned their writings along with the Christians. The bible supports eternal security and that is all we need.

But there are certainly faithful teachers of God's word today that teach and write on it. This is no new doctrine. Christians have always believe in E.S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

E-sword is free forever, fully functioning, not restricted, and free updates.

They ask for donations but I don't think there is even a mechanism to link donations to users.

Some of the downloadable material you have to pay for if you want it, but that is because of copyright matters beyond e-sword control, and they are commentaries etc. which are optional.

If you really want that Bible version (why would you want anything other than KJV anyway) or thst particular commentary then pay for it, but the KJV bible is default snd totally free.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members

https://www.logosapostolic.org/bible_study/RP450NeverLeaveForsakeYou.htm 

I accidentally came across, this website, what do you all think? 

They also use the Textus Recptus for their translations, they said on their site that they except that as the most accurate translation. 

Edited by Roselove
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 hours ago, Roselove said:

https://www.logosapostolic.org/bible_study/RP450NeverLeaveForsakeYou.htm 

I accidentally came across, this website, what do you all think? 

They also use the Textus Recptus for their translations, they said on their site that they except that as the most accurate translation. 

Okay Roselove, I'll try this again, and we'll see if it stays. This response won't mirror my first response though.

If anyone wonders why I said that, it's because I responded to this yesterday. Roselove saw my response; however, my response somehow disappeared.

First thing that I noticed is that the website is affiliated with an Apostolic Church of God. Here are their beliefs summarized.

  1. The belief of one God whose name is Jesus. (In other words, they don't believe in the Trinity as being three distinct persons; this is commonly known as "Jesus-only")
  2. The utter depravity of human nature, the necessity for repentance and regeneration and the eternal doom of the finally impenitent.
  3. The virgin birth, sinless life, atoning death, triumphant resurrection, ascension, and abiding intercession of our Lord Jesus Christ; His second coming, and millennial reign upon earth.
  4. Justification and Sanctification of the believer through the finished work of Christ.
  5. The Baptism of the Holy Ghost for believers, which the Bible refers to as a necessity to get to Heaven, with evidence of speaking in tongues.
  6. The nine gifts of the Holy Ghost for the edification, exhortation and comfort of the Church, which is the body of Christ.
  7. Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and being immersed in water. (In other words, they disobey Jesus' direct command to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit)
  8. The Divine inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures.
  9. Church government by apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, elders and deacons.
  10. The possibility of falling from grace.
  11. The obligatory nature of tithes and offerings.

So, as they are affiliated with the Apostolic Church of God, they are naturally going to push their belief that a believer can lose their salvation.

As a side note, the common terminology used (by these types of groups) for losing one's salvation is "falling from grace"; however, that isn't what "falling from grace" means. To fall from grace means that one has moved away from proclaiming the biblical truth of salvation by grace alone, and they add works in addition to (or in place of) grace. In other words, they are proclaiming a different method for receiving salvation. It doesn't mean that by "falling from grace", a person loses their salvation. No, someone falls from grace when they replace grace alone FOR salvation. They fall from grace alone and add works to it. It's to proclaim another gospel.

Okay...so what's wrong with the webpage?

In their desire to prove that one can lose their salvation, they are looking for anything that "proves" a person can be "forsaken by God" contingent upon their disobedience (sin). In that desire (and in this case), they have resulted to using examples of people who were punished for disobedience in the Old Testament.

Problem 1: They misuse Hebrews 13:5

They use it (and their Greek word-wrangling) to cast doubt on the word of God.  The whole context of what is being said in Hebrews 13:5 has nothing to do with the Apostolic Church of God's idea of being forsaken by God; which is, to be punished or lose one's salvation. NO! It's a beautiful promise meant to bring comfort to believers so that they will be content with what they have rather than desiring more "things". It's a beautiful promise for believers to rely on God! They also left off the next verse, which is directly tied to verse 5. Let's look at it...

Hebrews 13:5-6
5   Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
6   So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.

Do you see what those verses are actually saying now? Do you see the importance of that one little word "for"? That word relates what the object is of "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee". What is the object? It's to not be covetous of more things...to be content with the things you do have. Do you see what a difference that one little word "So" makes when it is rightfully included with verse 5? Also, verse 6 will make even more sense as to why it was added when we look at "Problem 2" next...so hang in there.

So, they take the verse out of context...a very apparent context...and mishandle it to promote false doctrine.

Problem 2: Their misuse of God's promise to not fail thee, nor forsake thee in the Old Testament

What was the context of God saying that he "would no fail thee, nor forsake thee"? What was he talking about? Well, once again, the context is very clear and apparent...and once again, the Apostolic Church of God twists it to fit their theology. Once again, they left verses out. Let's look at it...in context...and with the appropriate verses included.

Deuteronomy 31:1-8
1   And Moses went and spake these words unto all Israel.
2   And he said unto them, I am an hundred and twenty years old this day; I can no more go out and come in: also the LORD hath said unto me, Thou shalt not go over this Jordan.
3   The LORD thy God, he will go over before thee, and he will destroy these nations from before thee, and thou shalt possess them: and Joshua, he shall go over before thee, as the LORD hath said.
4   And the LORD shall do unto them as he did to Sihon and to Og, kings of the Amorites, and unto the land of them, whom he destroyed.
5   And the LORD shall give them up before your face, that ye may do unto them according unto all the commandments which I have commanded you.
6   Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.
7   And Moses called unto Joshua, and said unto him in the sight of all Israel, Be strong and of a good courage: for thou must go with this people unto the land which the LORD hath sworn unto their fathers to give them; and thou shalt cause them to inherit it.
8   And the LORD, he it is that doth go before thee; he will be with thee, he will not fail thee, neither forsake thee: fear not, neither be dismayed.

Now...do you see the actual context of why God said that he wouldn't fail them, nor forsake them? The context is this: God would be the one fighting for them! God would be the one who would destroy the other nations! God would be the one who gave them victory! The context is this: they need not worry nor fear when they entered the land and had to fight the other nations in order to possess the land; God would be the one fighting for them, and he would not forsake them in possessing the land.

That's it. It was a beautiful promise to the Jews that God wouldn't forsake them while they were overcoming the other nations in the land. It was a beautiful promise for them not to fear the other nations, because God would be fighting for them (remember Hebrews 13:6 now?).

It had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with being forsaken by God in the way the Apostolic Church of God tried to spin it...nothing!

Problem 3: Their misuse of examples of people who were "forsaken by God"

I won't spend long on this.

Were those people "forsaken by God"? I'll admit that I didn't read every example...I didn't have to.

Those people weren't forsaken by God...THEY are the ones who forsook God.

Sin has consequences, and direct disobedience always has consequences. To say that because a person sinned against God, it caused God to "forsake" them is wrong.

Their disobedience, their sin, their forsaking of God...brought God's punishment on them. It was true then; it's true now. If a believer sins without confession and repentance, God will punish him/her. Scripture is very clear that God deals with us as sons...

Hebrews 12:4-13
4   Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
5   And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
6   For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7   If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8   But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9   Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
10   For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
11   Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
12   Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;
13   And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.

Paul furthers this line of thought...

1 Corinthians 11:30-34
30   For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31   For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32   But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33   Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34   And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

The context of this is dealing with the Lord's Supper and how some were misusing it. Even so, look at the results for those who sinned in this...one of the most solemn and holy events associated with being a Christian...the Lord's Supper. Because of their sin in misusing the Lord's Supper...

  • Many are weak and sickly
  • Many sleep (which I believe means they had died)

This is directly tied to chastening in verse 32. If we sin, we should judge ourselves; that is, we should confess our sin, ask forgiveness, and repent. If we don't judge ourselves, we will be judged by the Lord; which means, we will be chastened by him. Those who had sinned were still saved, but they had been chastened. In fact, verse 32 makes it very clear that when we are judged for sin (here on earth) we are...

  • chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

I don't see how it could be any clearer. God chastens his children, and we aren't condemned with the world.

So...after all of this, I hope that it's evident that the Apostolic Church of God isn't a source that you should rely on.

 

Edited to add: Okay...that's weird. When I submitted this reply...my original reply showed up again!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
39 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Okay Roselove, I'll try this again, and we'll see if it stays. This response won't mirror my first response though.

If anyone wonders why I said that, it's because I responded to this yesterday. Roselove saw my response; however, my response somehow disappeared.

First thing that I noticed is that the website is affiliated with an Apostolic Church of God. Here are their beliefs summarized.

  1. The belief of one God whose name is Jesus. (In other words, they don't believe in the Trinity as being three distinct persons; this is commonly known as "Jesus-only")
  2. The utter depravity of human nature, the necessity for repentance and regeneration and the eternal doom of the finally impenitent.
  3. The virgin birth, sinless life, atoning death, triumphant resurrection, ascension, and abiding intercession of our Lord Jesus Christ; His second coming, and millennial reign upon earth.
  4. Justification and Sanctification of the believer through the finished work of Christ.
  5. The Baptism of the Holy Ghost for believers, which the Bible refers to as a necessity to get to Heaven, with evidence of speaking in tongues.
  6. The nine gifts of the Holy Ghost for the edification, exhortation and comfort of the Church, which is the body of Christ.
  7. Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and being immersed in water. (In other words, they disobey Jesus' direct command to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit)
  8. The Divine inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures.
  9. Church government by apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, elders and deacons.
  10. The possibility of falling from grace.
  11. The obligatory nature of tithes and offerings.

So, as they are affiliated with the Apostolic Church of God, they are naturally going to push their belief that a believer can lose their salvation.

As a side note, the common terminology used (by these types of groups) for losing one's salvation is "falling from grace"; however, that isn't what "falling from grace" means. To fall from grace means that one has moved away from proclaiming the biblical truth of salvation by grace alone, and they add works in addition to (or in place of) grace. In other words, they are proclaiming a different method for receiving salvation. It doesn't mean that by "falling from grace", a person loses their salvation. No, someone falls from grace when they replace grace alone FOR salvation. They fall from grace alone and add works to it. It's to proclaim another gospel.

Okay...so what's wrong with the webpage?

In their desire to prove that one can lose their salvation, they are looking for anything that "proves" a person can be "forsaken by God" contingent upon their disobedience (sin). In that desire (and in this case), they have resulted to using examples of people who were punished for disobedience in the Old Testament.

Problem 1: They misuse Hebrews 13:5

They use it (and their Greek word-wrangling) to cast doubt on the word of God.  The whole context of what is being said in Hebrews 13:5 has nothing to do with the Apostolic Church of God's idea of being forsaken by God; which is, to be punished or lose one's salvation. NO! It's a beautiful promise meant to bring comfort to believers so that they will be content with what they have rather than desiring more "things". It's a beautiful promise for believers to rely on God! They also left off the next verse, which is directly tied to verse 5. Let's look at it...

Hebrews 13:5-6
5   Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
6   So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.

Do you see what those verses are actually saying now? Do you see the importance of that one little word "for"? That word relates what the object is of "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee". What is the object? It's to not be covetous of more things...to be content with the things you do have. Do you see what a difference that one little word "So" makes when it is rightfully included with verse 5? Also, verse 6 will make even more sense as to why it was added when we look at "Problem 2" next...so hang in there.

So, they take the verse out of context...a very apparent context...and mishandle it to promote false doctrine.

Problem 2: Their misuse of God's promise to not fail thee, nor forsake thee in the Old Testament

What was the context of God saying that he "would no fail thee, nor forsake thee"? What was he talking about? Well, once again, the context is very clear and apparent...and once again, the Apostolic Church of God twists it to fit their theology. Once again, they left verses out. Let's look at it...in context...and with the appropriate verses included.

Deuteronomy 31:1-8
1   And Moses went and spake these words unto all Israel.
2   And he said unto them, I am an hundred and twenty years old this day; I can no more go out and come in: also the LORD hath said unto me, Thou shalt not go over this Jordan.
3   The LORD thy God, he will go over before thee, and he will destroy these nations from before thee, and thou shalt possess them: and Joshua, he shall go over before thee, as the LORD hath said.
4   And the LORD shall do unto them as he did to Sihon and to Og, kings of the Amorites, and unto the land of them, whom he destroyed.
5   And the LORD shall give them up before your face, that ye may do unto them according unto all the commandments which I have commanded you.
6   Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.
7   And Moses called unto Joshua, and said unto him in the sight of all Israel, Be strong and of a good courage: for thou must go with this people unto the land which the LORD hath sworn unto their fathers to give them; and thou shalt cause them to inherit it.
8   And the LORD, he it is that doth go before thee; he will be with thee, he will not fail thee, neither forsake thee: fear not, neither be dismayed.

Now...do you see the actual context of why God said that he wouldn't fail them, nor forsake them? The context is this: God would be the one fighting for them! God would be the one who would destroy the other nations! God would be the one who gave them victory! The context is this: they need not worry nor fear when they entered the land and had to fight the other nations in order to possess the land; God would be the one fighting for them, and he would not forsake them in possessing the land.

That's it. It was a beautiful promise to the Jews that God wouldn't forsake them while they were overcoming the other nations in the land. It was a beautiful promise for them not to fear the other nations, because God would be fighting for them (remember Hebrews 13:6 now?).

It had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with being forsaken by God in the way the Apostolic Church of God tried to spin it...nothing!

Problem 3: Their misuse of examples of people who were "forsaken by God"

I won't spend long on this.

Were those people "forsaken by God"? I'll admit that I didn't read every example...I didn't have to.

Those people weren't forsaken by God...THEY are the ones who forsook God.

Sin has consequences, and direct disobedience always has consequences. To say that because a person sinned against God, it caused God to "forsake" them is wrong.

Their disobedience, their sin, their forsaking of God...brought God's punishment on them. It was true then; it's true now. If a believer sins without confession and repentance, God will punish him/her. Scripture is very clear that God deals with us as sons...

Hebrews 12:4-13
4   Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
5   And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
6   For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7   If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8   But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9   Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
10   For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
11   Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
12   Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;
13   And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.

Paul furthers this line of thought...

1 Corinthians 11:30-34
30   For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31   For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32   But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33   Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34   And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

The context of this is dealing with the Lord's Supper and how some were misusing it. Even so, look at the results for those who sinned in this...one of the most solemn and holy events associated with being a Christian...the Lord's Supper. Because of their sin in misusing the Lord's Supper...

  • Many are weak and sickly
  • Many sleep (which I believe means they had died)

This is directly tied to chastening in verse 32. If we sin, we should judge ourselves; that is, we should confess our sin, ask forgiveness, and repent. If we don't judge ourselves, we will be judged by the Lord; which means, we will be chastened by him. Those who had sinned were still saved, but they had been chastened. In fact, verse 32 makes it very clear that when we are judged for sin (here on earth) we are...

  • chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

I don't see how it could be any clearer. God chastens his children, and we aren't condemned with the world.

So...after all of this, I hope that it's evident that the Apostolic Church of God isn't a source that you should rely on.

 

Edited to add: Okay...that's weird. When I submitted this reply...my original reply showed up again!

This makes definitely makes sense, to me. 

Thank you for taking time to comment again, I appreciate it! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members
On 3/15/2017 at 11:16 AM, Orval said:

Hello Roselove,

Allow me to try to help.  First of all the Catholic Church did not come into existence until the time of Constantine up until that time the churches and believers were under persecution for about 250 years.  So Catholicism was not a consideration to the first century churches.  Secondly Because there was no uniformity of scriptures in the first century there was no comparative studies done that we are aware of.  The New Testament clearly states that there was problems with Gnosticism and the doctrine of duality also sponsored by Gnosticism.  Eternal life was taken at face value, remember Jesus resurrected what better testimony of eternal life? Through the intervening years many doctrines came under fire in various sections of Christendom but unless they were associated with libraries or universities of education there were very few written records.  Eternal security is very clear when you read the bible it is called eternal life and while one might believe such passages as Hebrews 6:1-6 teach the loss of salvation a hermeneutical deconstruction of the passage will show just the opposite. 

Believers from an Armenian background often push the ability to walk away from salvation but let me ask you a simples question.  You have a building with 10,000 windows in it and each time you break a window you have committed a sin.  How many windows would you have to break to lose your salvation?  one, 50, 1000 you tell me.  You see Jesus died for all sin not just some sin.

Hope this helps.  

Hello! 
Is there a link somewhere I can find support about Constantine and RCC?
How reliable are scholars who wrote history?

 

I am not trying to defend the RCC. I just want to be able to defend this one properly. 
Thank you! 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Roselove
      My husband is worried about not having eternal security. He heard that one can be born again, but still die spiritually from starving, by not going from the milk to the meat of the word and I guess continuing with God. Also he heard that when it talks about us having eternal life in the Bible, it means Jesus, but that He's walking with us but we can choose to turn away and jump out of His hand. My husband is very upset and it's upsetting me and making me nervous, too. I think this stuff is hurting his faith, please help... I'm having a panic attack.. 
      its hard for me to explain all the stuff he heard, but it's worrying him very much. I'm not as knowledgeable as i should be, please someone help me out. 
    • By 2T3:16
      Some of these people really know my bible. They are giving me a run for my money on facebook:
      We are discussing:
      original sin
      meaning of repentance
      living a sinless life
      (and eternal security)
       
      I am also running into those that argue there is more than one gospel
       
      These people certainly help keep me humble.
       
      Anybody know good solid resources?
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 39 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...