Jump to content

Heir of Salvation

Members
  • Posts

    281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from Orval in Early church eternal security   
    It is true that there appears to be no KNOWN affirmation of a doctrine of "Eternal Security" in the early Church writings. (Here I would restrict it to the Ante-Nicene pre-4th Century).
    But, there are doubtless countless writings we no longer have access to.
    To this I would say several things:
    The early Church had much larger fish to fry quite frankly.
    It was busy fleshing out doctrines such as the Deity of Jesus Christ, the Humanity of Jesus Christ, the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, the personhood of the Spirit, the Nature of the Trinity, the incarnation etc...
    I would argue that genuine saved believers had some pretty strange ideas we would consider all but heretical in this day and age.  And we can expect too much from them sometimes.  We are the beneficiaries of 2,000 years of Christian thought.  They were often the beneficiaries of a few books of the New Testament perhaps a gospel or two and some letters of Paul.  It was not really until  Chalcedon (if I remember correctly) that everyone even agreed upon the Scriptural Cannon.  The early Church Fathers had no such benefits........and they were dealing with much "bigger" issues.
    That being said, when they do make round-about mention of it.....they indeed do not seem to support any such thing as "Once-saved always saved" or "Eternal Security" etc....
    This is not surprising really.  Such an idea would be foreign to the world they inhabited at the time.  Christianity would be the only faith that had such a doctrine (and still is).  It's very counter-intuitive.  And yes, there are numerous Scriptures which demand a "faithfulness to the end" to ensure salvation.  But, the specific historical and social context of such writings is informative....They were under persecution in a way that we are not.  They were likely referring to holding fast and not denying their faith in the face of persecution as much as saying "don't lose your Salvation". 
    To be clear, I am Skeptical about Eternal Security myself. 
    And I do think that Early Church writing is of value on any Doctrinal topic......Yes, I do care what they said and what they taught.
    But, I would be cautious about allowing what we have on that specific issue to inform your decision making much. 
    I use an informal sort of sliding scale of how much weight I place on the Church Fathers on different topics.  I am likely to have more faith in their take on say.....the Incarnation or the Trinity than I would on their precise Soteriology. 
    Here.....it really is best to search the Scriptures with diligence and much prayer for your answers. 
     
  2. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from heartstrings in UK Votes Out   
    Indeed!....Congrats to all now freer Britons!
  3. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from Invicta in Liberty students and faculty do something right :)   
    http://www.dailywire.com/news/9925/liberty-university-students-reject-hank-berrien
    More power to them IMO.
  4. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from Particular Baptist in Israel attacks U.S.   
    NO.........It isn't.
    This is absolutely not an anti-Israel Nation.
    You don't know where to look.........Israel as a Nation, and as a People, have still rejected their Messiah, they will continue to do so until the Tribulation.
    Only in the time of Jacob's trouble will the remnant of Israel understand and embrace their Messiah.
    Rom 9:6
    ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: The Gentiles do NOT reject the Messiah....
    We are the "Wild Olive branch" that has been grafted into the promises..
     
    That's only Australia.....
    The Western World is simply so extremely pro-gospel, you aren't looking in the right places.
    Our LEADERS are often evil...........but that's not who we are.
     
    Israel is a secular and Godless Nation.
     
    The penultimate expression of righteousness is still expressed in Western Gentile Christianity.....don't be fooled by heretics like Obama into thinking otherwise.  God knows where HIS people are.......and he knows which Nations still honor him.
    That's the Risen Messiah being honored thousands of miles away.
    In the event you don't internalize this...........this is the Royal Albert Hall in London.
    It's the Premier cultural venue for musicals, concerts and culture....It defines them culturally.
     
    And so the good Ol' U...S...of A, isn't ignored...
    Let's see Israel do this:
     
  5. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from Particular Baptist in Israel attacks U.S.   
    Yes, you defend yourself.
    No, God would not punish you for responding.
  6. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation reacted to Alan in Israel attacks U.S.   
    Heir of Salvation,
    Thank you very much for the for the songs and testimony. There are still some quite a bit of fine saints in the old US of A that love the lord, love Israel, and pray for the day that Romans 9:6 will be fulfilled. I have not commented much on this thread as I feel the assumption of Israel attacking America is not plausible.  And, I personally do not care for hypothetical situations as this one.
    "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee." Psalm 122:6
    We need to pray for, and love, America and the nation of Israel. In spite of our rulers, there is still a lot of "salt" here in America that is keeping our country as a witness for the cause of Jesus Christ around the world. Let us remind ourselves that is was our government, President Harry S. Truman, that recognized Israel as a nation in May 1948, and our country that has helped Israel since that day.
    Again, Heir of Salvation, thank you for the fine songs. All three are a blessing to my heart.
    Alan
     
  7. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from Alan in Israel attacks U.S.   
    NO.........It isn't.
    This is absolutely not an anti-Israel Nation.
    You don't know where to look.........Israel as a Nation, and as a People, have still rejected their Messiah, they will continue to do so until the Tribulation.
    Only in the time of Jacob's trouble will the remnant of Israel understand and embrace their Messiah.
    Rom 9:6
    ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: The Gentiles do NOT reject the Messiah....
    We are the "Wild Olive branch" that has been grafted into the promises..
     
    That's only Australia.....
    The Western World is simply so extremely pro-gospel, you aren't looking in the right places.
    Our LEADERS are often evil...........but that's not who we are.
     
    Israel is a secular and Godless Nation.
     
    The penultimate expression of righteousness is still expressed in Western Gentile Christianity.....don't be fooled by heretics like Obama into thinking otherwise.  God knows where HIS people are.......and he knows which Nations still honor him.
    That's the Risen Messiah being honored thousands of miles away.
    In the event you don't internalize this...........this is the Royal Albert Hall in London.
    It's the Premier cultural venue for musicals, concerts and culture....It defines them culturally.
     
    And so the good Ol' U...S...of A, isn't ignored...
    Let's see Israel do this:
     
  8. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from swathdiver in Israel attacks U.S.   
    Yes, you defend yourself.
    No, God would not punish you for responding.
  9. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Israel attacks U.S.   
    Yes, you defend yourself.
    No, God would not punish you for responding.
  10. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from Alan in Best Soprano I've heard in decades....   
    If someone would help her make her consonants more defined....
    she needs that...
    But, this is an AMAZING voice!
  11. Thanks
  12. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation reacted to John Young in The Spiritual Progression of Human Souls.   
    Thanks! Its more of a goal to track our progression through life from the biblical perspective of the soul. Not necessarily just to refute Calvinism or the like. Though it definitely appears that I will be refuting several reformation and catholic theologies. However, it is defiantly in its ruff stages and is my attempt to get it out on paper. The reason I got it out as is was so I can get feed back before going further with the research.

    Typically we approach the progression from the start of fallen physical man but that view often leaves much unsaid and ignores many facts about how God starts each life and what God himself says and does for each one of us. The common view pretty much makes God the creator of sinners but I believe the biblical view as summed up in Ecclesiastes 7:29 "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."
  13. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from John Young in The Spiritual Progression of Human Souls.   
    YEEEUP!
    What you are saying is not "Pelagianism".  Then again, Pelagius wasn't a "Pelagian" as the word is used so often, nor did he teach half of what he is accused of teaching.  He's nothing more than a bogey-man.  Baptists would do well to read his works for themselves.  Don't trust anything either Augustine or Jerome said of him.  They were dishonest to the core.
     
  14. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation reacted to John Young in The Spiritual Progression of Human Souls.   
    No its not a knee jerk reaction to Calvinism; nor is it teaching "Plagiarism". Those accusations in themselves reek of a knee jerk reaction towards Protestant thought and not true Baptist thought, sorry. Your statements assume that St. Augustine's theology and his understanding of Pelagius' theology was right (a one sided accusation). If many Baptist actually studied what Pelagius actually taught they might find they side more with him then Augustine. However, I'm not taking a "side". I personally do not consider them, the "Church Councils", and etc. to be my authority on what is heretical baptist doctrine or no, but it is your right, I suppose, to see scripture only in the "light" that they give. As Baptist it is not wrong to look beyond the theological framework of the reformers. I personally have come to believe that the reformers framework (while very good in some points) is simply cleaned up Roman Catholic doctrine which hampers deeper understanding of scripture. An old dirty rag full of holes that has been cleaned is still an old rag full of holes.
    The OP is simply compiling my, and others, understanding (heretofore taught in separate thoughts on scripture) into one basic outline. Each section has been taught openly in baptist circles in some manor when touching on certain scriptures without major issue but when put together may seem to go against the common reformation framework. However, I do not think It goes against actual scripture. Now I may have not gotten the details ironed out on paper and in my own mind yet but the general premise I think is sound scripturally. If the parts are taught scripturally then they aught to come together in some logical form scripturally. That's all I am trying to do with the OP.

    My goal is not to teach "false doctrine" but to learn exactly how the parts listed work together harmoniously in scripture. If a section does not work with actual scripture then I'll change it in light of better scriptural understanding but I'm not going to change on anyone's accusations of "teaching false doctrine" biased solely on one's theological framework imposed on top of scripture. If you want to lay aside the preconceived notions and contribute to scriptural edification then I would love it if we learn together and not in needless opposition. 

    Basic points I'm presenting (and have covered scripturally in previous post) in regard to the OP:
    1. God does not create sin (but he does allow it) + God creates all people personally. = God does not create man with sin but Man has the capacity (and is allowed by God) to sin. Therefor.....
    2. Man is not conceived with sin + Man is born into a world cursed and corrupted by sin + Man's flesh is corrupted by Adam's sin and will die regardless of the Soul (Flesh is the avenue by which sin enters to tempt the soul) = All men will sin spiritually and all will die both physically and spiritually. Therefor....
    3. Without the Saviour all Men will fall by sinning + Men's call for salvation = Restoration and Protection from falling. (with other benefits obviously but in particular regard to sin)
    Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
    1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
    James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
    James 1:12-15 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
    Jude 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
  15. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from MountainChristian in Easter is the Correct word in Acts 12:4   
    It is.
    Blessings
  16. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Easter is the Correct word in Acts 12:4   
    It is.
    Blessings
  17. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from DaveW in Easter is the Correct word in Acts 12:4   
    Oh, and BTW....I was in let's say a rare form the other day....overly stressed by a myriad of things....I was short with you Dave.  I do apologize brother, please forgive me.
    I was rude and short with you.  Please forgive me.
  18. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Easter is the Correct word in Acts 12:4   
    Oh, and BTW....I was in let's say a rare form the other day....overly stressed by a myriad of things....I was short with you Dave.  I do apologize brother, please forgive me.
    I was rude and short with you.  Please forgive me.
  19. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from MountainChristian in Easter is the Correct word in Acts 12:4   
    Oh, and BTW....I was in let's say a rare form the other day....overly stressed by a myriad of things....I was short with you Dave.  I do apologize brother, please forgive me.
    I was rude and short with you.  Please forgive me.
  20. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from John81 in Easter is the Correct word in Acts 12:4   
    Oh, and BTW....I was in let's say a rare form the other day....overly stressed by a myriad of things....I was short with you Dave.  I do apologize brother, please forgive me.
    I was rude and short with you.  Please forgive me.
  21. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from Jordan Kurecki in Easter is the Correct word in Acts 12:4   
    This argument simply should not exist at all.......ever.....
    "Easter" in the KJV is perfectly accurate, but it isn't or wouldn't be better or superior to say simply "pascha" or something else.  The KJV translators were neither more correct nor more incorrect to say "Easter" here or to render it "pascha" or even "passover", those words all meant the same thing.  
    This is an argument that exists only in the minds of Americans (not any other native English speakers).
    "Easter" in1611 when the KJV was translated, could have meant either the Jewish "passover" or the Christian celebration of the Ressurrection.
    Liner notes in an original KJV  refer to the "Easter of the Jews".  Also, the common book of prayer as late as 1640 refers to the "Easter of the Jews".-------"pascha of the Jews" 
    The word translated is 'pascha' and it can refer either to the Christian celebration of Christ's resurrection, or it can refer to what we often call the "passover" for Judaism....neither one is either more or less correct.  As usual, contextual usage was the key.
    Here in the United States, no one uses the root term "pascha" to mean the Christian celebration of the Resurrection.....nor do we use it to refer to the Jewish celebration of the "passover"..........OUTSIDE of the U.S. the term is STILL used to refer to Christ's death burial and resurrection.
    I just read last week, an article in my Theology coursework by the Swiss Theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar called "The Trinity and Jesus' Paschal Mystery".  An article in a Journal published in......................... 1990...........yes, in the modern age "Pascha" actually still means "pascha"......or "Easter"....or...."Resurrection Sunday"....or whatever.
    In Theology journals and Christian writings in the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland and throughout the Western World, the term "pascha" is still meant to mean the the passion or the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, it's called the "paschal mystery".  
    The translators of the KJV were Englishmen.............not Americans.
    There's no secret to the whole thing.  The original Greek term "pascha" hasn't actually changed in about 3,000 years.
    The KJV is neither right nor wrong to translate it as "Easter" or "Passover" or simply leave it as the Greek term "Pascha".
    No, Herod wasn't celebrating some pagan holiday.....(he'd have lost his crown if he'd tried)....he was just waiting for the Jewish "pascha"....or "passover" to pass, because Jews didn't execute anyone on passover................like Jesus.....they didn't execute on "pascha"...or "easter"...or "passover". (all same word).
    There's just nothing to this issue.  It's a non-issue.  It doesn't exist.
  22. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Why King James Only?   
    Removing the usage of "ye," "thou," "thy," and "thine" from the King James translation would make it LESS accurate; for the usage of those 2nd person personal pronouns are in the King James translation for very specific grammatical reasons.  I myself certainly would be AGAINST a less accurate translation. 
  23. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from Genevanpreacher in Why King James Only?   
    Try to teach the doctrine of the "church" or "ecclesiology" as it were, with a KJV, and see how many countless hours you will spend de-programming the minds of the Church members about what the real meaning of the greek word ecclessia is......You'll reject wholesale the translation as "church" and all it's encumberances and nuances in English for the first several hours while explaining that it "really" means something more like "assembly" or "congregation"..........................................................(and you'd be right about that).
     
    Then try to teach on the topic using a Geneva.......it goes a lot quicker.
    I use KJV not Geneva.......but, sometimes.......it is better....sometimes it is worse.  It's in the family of the "good" translations, it's nothing to be afraid of.  
  24. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation got a reaction from Genevanpreacher in Easter is the Correct word in Acts 12:4   
    This argument simply should not exist at all.......ever.....
    "Easter" in the KJV is perfectly accurate, but it isn't or wouldn't be better or superior to say simply "pascha" or something else.  The KJV translators were neither more correct nor more incorrect to say "Easter" here or to render it "pascha" or even "passover", those words all meant the same thing.  
    This is an argument that exists only in the minds of Americans (not any other native English speakers).
    "Easter" in1611 when the KJV was translated, could have meant either the Jewish "passover" or the Christian celebration of the Ressurrection.
    Liner notes in an original KJV  refer to the "Easter of the Jews".  Also, the common book of prayer as late as 1640 refers to the "Easter of the Jews".-------"pascha of the Jews" 
    The word translated is 'pascha' and it can refer either to the Christian celebration of Christ's resurrection, or it can refer to what we often call the "passover" for Judaism....neither one is either more or less correct.  As usual, contextual usage was the key.
    Here in the United States, no one uses the root term "pascha" to mean the Christian celebration of the Resurrection.....nor do we use it to refer to the Jewish celebration of the "passover"..........OUTSIDE of the U.S. the term is STILL used to refer to Christ's death burial and resurrection.
    I just read last week, an article in my Theology coursework by the Swiss Theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar called "The Trinity and Jesus' Paschal Mystery".  An article in a Journal published in......................... 1990...........yes, in the modern age "Pascha" actually still means "pascha"......or "Easter"....or...."Resurrection Sunday"....or whatever.
    In Theology journals and Christian writings in the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland and throughout the Western World, the term "pascha" is still meant to mean the the passion or the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, it's called the "paschal mystery".  
    The translators of the KJV were Englishmen.............not Americans.
    There's no secret to the whole thing.  The original Greek term "pascha" hasn't actually changed in about 3,000 years.
    The KJV is neither right nor wrong to translate it as "Easter" or "Passover" or simply leave it as the Greek term "Pascha".
    No, Herod wasn't celebrating some pagan holiday.....(he'd have lost his crown if he'd tried)....he was just waiting for the Jewish "pascha"....or "passover" to pass, because Jews didn't execute anyone on passover................like Jesus.....they didn't execute on "pascha"...or "easter"...or "passover". (all same word).
    There's just nothing to this issue.  It's a non-issue.  It doesn't exist.
  25. Thanks
    Heir of Salvation reacted to John Young in Easter is the Correct word in Acts 12:4   
    In Greek, Pascha refers to all the events which surround the holiday, regardless of wither the events are OT or NT, Jewish or Christian. However, in English we make a distinction between the OT events, calling those "Passover events" and the NT events calling those "Easter events". This is why the book of John, the oldest gospel, would sometimes say "the Jew's Pascha" (in reference to Passover) to make sure the readers did not confuse it with the Christian's Pascha, which we in English now call Easter.

    Luke is writing to Theophilus about the Christian events of Pascha in Acts 12 so the English word Easter has to be used to make that distinction clear in English. Herod and the Jews wanted to destroy the people's faith in the Christian events of Pasha. That is why they wanted to wait until "after Easter" because of the main event of the Christian Pascha, the resurrection, occurred the first day after the week and was considered the main part of pascha by the church. So if Herod (and by default, the Jewish leadership) still had Peter "after Easter" then it would be a sever blow to the people's faith in the Christian church. If Herod was simply waiting until "after Passover" (only after the Jewish feast events) there would really be no real reason to show Peter to the people.
  • Member Statistics

    6,088
    Total Members
    2,124
    Most Online
    shlomo
    Newest Member
    shlomo
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...