The Early Church Fathers, did any of them really teach eternal security? [Archive]

View Full Version : The Early Church Fathers, did any of them really teach eternal security?

PrincetonGuy

10th June 2008, 09:21 PM

In another thread, I posted,

Proponents of the 16th century doctrine of eternal security, when reading the Early Church Fathers, read them with the same 16th century misconception that a Christian cannot lose his salvation and they read into the passages that they are reading their own personal theology—a theology that was totally absent from the Church till the 16th Century. The only writing from before the 16th century that teach anything remotely like eternal security are found in the writings of Saint Augustine and these writings were responsible for Calvin’s erroneous beliefs regarding the sovereignty of God and the theology that these erroneous beliefs gave birth to, including the perseverance of the saints. These writings of Augustine were written late in his life when he himself began to lose faith in the power of the atonement of Christ and found himself increasingly in bondage to sin. Therefore these particular writing, known today as the Retractions of Saint Augustine, are not found in any of the bound collections of his writings. Their only value is that they help to establish that Augustine was indeed the author of some writings the authorship of which has been questioned.

Another member replied,

"You said this was a relatively new theory not known before the 16th century. I showed that at least 19 of the ECF's believed and taught it also."

One of the Early Church Fathers (ECF's) that this other member quoted from (actually I am not able to the find the quote) was Clement of Rome. This other member copied and pasted this from a website:

Clement of Rome gives plain hints of the firmness of true faith, and the perseverance of the saints in it to the end. When addressing the members of the church at Corinth, he says? “Who has dwelt among you, that has not had an experience of, or proved, ten panareton kai bebaian umon pistin, your all-powerful, and firm or stable faith?” He also observes,that “whereas it is the will of God, that all whom he loves should partake of repentance, and so not perish with the unbelieving and impenitent, esterizen to pantokratoriko boulemati autou, ‘he has established it by his almighty will.’ But if any of those whom God wills should partake of the grace of repentance, should afterwards perish, where is his almighty will? And how is this matter settled and established by such a will of his?”

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gi..._section01.htm (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section01.htm)

But what did Clement of Rome really write? Here is an example of what he wrote to that church:

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
Chap. III. — The Sad State of the Corinthian Church After Sedition Arose in it from Envy and Emulation.

Every kind of honour and happiness was bestowed upon you, and then was fulfilled that which is written, “My beloved did eat and drink, and was enlarged and became fat, and kicked.” Hence flowed emulation and envy, strife and sedition, persecution and disorder, war and captivity. So the worthless rose up against the honoured, those of no reputation against such as were renowned, the foolish against the wise, the young against those advanced in years. For this reason righteousness and peace are now far departed from you, inasmuch as every one abandons the fear of God, and is become blind in His faith, neither walks in the ordinances of His appointment, nor acts a part becoming a Christian, but walks after his own wicked lusts, resuming the practice of an unrighteous and ungodly envy, by which death itself entered into the world.

Is this really an example of “firmness of true faith, and the perseverance of the saints in it to the end?”

How about the other 18 Early Church Fathers that this other member quoted from? In future posts in this thread I shall quote from them in context and let you see for yourself what they really wrote.

PrincetonGuy

10th June 2008, 09:43 PM

Here are some words by Clemet of Rome in the same epistle:

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
Chap. XXI. — Let Us Obey God, and Not the Authors of Sedition.

Take heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all. [For thus it must be] unless we walk worthy of Him, and with one mind do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight. For [the Scripture] saith in a certain place, “The Spirit of the Lord is a candle searching the secret parts of the belly.” Let us reflect how near He is, and that none of the thoughts or reasonings in which we engage are hid from Him. It is right, therefore, that we should not leave the post which His will has assigned us. Let us rather offend those men who are foolish, and inconsiderate, and lifted up, and who glory in the pride of their speech, than [offend] God. Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us; let us esteem those who have the rule over us; let us honour the aged among us; let us train up the young men in the fear of God; let us direct our wives to that which is good. Let them exhibit the lovely habit of purity [in all their conduct]; let them show forth the sincere disposition of meekness; let them make manifest the command which they have of their tongue, by their manner of speaking; let them display their love, not by preferring one to another, but by showing equal affection to all that piously fear God. Let your children be partakers of true Christian training; let them learn of how great avail humility is with God — how much the spirit of pure affection can prevail with Him — how excellent and great His fear is, and how it saves all those who walk in it with a pure mind. For He is a Searcher of the thoughts and desires [of the heart]: His breath is in us; and when He pleases, He will take it away.

Notice especially the opening and closing words in this paragraph:

Take heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all. [For thus it must be] unless we walk worthy of Him, and with one mind do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight.

For He is a Searcher of the thoughts and desires [of the heart]: His breath (in the Greek, the same word as Spirit) is in us; and when He pleases, He will take it away.

Clement of Rome is NOT teaching eternal security; he is teaching conditional security.

PrincetonGuy

11th June 2008, 09:21 PM

The next Early Church Father that the other member quotes in the same post is Ignatius, and the member wrote,

Ignatius also is a witness to this most comfortable truth of the gospel, when he exhorts the saints to “avoid those evil excrescences which bring forth deadly fruit, of which whoever tastes dies; for they are not the Father’s planting;” for if they “were, the branches of the cross would appear, kai en auto karpos autos aphthartos, ‘and their fruit would be incorruptible;’ whereby through his sufferings he hath called you, being his members, ou dunatai ouk kophale choris gennethenai aneu melon, for the head cannot be born, or be, without the members.” And in another place he says, “No man professing faith, sins; nor having obtained love, hates. The tree is known by its fruit. So they that profess to be Christians shall be seen by what they do; for now it is not the business of a profession, all’ en dunamei pisteos ean tis eurethe eis telos, but it is through the power of faith, if any one is found to the end.” By which he intimates, that such is the strength and virtue of true faith, that such who have it are preserved and continued Christians to the end, and are then found to be so. His epistle to the Philadelphians is directed to them as a church firmly settled in the harmony of God, as being an everlasting and permanent joy; and their bishops, elders, and deacons, such whom Christ, according to his own will, esterixen en bebaiosune, “had firmly established, through his Holy Spirit.”
Ibid."

“If any one is found to the end” does NOT intimate “that such is the strength and virtue of true faith, that such who have it are preserved and continued Christians to the end, and are then found to be so.” What it does intimate is that some Christians are found to the end, and some are not! That is NOT the doctrine of eternal security—it is the doctrine of conditional security, and anyone who is familiar with the writings of Ignatius knows for a fact that he taught, in several places, conditional security. We have to be especially careful in quoting the writings of Ignatius because the copies of his writings that have come down to us are not consistent with one another. Indeed, for many of them, there are two very different versions—a shorter version and a longer version. For the sake of complete fairness and honesty, I am going to quote both versions when there are two of them, and I am going to provide the name of the work and the name of the chapter that I am quoting from so that the accuracy of what I am posting can be verified. And in each and every case I am going to quote the whole chapter rather than taking some of the words out of their context. Please bear in mind in reading the quotes below that Ignatius is writing to Christians and please notice that he is admonishing Christians to do things that will result in their salvation rather than their condemnation. That is NOT eternal security; that is conditional security. (Please see post #4 for these quotes)

PrincetonGuy

11th June 2008, 09:24 PM

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians.
Chap. XI. — An Exhortation to Fear God, Etc. (shorter version)

The last times are come upon us. Let us therefore be of a reverent spirit, and fear the long-suffering of God, that it tend not to our condemnation. For let us either stand in awe of the wrath to come, or show regard for the grace which is at present displayed — one of two things. Only [in one way or another] let us be found in Christ Jesus unto the true life. Apart from Him, let nothing attract you, for whom I bear about these bonds, these spiritual jewels, by which may I arise through your prayers, of which I entreat I may always be a partaker, that I may be found in the lot of the Christians of Ephesus, who have always been of the same mind with the apostles through the power of Jesus Christ.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians.
Chap. XI. — An Exhortation to Fear God, Etc. (longer version)

The last times are come upon us. Let us therefore be of a reverent spirit, and fear the long-suffering of God, lest we despise the riches of His goodness and forbearance. For let us either fear the wrath to come, or let us love the present joy in the life that now is; and let our present and true joy be only this, to be found in Christ Jesus, that we may truly live. Do not at any time desire so much as even to breathe apart from Him. For He is my hope; He is my boast; He is my never-failing riches, on whose account I bear about with me these bonds from Syria to Rome, these spiritual jewels, in which may I be perfected through your prayers, and become a partaker of the sufferings of Christ, and have fellowship with Him in His death, His resurrection from the dead, and His everlasting life. May I attain to this, so that I may be found in the lot of the Christians of Ephesus, who have always had intercourse with the apostles by the power of Jesus Christ, with Paul, and John, and Timothy the most faithful.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians.
Chap. III. — Avoid Schismatics. (shorter version)

Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange4 opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.].

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians.
Chap. III. — Avoid Schismatics. (longer version)

Keep yourselves, then, from those evil planes which Jesus Christ does not tend, bat that wild beast, the destroyer of men, because they are not the planting of the Father, but the seed of the wicked one. Not that I have found any division among you do I write these things; but I arm you beforehand, as the children of God. For as many as are of Christ are also with the bishop; but as many as fall away from him, and embrace communion with the accursed, these shall be cut off along with them. For they are not Christ’s husbandry, but the seed of the enemy, from whom may you ever be delivered by the prayers of the shepherd, that most faithful and gentle shepherd who presides over you. I therefore exhort you in the Lord to receive with all tenderness those that repent and return to the unity of the Church, that through your kindness and forbearance they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, and becoming worthy of Jesus Christ, may obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of Christ. Brethren, be not deceived. If any man follows him that separates from the truth, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and if any man does not stand aloof from the preacher of falsehood, he shall be condemned to hell. For it is obligatory neither to separate from the godly, nor to associate with the ungodly. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he is not of Christ, nor a partaker of His passion; but is a fox, a destroyer of the vineyard of Christ. Have no fellowship with such a man, lest ye perish along with him, even should he be thy father, thy son, thy brother, or a member of thy family. For says [the Scripture], “Thine eye shall not spare him.” You ought therefore to “hate those that hate God, and to waste away [with grief] on account of His enemies.” I do not mean that you should beat them or persecute them, as do the Gentiles “that know not the Lord and God;” but that you should regard them as your enemies, and separate yourselves from them, while yet you admonish them, and exhort them to repentance, if it may be they will hear, if it may be they will submit themselves. For our God is a lover of mankind, and “will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Wherefore “He makes His sun to rise upon the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust;” of whose kindness the Lord, wishing us also to be imitators, says, “Be ye perfect, even as also your Father that is in heaven is perfect.”

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians.
Chap. I. — Reason of Writing the Epistle. (shorter version)

Having been informed of your godly love, so well-ordered, I rejoiced greatly, and determined to commune with you in the faith of Jesus Christ. For as one who has been thought worthy of the most honourable of all names, in those bonds which I bear about, I commend the Churches, in which I pray for a union both of the flesh and spirit of Jesus Christ, the constant source of our life, and of faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred, but especially of Jesus and the Father, in whom, if we endure all the assaults of the prince of this world, and escape them, we shall enjoy God.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians.
Chap. I. — Reason of Writing the Epistle. (longer version)

Having been informed of your godly love, so well-ordered, I rejoiced greatly, and determined to commune with you in the faith of Jesus Christ. For as one who has been thought worthy of a divine and desirable name, in those bonds which I bear about, I commend the Churches, in which I pray for a union both of the flesh and spirit of Jesus Christ, “who is the Saviour of all men, but specially of them that believe;” by whose blood ye were redeemed; by whom ye have known God, or rather have been known by Him; in whom enduring, ye shall escape all the assaults of this world: for “He is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which ye are able.”

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians.
Chap. V. — Death Is the Fate of All Such. (shorter version)

Seeing, then, all things have an end, these two things are simultaneously set before us — death and life; and every one shall go unto his own place. For as there are two kinds of coins, the one of God, the other of the world, and each of these has its special character stamped upon it, [so is it also here.] The unbelieving are of this world; but the believing have, in love, the character of God the Father by Jesus Christ, by whom, if we are not in readiness to die into His passion, His life is not in us.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians.
Chap. V. — Death Is the Fate of All Such. (longer version)

Seeing, then, all things have an end, and there is set before us life upon our observance [of God’s precepts], but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from death, and make choice of life. For I remark, that two different characters are found among men — the one true coin, the other spurious. The truly devout man is the right kind of coin, stamped by God Himself. The ungodly man, again, is false coin, unlawful, spurious, counterfeit, wrought not by God, but by the devil. I do not mean to say that there are two different human natures, but that there is one humanity, sometimes belonging to God, and sometimes to the devil. If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice. The unbelieving bear the image of the prince of wickedness. The believing possess the image of their Prince, God the Father, and Jesus Christ, through whom, if we are not in readiness to die for the truth into His passion, His life is not in us.

The Second Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (In the Syriac Version of the Ignatian Epistles).
Chap. XIV.10

The work is not of promise, unless a man be found in the power of faith, even to the end.

PrincetonGuy

12th June 2008, 01:25 AM

The next Early Church Father that the other member quotes in the same post is Irenaeus, and the member wrote,

“And I believe it was Irenaeus who in AD 180 said:
Irenaeus has several passages in his writings which favor this doctrine. Allegorizing the history of Lot’s wife, he thus expresses himself: “The church which is the salt of the earth, is left in the confines of the of the earth, suffering the things which are human; and whilst whole members are often taken away from it, perseverat statua salis qued est firmamentum fidei, firmans et praemittens filios ad Patrem ipsorum, ‘ the pillar of salt continues, which is the firmament of faith, confirming and sending before the children to their Father.” He speaks of the grace of love as an abiding one: “Love,” says he, “perfects the perfect man; and he that loves God is perfect both in this world, and in that which is to come; nunquam enim desivimus diligentus Deum, for we never cease loving God, but the more we look upon him, the more we love him.” He also represents the Spirit of God as never leaving the man he has taken up his residence in; for, he says, “The breath of life is one thing, which makes the man animal, and another the quickening Spirit, which makes him spiritual. That which is made is different from him that makes it, wherefore the breath is temporal, to de Pneuma aennaon, the Spirit eternal.” The breath indeed is vigorous for a little while, and remains some time, after which it goes away, leaving it breathless where it was before; but the Spirit encompasses man within and without, ate aei paramonimon oudepote kataleipei auton, as always abiding, and never leaves him.” Yea, he represents it as blasphemy to say, that the members of Christ shall not be saved, but destroyed; for he makes this observation on 1 Corinthians 3:17, If any one defile the temple of God, etc.: Templum igitur Dei in quo Spiritus inhabitat Patris, et membra Christi non participare salutem, sed in perditionem redigi dicere, quomodo non maximae est blasphemiae? Therefore to say, that the temple of God, in which the Spirit of the Father dwells, and the members of Christ, shall not partake of salvation, but be brought down to destruction, is it not the highest blasphemy? Vossius refers to a chapter in Irenaeus, as militating against the doctrine of the saints’ final perseverance, in which are these expressions: “All are of the same nature, and able to retain and do good, and able to lose it again, and not do it.” And a little after, “Disobedience to God, and loss of good, are indeed in the power of man.” But it should be known and observed, that Irenaeus is disputing against those heretics who held, that some men were by nature good, and others evil; whereas, he says, they are all of the same nature, as at first created by God, capable of doing good and evil. Besides, he speaks only of the loss of natural and moral good in the natural man, and not of the loss of spiritual good, or of supernatural grace in the regenerate man. Moreover, Irenaeus has a passage in the very same chapter which seems to favor the saints’ perseverance; for he says, that “the Lord bore all these things for us, that by all things being learned in all, we might be cautious for the future, et perseveremus in omni ejus dilectione, and persevere in all love to him.”
Ibid.

I see a lot of the ECF's teaching this.”

I don’t see any of them at all—“seems to favor” is a very long way from a definite statement—and posting numerous quotes out of context without giving the precise source makes it difficult to track them down in their original context so that they can be verified and studied.

Irenaeus tells us something of great importance about the very early Church, and that is that there was very much uniformity and consistency in what the churches taught and that the churches that the apostles themselves ministered in and to were still present and that should a question of doctrine arise, these genuinely apostolic churches could be consulted for definitive answers.

Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book III
Chap. IV. — The Truth Is to Be Found Nowhere Else but in the Catholic Church, the Sole Depository of Apostolical Doctrine. Heresies Are of Recent Formation, and Cannot Trace Their Origin up to the Apostles.

1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the 417 water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

It is absolutely essential for readers to understand that when this work was written, sometime between the years of 182-188, the “Catholic” church was NOT the Roman Catholic Church that we have today and that none of the doctrines that distinguish the Roman Catholic Church from our Protestant churches had yet been introduced into the Church. Gnosticism, however, was attempting to make inroads into the Church and Irenaeus was especially concerned with refuting the heresies of Gnosticism and keeping them out of the Church. Irenaeus very strictly adhered to the teachings of the genuinely apostolic churches that were still present in his day, and those teachings included the teaching of conditional security. I am going to quote a fairly lengthy portion from the writings of Irenaeus so that you can see clearly that not only did Irenaeus teach conditional security, but that he understood Paul to have taught it, and so that you can see for yourselves how Irenaeus defended the doctrine of conditional security. (Quotes to follow in my posts below).

PrincetonGuy

12th June 2008, 01:46 AM

Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book IV
Chap. XXVII — The Sins of the Men of Old Time, Which Incurred the Displeasure of God, Were, by His Providence, Committed to Writing, That We Might Derive Instruction Thereby, and Not Be Filled with Pride. We Must Not, Therefore, Infer That There Was Another God Than He Whom Christ Preached; We Should Rather Fear, Lest the One and the Same God Who Inflicted Punishment on the Ancients, Should Bring Down Heavier upon Us.

1. As I have heard from a certain presbyter, who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles, and from those who had been their disciples, the punishment [declared] in Scripture was sufficient for the ancients in regard to what they did without the Spirit’s guidance. For as God is no respecter of persons, He inflicted a proper punishment on deeds displeasing to Him. As in the case of David, when he suffered persecution from Saul for righteousness’ sake, and fled from King Saul, and would not avenge himself of his enemy, he both sung the advent of Christ, and instructed the nations in wisdom, and did everything after the Spirit’s guidance, and pleased God. But when his lust prompted him to take Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, the Scripture said concerning him, “Now, the thing (sermo) which David had done appeared wicked in the eyes of the Lord;” and Nathan the prophet is sent to him, pointing out to him his crime, in order that he, passing sentence upon and condemning himself, might obtain mercy and forgiveness from Christ: “And [Nathan] said to him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds; but the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe-lamb, which he possessed, and nourished up; and it had been with him and with his children together: it did eat of his own bread, and drank of his cup, and was to him as a daughter. And there came a guest unto the rich man; and he spared to take of the flock of his own ewe-lambs, and from the herds of his own oxen, to entertain the guest; but he took the ewe-lamb of the poor man, and set it before the man that had come unto him. And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die (filius mortis est): and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he hath done this thing, and because he had no pity for the poor man. And Nathan said unto him, Thou art the man who hast done this.” And then he proceeds with the rest [of the narrative], upbraiding him, and recounting God’s benefits towards him, and [showing him] how much his conduct had displeased the Lord. For [he declared] that works of this nature were not pleasing to God, but that great wrath was suspended over his house. David, however, was struck with remorse on heating this, and exclaimed, “I have sinned against the Lord;” and he sung a penitential psalm, waiting for the coming of the Lord, who washes and makes clean the man who had 499 been fast bound with [the chain of] sin. In like manner it was with regard to Solomon, while he continued to judge uprightly, and to declare the wisdom of God, and built the temple as the type of truth, and set forth the glories of God, and announced the peace about to come upon the nations, and prefigured the kingdom of Christ, and spake three thousand parables about the Lord’s advent, and five thousand songs, singing praise to God, and expounded the wisdom of God in creation, [discoursing] as to the nature of every tree, every herb, and of all fowls, quadrupeds, and fishes; and he said, “Will God whom the heavens cannot contain, really dwell with men upon the earth?” And he pleased God, and was the admiration of all; and all kings of the earth sought an interview with him (quaerebant faciem ejus) that they might hear the wisdom which God had conferred upon him. The queen of the south, too, came to him from the ends of the earth, to ascertain the wisdom that was in him: she whom the Lord also referred to as one who should rise up in the judgment with the nations of those men who do hear His words, and do not believe in Him, and should condemn them, inasmuch as she submitted herself to the wisdom announced by the servant of God, while these men despised that wisdom which proceeded directly from the Son of God. For Solomon was a servant, but Christ is indeed the Son of God, and the Lord of Solomon. While, therefore, he served God without blame, and ministered to His dispensations, then was he glorified: but when he took wives from all nations, and permitted them to set up idols in Israel, the Scripture spake thus concerning him: “And King Solomon was a lover of women, and he took to himself foreign women; and it came to pass, when Solomon was old, his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God. And the foreign women turned away his heart after strange gods. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord: he did not walk after the Lord, as did David his father. And the Lord was angry with Solomon; for his heart was not perfect with the Lord, as was the heart of David his father.” The Scripture has thus sufficiently reproved him, as the presbyter remarked, in order that no flesh may glory in the sight of the Lord.

PrincetonGuy

12th June 2008, 01:50 AM

2. It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also, and [declaring] the remission of sins received by those who believe in Him. Now all those believed in Him who had hope towards Him, that is, those who proclaimed His advent, and submitted to His dispensations, the righteous men, the prophets, and the patriarchs, to whom He remitted sins in the same way as He did to us, which sins we should not lay to their charge, if we would not despise the grace of God. For as these men did not impute unto us (the Gentiles) our transgressions, which we wrought before Christ was manifested among us, so also it is not right that we should lay blame upon those who sinned before Christ’s coming. For “all men come short of the glory of God,” and are not justified of themselves, but by the advent of the Lord, — they who earnestly direct their eyes towards His light. And it is for our instruction that their actions have been committed to writing, that we might know, in the first place, that our God and theirs is one, and that sins do not please Him although committed by men of renown; and in the second place, that we should keep from wickedness. For if these men of old time, who preceded us in the gifts [bestowed upon them], and for whom the Son of God had not yet suffered, when they committed any sin and served fleshly lusts, were rendered objects of such disgrace, what shall the men of the present day suffer, who have despised the Lord’s coming, and become the slaves of their own lusts? And truly the death of the Lord became [the means of] healing and remission of sins to the former, but Christ shall not die again in behalf of those who now commit sin, for death shall no more have dominion over Him; but the Son shall come in the glory of the Father, requiring from His stewards and dispensers the money which He had entrusted to them, with usury; and from those to whom He had given most shall He demand most. We ought not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, to be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of old time, but ought ourselves to fear, lest perchance, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom. And therefore it was that Paul said, “For if [God] spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest He also spare not thee, who, when thou wert a wild olive tree, wert grafted into the fatness of the olive tree, and wert made a partaker of its fatness.”

3. Thou wilt notice, too, that the transgressions of the common people have been described in like manner, not for the sake of those who did then transgress, but as a means of instruction unto us, and that we should understand that it is one and the same God against whom these 500 men sinned, and against whom certain persons do now transgress from among those who profess to have believed in Him. But this also, [as the presbyter states,] has Paul declared most plainly in the Epistle to the Corinthians, when he says, “Brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and were all baptized unto Moses in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them; and the rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. These things were for our example (in figuram nostri), to the intent that we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted; neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them, as it is written: The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them also did, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. But all these things happened to them in a figure, and were written for our admonition, upon whom the end of the world (saeculorum) is come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.”

mlqurgw

12th June 2008, 07:32 PM

I guess if you can't dazel them with truth you boggle them with many loooog posts. :P Has it occured to anyone that the ECF were part of the EARLY CHURCH and may not have had the growth and maturity that comes with over 2000 yerrs of study and leading by the Spirit? There is a reason that only certain writings are part of the canon. Being closer to the original doesn't necessarrily mean better. While they had many good things to say there were as many heresies among them as there are today. Basing what the Scriptures teach by the ECF is as foolish as coming to conclusions on the War Between the States based on the Union's, who were the winners, characterizations of the South in Uncle Tom's Cabin.

holyrokker

12th June 2008, 08:02 PM

Basing what the Scriptures teach by the ECF is as foolish as coming to conclusions on the War Between the States based on the Union's, who were the winners, characterizations of the South in Uncle Tom's Cabin.
The point of the long posts is to refute a claim made elsewhere concerning these ECF.

Basing what the Scriptures teach by the Reformation leaders is as foolish as.....

Everyone brings biases into the study of theology. It is a good idea to place these biases to scrutiny.

PrincetonGuy

13th June 2008, 12:16 AM

I guess if you can't dazel them with truth you boggle them with many loooog posts. Has it occured to anyone that the ECF were part of the EARLY CHURCH and may not have had the growth and maturity that comes with over 2000 yerrs of study and leading by the Spirit? There is a reason that only certain writings are part of the canon. Being closer to the original doesn't necessarrily mean better. While they had many good things to say there were as many heresies among them as there are today. Basing what the Scriptures teach by the ECF is as foolish as coming to conclusions on the War Between the States based on the Union's, who were the winners, characterizations of the South in Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. It is theoretically possible that the New Testament could not be understood for 1,500 years or longer and that it took tens of thousands of Bible scholars to figure out what the writers were trying to say. If that is the case, however, the New Testament is a collection of the some of the most poorly written documents ever written and the words of Jesus in the New Testament are either not really His, or Jesus Himself was such a very poor teacher that he was unable to put his words together in a comprehensible manner. I find it difficult to believe that the words of Jesus in the New Testament are not really His; and I find it equally difficult to believe that Jesus was unable to put his words together in a comprehensible manner. I find it much easier to believe that the New Testament was so very well written that the teaching of salvation was almost universally understood for 1,500 years and that until the 16th century no one mistook it to teach eternal security.

My main points in this thread, however, are that the Early Church Fathers taught conditional security and that the doctrine of eternal security was not known to them. I had made these two points in another thread and a poster in that thread posted that I was mistaken, and in an attempt to prove that I was mistaken, he copied and pasted some quotes from one or more websites that share his view. The quotes, however, were taken out of context to make them appear to teach the opposite of what the Early Church Fathers were actually teaching. That poster and I, however, had gotten off the topic of the opening post in that thread and therefore I started this new thread to vindicate the accuracy of my points, i.e., that that the Early Church Fathers taught conditional security and that the doctrine of eternal security was not known to them. The relevance, or lack there of, of these two facts to the truthfulness of the doctrine of eternal security itself is another topic.

My posts in this thread have been very long because I quoted the writers in context so that my readers could see for themselves what the writers that I quoted really said and how these writers themselves defended the doctrine of conditional security. I know that many people ignore long posts, and I often do so myself, but shorter posts would not have allowed me to quote the Early Church Fathers with enough of the original context to make it clear what they were actually teaching in the writings I was quoting from.

The truth is very important to me, and I hold it dearly, and I enjoy sharing it with others, but sometimes the truth cannot be shared and established in a few words. Please forgive me if I have taken too much of your time or if I offended you by my long posts.

th1bill

13th June 2008, 10:54 AM

... I understand that I'll never be very popular with the OP nor with the Catholics but it really does not matter much what the Early Church Fathers did or did not teach, they are not the author of the scriptures and until Jesus returns to rule the Earth the Bible is our Court of Finale Arbitration. Like the poster just above me I'm amazed that anyone in any Protestant Religion would care to know what the Early Chruch Fathers taught or did't teach other than for accademic referance. We are the people of "The Word," not the people of our fore-father's customs. The Bible, in context, teaches that not one of us will slip from His hand and that is Eternal Security.

holyrokker

13th June 2008, 11:04 AM

I'm surprised to see protestants actually reading and accepting the writings of the Early Church Fathers. I always assumed they did not trust anything written by Catholics.

... I understand that I'll never be very popular with the OP nor with the Catholics but it really does not matter much what the Early Church Fathers did or did not teach, they are not the author of the scriptures and until Jesus returns to rule the Earth the Bible is our Court of Finale Arbitration. Like the poster just above me I'm amazed that anyone in any Protestant Religion would care to know what the Early Chruch Fathers taught or did't teach other than for accademic referance. We are the people of "The Word," not the people of our fore-father's customs. The Bible, in context, teaches that not one of us will slip from His hand and that is Eternal Security.

The "early Church fathers" were not Catholics. They were the first couple of generations of Church leaders after the apostles. Clement, for example, was a student of Paul.

It is important to know what they taught. Frankly, it's more important to know what the "ECF" taught that to know what the "reformers" (Calvin, Arminius, Luther, Knox, etc) taught.

It amazes me how many "protestants" claim to be people of the "Word", yet interpret the Bible through the lens of the Reformation.

The Bible, in context, does not teach the reformation era doctrine of "Eternal Security". It's a concept of the Reformation, not of the Bible.

I don't presume to speak for him, but a major point that PrincetonGuy is making is that the concept of "Eternal Security" wasn't taught in the Church prior to the Reformation. That claim (that the ECF taught "eternal Security) was made in another thread.

If you read the OP closely, you'll see that he was responding to another person who claimed that the "ECF" taught "Eternal Security". These posts were to show that, indeed, they didn't.

But, we don't need the thougts of those men, nor any other men, right? If that's the case - why bother reading anything other than the Bible? Why bother taking part in discussions such as this?

To say "We are people of The Word" and to disregard history is not only disingenuous, it is foolish.

WayneinMaine

13th June 2008, 11:47 AM

If one steps aside from the religion of their upbringing or from the tradition they have accepted, and looks broadly at the scope of beliefs of Christians throughout history, it is quite amazing to see how much "novelty" (as in "new") has been introduced into the many different churches and traditions. The early, post-Apostolic church is not blameless either, but there certainly is something to be said about doctrines and theologies that no Christian believed, accepted or expounded on before the 16'th century (or 20'th or 4'th). We can’t claim to have restored or reformed the church if we have, as a result, introduced something new, something to which there is no witness in the church’s earliest days, even if we can “prove” it from scripture. While we may believe that a doctrine (such as eternal security) is firmly established in the New Testament, we should be very concerned when we find that only since the Reformation has this doctrine existed, and others throughout history, including those closest to the New Testament period, did not expound on it, or actually contradicted it.

I have thoroughly appreciated the perspective of stepping away from our theological traditions as offered in David Bercot's books ("Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up" and "The Kingdom that Turned the World Upside Down"). We will never be able to view the New Testament with unbiased eyes, but looking at it through the eyes of those who have been influenced by fewer of the traditions and theologies that have developed over two millennia helps us discover the purer words of Jesus, His message and God's will.

th1bill

13th June 2008, 05:23 PM

But, we don't need the thougts of those men, nor any other men, right? If that's the case - why bother reading anything other than the Bible? Why bother taking part in discussions such as this?

To say "We are people of The Word" and to disregard history is not only disingenuous, it is foolish.
... I'm sorry and we will likely need to agree to disagree on this because it is extremely foolish to be so liberal as to allow the traditions and customs of our forefathers to trump the clear Word of God. I'll admit that because my father was a man of war, I followed his tradition and went into the US Army to be a career soldier. At the same time that this tradition was important to me I did not choose to follow him and my mother into Hell. Traditions can be a very, ery dangerous thing.
... Just to qualify, for those that are sitting there with their jaw agape, my mother and my dad were wonderful parents but they did raise me to be an atheist and they passed from this world in that condition. I refused to be that example to my children and grandchildren.

holyrokker

13th June 2008, 07:58 PM

... I'm sorry and we will likely need to agree to disagree on this because it is extremely foolish to be so liberal as to allow the traditions and customs of our forefathers to trump the clear Word of God.
I hope that we don't end up with an "agree to disagree" relationship. I suspect that at this point it's more a matter of we don't understand each other well enough to actually disagreee.
I do not, by any means, think that traditions and customs trump the clear teachings of the Bible.

13th June 2008, 11:34 PM

PrincetonGuy

14th June 2008, 02:51 PM

... I'm sorry and we will likely need to agree to disagree on this because it is extremely foolish to be so liberal as to allow the traditions and customs of our forefathers to trump the clear Word of God. I'll admit that because my father was a man of war, I followed his tradition and went into the US Army to be a career soldier. At the same time that this tradition was important to me I did not choose to follow him and my mother into Hell. Traditions can be a very, ery dangerous thing.
... Just to qualify, for those that are sitting there with their jaw agape, my mother and my dad were wonderful parents but they did raise me to be an atheist and they passed from this world in that condition. I refused to be that example to my children and grandchildren.

Yes, but the “clear word of God” teaches conditional security, NOT eternal security—and we know that to be the case because, unlike almost any other Christian doctrine, the doctrine of conditional security was universally understood to be the truth throughout the known world for 1,500 years. Since then, it has continued to be understood to be the truth throughout the world by the large majority of Christian theologians, exegetes of the Holy Scriptures, pastors, and lay people. None, absolutely none of the eternal security ‘proof text,’ when read in context in the original language, can be seen to teach eternal security without assuming that there is in those texts an anomalous use of the Greek present tense, the Greek present participle, and the indicative and the subjunctive moods. Any doctrine that cannot be defended without performing linguistic gymnastics is most certainly NOT a Biblical doctrine.

PrincetonGuy

14th June 2008, 03:14 PM

From Dr. John Gill's "the Cause of God and Truth"

OF PERSEVERANCE.

Introduction (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_intro.htm)
SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section01.htm)
SECTION 2. - Barnabas (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section02.htm)
SECTION 3. - Ignatius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section03.htm)
SECTION 4. - Irenaeus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section04.htm)
SECTION 5. - Epistola Martyrum Galliae (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section05.htm)
SECTION 6. - Clemens Alexandrinus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section06.htm)
SECTION 7. - Tertullian (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section07.htm)
SECTION 8. - Origenes Alexandrinus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section08.htm)
SECTION 9. - Cyprian (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section09.htm)
SECTION 10. - Lactantius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section10.htm)
SECTION 11. - Eusebius Caesariensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section11.htm)
SECTION 12. - Chronomatius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section12.htm)
SECTION 13. - Athanasius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section13.htm)
SECTION 14. - Macarius Egyptius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section14.htm)
SECTION 15. - Hilarius Pictaviensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section15.htm)
SECTION 16. - Basilius Ceasariensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section16.htm)
SECTION 17. - Gregorius Nazianzenus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section17.htm)
SECTION 18. - Oregorius Nyssenus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section18.htm)
SECTION 19. - Hilarius Diaconus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section19.htm)
SECTION 20. - Ambrosius Mediolanensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section20.htm)
SECTION 21. - Joannes Chrysostomus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section21.htm)
SECTION 22. - Hieronymus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section22.htm)

These are the very writings that are the topic of the opening post! None of these Christian Fathers taught or even mentioned the doctrine of eternal security, indeed, that doctrine was unknown to the Church for 1,500 years. As is proven in my first several posts in this thread, John Gill quoted these fathers out of context to make it appear that they taught something that they did not teach. Statements among the Church Fathers to the effect that some Christians will persevere for a while when the conditions are favorable for them to do so is NOT the doctrine of Eternal Security—it is the doctrine of conditional security.

Indeed, I have quoted these very same Church Fathers in context to prove that they actively taught conditional security and warned of the danger of a Christian losing his salvation and being condemned to hell as a consequence. Please read especially the words of Irenaeus that I quoted in context. If you would like, I could quote many other examples, in context. Reformed theologians today do not deny that the Early Church Fathers taught the doctrine of conditional security rather than the perseverance of the saints or any other form of eternal security, but they insist that Christian doctrine is to be based solely on the Scriptures (as interpreted from a Reformed perspective rather than the early, historical perspective).

th1bill

14th June 2008, 06:08 PM

Yes, but the “clear word of God” teaches conditional security, NOT eternal security—and we know that to be the case because, unlike almost any other Christian doctrine, the doctrine of conditional security was universally understood to be the truth throughout the known world for 1,500 years. Since then, it has continued to be understood to be the truth throughout the world by the large majority of Christian theologians, exegetes of the Holy Scriptures, pastors, and lay people. None, absolutely none of the eternal security ‘proof text,’ when read in context in the original language, can be seen to teach eternal security without assuming that there is in those texts an anomalous use of the Greek present tense, the Greek present participle, and the indicative and the subjunctive moods. Any doctrine that cannot be defended without performing linguistic gymnastics is most certainly NOT a Biblical doctrine.
... Please, be kind and use the scriptures to illustrate your case then. Your broad brushed, generic comments contain no case material to examine.

PrincetonGuy

14th June 2008, 07:07 PM

... Please, be kind and use the scriptures to illustrate your case then. Your broad brushed, generic comments contain no case material to examine.

I do not want to derail this thread, but out of ‘kindness’ to you, here are several examples from the Gospel According to John in the NASB, 1995):

John 5:25. "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

The Greek word translated here ‘hears’ and the Greek word translated here ‘believes’ are both Greek present participles rather than verbs in the Greek aorist indicative tense thus indicating continuous rather than punctiliar action.

John 6:35. Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
36. "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.
37. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
38. "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
39. "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
40. "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

In John 6:35 Jesus uses the Greek present tense when saying that He is the bread of life. When He says, however, “he who comes to Me” he shifts from the Greek present tense to the Greek present participle describing the action of being in the process of coming to Him. Therefore, those who are in the process of coming to Him will never thirst. The Greek word translated here “thirst” is in the Greek subjunctive mood meaning that this is a conditional statement; that is, those persons who are in the process of coming to Jesus will never thirst. This promise, therefore, does NOT apply to anyone who turns from Jesus and begins walking away, that is backslides. When He says, “who believes in Me” He again uses the Greek present participle describing the action of being in the process of believing in Him. Therefore, those who are in the process of believing in Him will never thirst. Therefore, never thirsting and salvation itself is CONDITIONAL upon our continuing in our faith. Compare Col. 1:21-23,

21. And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,
22. yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach--
23. if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

In John 6:37 Jesus uses the Greek future tense in the indicative mood when saying that “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me” meaning that this is not a conditional statement but a statement of fact. When He says, however, “the one who comes to Me” He shifts from the Greek future tense to the Greek present participle describing again the action of being in the process of coming to Him. Therefore, those who are in the process of coming to Him He will not cast out.

The Greek word translated “cast” in verse 37 is in the Greek subjunctive mood meaning that this is a conditional statement; that is, those persons who are in the process of coming to Jesus He will not cast out. This promise, therefore, does NOT apply to anyone who turns from Jesus and begins walking away. The Greek word translated “lose” in verse 39 is also in the Greek subjunctive mood meaning that this is also a conditional statement; that is, it is the will of His Father that He lose nothing, but the actual outcome is conditional upon their continuing to come and their continuing to believe.

When He says in verse 40, “everyone who beholds the Son and believes” He again uses the Greek present participle describing the actions of being in the process of beholding the Son and believing in Him. Therefore, those who are in the process of beholding the Son and believing in Him will have eternal life. Therefore, having eternal life is CONDITIONAL upon our continuing in our faith. The Greek word translated “will have” (eternal life) in verse 40 is in the Greek subjunctive mood meaning that this is a conditional statement; that is, those persons who are in the process of beholding the Son and believing in Him will have eternal life.

Therefore, the Greek text of John 6:3 5-40 does NOT support the doctrine of eternal security (once saved, always saved). Indeed, it EXPRESSLY TEACHES that our having eternal life is CONDITIONAL upon our continuing to do three things,

1. come to Him
2. believe in Him
3. behold Him

John 8:31. So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine.” Here we find the conditional Greek particle ἐὰν ̓ used with the verb in the subjunctive mood in the protasis and in the indicative mood in the apodosis.

John 15:4. “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.” Although it is not apparent from this English translation, this verse does include a conditional clause and we find the conditional Greek particle ἐὰν ̓ used with the verb in the subjunctive mood in the protasis. (Compare Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, “remain in me, and I in you, as the branch is not able to bear fruit of itself, if it may not remain in the vine, so neither ye, if ye may not remain in me.”)

John 15:6. “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.” Here we find the conditional Greek particle ἐὰν ̓ used with the verb in the subjunctive mood in the protasis and in the indicative mood in the apodosis.

John 15:7. “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you”. Here we find the conditional Greek particle ἐὰν ̓ used with the verb in the subjunctive mood in the protasis and in the indicative mood in the apodosis.

John 15:10. “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.” Here we find the conditional Greek particle ἐὰν ̓ used with the verb in the subjunctive mood in the protasis and in the indicative mood in the apodosis.

John 15:16. “You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.” We have no conditional clauses in this verse, but the verb that we are studying (translated here “remain” rather than “abide”) is in the subjunctive mood, the mood expressing a probability rather than a certainty. It is also worth pointing out that the mood of the several other verbs in this verse, hence:

John 15:16. “You did not choose (indicative) Me but I chose (indicative) you, and appointed (indicative) you that you would go (subjunctive) and bear (subjunctive) fruit, and that your fruit would remain (subjunctive), so that whatever you ask (subjunctive) of the Father in My name He may give (subjunctive) to you.”

John 15:1. “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2. “Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3. “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4. “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5. “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6. “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
7. “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.”

The word “abide” in verse 4 is in the subjunctive mood; Jesus is telling his disciple that unless they remain in him, they cannot bear fruit.
The word “abide” in verse 5 is in the imperative mood; Jesus is commanding His disciple to abide in him.
The word “abide” in verse 6 is in the subjunctive mood; Jesus is telling his disciple that if anyone does not remain in him, they are cast into the fire and are burned. It is very interesting that the verbs translated “thrown” and “dries up” are in the Greek aorist tense, a tense indicating past action completed at a point in time, as though anyone who fails to remain in Christ is viewed by God as already having been dried up and thrown out like a dried up branch to be cast into the fire where they are burned. This is a very stern warning in vivid language to those individuals who are in Christ that the consequence of failing to obey His command to remain in Him is to be dried up and burned like a dried up branch of a vine.
The word “abide” in verse 7 is in the subjunctive mood in both of its occurrences in this verse; Jesus is telling his disciple that if they (the you is plural) abide in Him and His words abide in them, they are to ask (imperative mood and hence a command) for whatever they wish and it will be done for them.

Project 86

14th June 2008, 08:48 PM

PrincetonGuy, I find it ironic that your favorite verse is 2 Corinthians 5:17. I take it that you believe the new creation can become old again, then new, then old again for who knows how many times?

PrincetonGuy

14th June 2008, 09:20 PM

PrincetonGuy, I find it ironic that your favorite verse is 2 Corinthians 5:17. I take it that you believe the new creation can become old again, then new, then old again for who knows how many times?

No, I do not believe that—and neither did the Early Church Fathers, at least not most of them. If you can find one that did, I can readily show you from the Scriptures why he was mistaken.

I freely admit that there are a few seriously mistaken Christians today who hold to that view, a view much closer to the ozone layer or the Twilight Zone than the Holy Scriptures, but that is not the topic of this thread.

Project 86

14th June 2008, 10:06 PM

No, I do not believe that—and neither did the Early Church Fathers, at least not most of them. If you can find one that did, I can readily show you from the Scriptures why he was mistaken.

I freely admit that there are a few seriously mistaken Christians today who hold to that view, a view much closer to the ozone layer or the Twilight Zone than the Holy Scriptures, but that is not the topic of this thread.

I find it relevant to the topic because most people I know would say a new creation in Christ = being saved. Since you believe people can lose their salvation you must believe people can be a new creation in Christ yet still be destined for hell? I'm just trying to see how you are viewing this topic to better understand.

PrincetonGuy

14th June 2008, 10:35 PM

I find it relevant to the topic because most people I know would say a new creation in Christ = being saved. Since you believe people can lose their salvation you must believe people can be a new creation in Christ yet still be destined for hell? I'm just trying to see how you are viewing this topic to better understand.

The topic of this thread is not what I believe about the security of the believer, but what the Early Church Fathers believed about the security of the believer. Perhaps you would like to read what they said about the issue that you are inquiring about and then share with us what you learned regarding their beliefs.

15th June 2008, 12:10 AM

smiles for all lol

holyrokker

15th June 2008, 01:24 AM

None of the quotes that Mr Gill referenced plainly indicate what he claims. He's making an inference.

15th June 2008, 01:31 AM

PrincetonGuy

15th June 2008, 01:40 AM

None of the quotes that Mr Gill referenced plainly indicate what he claims. He's making an inference.

Amen!

John Gill’s inferences from the writings of the Early Church Fathers led many astray in John Gill’s day, but when the writings of the Early Church Fathers became widely available for all to read in the late 1860’s it became very clear how very wrong Gill’s inferences were. I have quoted the same Early Church Fathers, not at random, but in the order in which the quotes were provided by the member whose posts I am refuting beginning in the opening post in this thread, and, unlike John Gill, I quoted them in context and proved that they did NOT teach that all Christians will persevere to the end, but that they EXPRESSLY TAUGHT the conditional security of the believer and the potential of their condemnation when they do NOT persevere.

15th June 2008, 01:47 AM

PrincetonGuy, do you believe in conditional security?

PrincetonGuy

15th June 2008, 01:50 AM

PrincetonGuy, do you believe in conditional security?

The topic of this thread is not what I believe about the security of the believer, but what the EarlyChurch Fathers believed about the security of the believer.

15th June 2008, 01:51 AM

The topic of this thread is not what I believe about the security of the believer, but what the EarlyChurch Fathers believed about the security of the believer.

Ok, I'll start a thread just so I can ask.

:kiss:

15th June 2008, 01:53 AM

Here it is:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7248309

mlqurgw

15th June 2008, 08:44 AM

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. It is theoretically possible that the New Testament could not be understood for 1,500 years or longer and that it took tens of thousands of Bible scholars to figure out what the writers were trying to say. If that is the case, however, the New Testament is a collection of the some of the most poorly written documents ever written and the words of Jesus in the New Testament are either not really His, or Jesus Himself was such a very poor teacher that he was unable to put his words together in a comprehensible manner. I find it difficult to believe that the words of Jesus in the New Testament are not really His; and I find it equally difficult to believe that Jesus was unable to put his words together in a comprehensible manner. I find it much easier to believe that the New Testament was so very well written that the teaching of salvation was almost universally understood for 1,500 years and that until the 16th century no one mistook it to teach eternal security.

My main points in this thread, however, are that the Early Church Fathers taught conditional security and that the doctrine of eternal security was not known to them. I had made these two points in another thread and a poster in that thread posted that I was mistaken, and in an attempt to prove that I was mistaken, he copied and pasted some quotes from one or more websites that share his view. The quotes, however, were taken out of context to make them appear to teach the opposite of what the Early Church Fathers were actually teaching. That poster and I, however, had gotten off the topic of the opening post in that thread and therefore I started this new thread to vindicate the accuracy of my points, i.e., that that the Early Church Fathers taught conditional security and that the doctrine of eternal security was not known to them. The relevance, or lack there of, of these two facts to the truthfulness of the doctrine of eternal security itself is another topic.

My posts in this thread have been very long because I quoted the writers in context so that my readers could see for themselves what the writers that I quoted really said and how these writers themselves defended the doctrine of conditional security. I know that many people ignore long posts, and I often do so myself, but shorter posts would not have allowed me to quote the Early Church Fathers with enough of the original context to make it clear what they were actually teaching in the writings I was quoting from.

The truth is very important to me, and I hold it dearly, and I enjoy sharing it with others, but sometimes the truth cannot be shared and established in a few words. Please forgive me if I have taken too much of your time or if I offended you by my long posts. The only offense I take is that I am convinced that many of the positions you take are unbiblical and promote self-righteous religion in those who you influence. I too take truth very seriously and the souls of eternity bound sinners as precious. I will no longer debate anything though but simply say what I believe and leave it up to Him who is Truth to convince. Now as far as the ECF are concerned, they wrote very little to teach specific doctrines. They were not so much concerned with systematic theology, actually they didn't teach any systematics, but with devotional edifying and the refutation of certain heresies of their day. Whether they taught eternal security or not is a matter of interpreting it into them one way or the other. As far as it taking 1500 years to understand the Bible, it is an argument with tunnel vision. The Apostles did speak and write by the infallible guide of the Spirit and were inspired in what they taught. That in no way means that those they taught understood infallibly. To be sure we have many examples in the New Testament where they didn't. The early church was just that, early in that it was newly established in the visible sense. It didn't have the maturity of the thousands of years of instruction that we are privileged to look back on. And they didn't call the first 1200 or so years after the death of the Apostles the Dark Ages for nothing. It was a time of great superstition and error brought about by the false teaching and tight grip of Rome. As to interpreting according to the Reformers, I disagree with many things the Reformers taught. I do thank God for them though as He directed them exactly according to His perfect providence in shaping the very events of today. If those things hadn't occurred as they did we wouldn't be the people we are now. To truly get to the truth of what the ECF or the Reformers actually taught we must seek to enter in to the times that they lived and the issues of their day. I am not responsible for the generations that have passed before. I am responsible for the generation in which I live and have opportunity to influence. As teachers you and I both will answer to God for what we teach to our generation.
Now I have said my piece and I will leave it at that. May God give us both eyes to see and ears to hear His truth. Ron

16th June 2008, 10:32 AM

Good post.

eldermike

16th June 2008, 02:08 PM

PrincetonGuy

16th June 2008, 02:39 PM

The only offense I take is that I am convinced that many of the positions you take are unbiblical and promote self-righteous religion in those who you influence.

We have 2,000 years of history that incontrovertibly proves that precisely the opposite was true. The 16th century reformers who believed and taught as did John Calvin believed and taught an inadequate view of the atonement of Christ that resulted in their own personal bondage to sin throughout their lives. This bondage is very clearly reflected in their writing on the seventh chapter of Romans and is there for the world to read. The other reformers, however, that opposed the teachings of John Calvin, largely did so because they, like many Christians before them, had personally experienced the freedom from the bondage to sin that holds so many others captive. That freedom from the bondage to sin had nothing to do with self-righteousness on their part, but everything to do with the gift of the atonement of Christ. They took to heart the precious words of our Savior in John 8:31-36,

31. So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, I you are truly disciples of Mine;
32. and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
33. They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
34. Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
35. "The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.
36. "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. (NASB, 1995)

They took to heart the testimony of the beloved Apostle Paul where he wrote,

1. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
3. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4. so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (NASB, 1995)

What glorious words, “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh.” But when we read Calvin’s commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, we see that the blessed promise in these inspired words somehow missed his attention and that he most pitifully wrote of them, “Having described the struggle which the godly continuously have with their own flesh, he returns to the consolation which he had before mentioned, and which was very necessary for them—although they are still beset by sin, yet they are free from the power of death, and from every curse, provided they live not in the flesh but in the Spirit.”

By his words, “The struggle which the godly continuously have with their own flesh,” Calvin was referring to his interpretation of Romans 7:14-25 in which he attributed Paul’s description of a devout but unregenerate Jew, who loved the Law given to the Jews but who was not able to keep it to because of the weakness of his flesh, to Paul as a regenerate, born-again, spirit-filled Christian! And Calvin attributed this description of a Jew under the Law to the Apostle Paul in his mature, Christian state even though Paul had been writing for chapters that we are no longer under the Law, but under grace; and Calvin attributed this description of a Jew under the Law to the Apostle Paul in his mature, Christian state even though Paul had written of himself to the Philippians that he was, “as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.” Therefore, Calvin portrays the beloved Apostle Paul, who had been victorious over sin under the Law, as a man “of flesh, sold into bondage to sin,” (Rom. 7:14) as a consequence of the atonement of Christ!

So how about your accusation? Are “many” of the positions that I take “unbiblical?” Do the positions that I take and ardently defend for the sake of the gospel delivered to us by our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus and preached and taught by the beloved Apostle Paul promote self-righteousness—or do they promote the righteousness that Christ died to give to us?

PrincetonGuy

16th June 2008, 03:06 PM

The earth was once flat and the center of the universe, as taught by the early church fathers.

Eternal security is clear from scripture alone. You don't need to find and endlessly study a flat earth believer to get closer to God. As intresting as these brothers were they were on a journey just like the rest of us. We are farther on that journey than anyone of them. If they came back they would sit in our bible studies, not the other way around.

Let’s get the history correct here. Both the Old and the New Testaments describe the earth as being flat and the Early Church Fathers clearly understood them to describe the earth as being flat.

Yes, the Early Church Fathers were on a journey, but their journey was very much different from ours. They lived in the same Hellenistic culture as the writers of the New Testament and their first language was the vernacular Greek spoken by Jesus and written by the Apostles. And then, after more than three centuries, came the dark ages during which the Hellenistic culture was gone forever and the vernacular Greek spoken by Jesus and written by the Apostles was largely forgotten. And then, after about a millennium of darkness and ignorance, came the European Renaissance and a handful of Christians began the task of attempting to reconstruct the Christianity of the Early Church Fathers. But alas! Very much of the information necessary for them to do that had become lost and was not rediscovered until long after these early Reformers had died.

PrincetonGuy

16th June 2008, 06:16 PM

Now as far as the ECF are concerned, they wrote very little to teach specific doctrines. They were not so much concerned with systematic theology, actually they didn't teach any systematics, but with devotional edifying and the refutation of certain heresies of their day. Whether they taught eternal security or not is a matter of interpreting it into them one way or the other.

The mere fact that a few of the people holding Reformed views interpret the Early Church Fathers on this issue differently than the large majority of the people holding Reformed views does not mean that the writings themselves are unclear or ambiguous. And since the interpretation of the large majority of the people holding Reformed views is in complete harmony with the interpretation of the people holding non-Reformed views, it is quite clear that those few individuals who differ are simply mistaken in their interpretation.

In both my undergraduate and graduate years as a university student, I took a number of courses in the interpretation of literature and it was not uncommon to have one or two students in the classes who, for one reason or another, very much to the dismay of the professors, were not able to correctly understand the literature being taught. Was that in any way a refection of the clarity of the literature, or was it a reflection of something pertaining to the students who didn’t understand the literature?

16th June 2008, 07:04 PM

holyrokker

16th June 2008, 08:43 PM

Eternal security is clear from scripture alone.
It certainly is not clear from scripture alone. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The only way it is "clear" is to look at scripture through the lens of presupposition. The doctrine must first be accepted as true before it can be observed in a few select passage, while attempting to explain away passages that don't fit the doctrine.

eldermike

16th June 2008, 10:00 PM

Let’s get the history correct here. Both the Old and the New Testaments describe the earth as being flat and the Early Church Fathers clearly understood them to describe the earth as being flat.

Yes, the Early Church Fathers were on a journey, but their journey was very much different from ours. They lived in the same Hellenistic culture as the writers of the New Testament and their first language was the vernacular Greek spoken by Jesus and written by the Apostles. And then, after more than three centuries, came the dark ages during which the Hellenistic culture was gone forever and the vernacular Greek spoken by Jesus and written by the Apostles was largely forgotten. And then, after about a millennium of darkness and ignorance, came the European Renaissance and a handful of Christians began the task of attempting to reconstruct the Christianity of the Early Church Fathers. But alas! Very much of the information necessary for them to do that had become lost and was not rediscovered until long after these early Reformers had died.

The bible teaches the earth is round, the fact that it was once thought/ taught flat is proof of my original point.

PrincetonGuy

17th June 2008, 12:14 AM

Some people read the information in a text and interpret what they read. Other people read information into a text and interpret what they read into it. We often find the latter in the reading of the Church Fathers and in the reading of the Bible when the reader cares more about what he wants the text say than what the author actually had to say. Circles and spheres do not have four corners, but the earth is two-dimensionally a circle and three-dimensionally a sphere (or at least very close to one) and therefore less than careful readers often read this information into Biblical texts.

Rev. 7:1μετα τουτο ειδον τεσσαρας αγγελους εστωτας επι τας τεσσαρας γωνιας της γης κρατουντας τους τεσσαρας ανεμους της γης ινα μη πνεη ανεμος επι της γης μητε επι της θαλασσης μητε επι παν δενδρον

Gen. 1:6-8 וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים יְהִ֥י רָקִ֖יעַ בְּתֹ֣וךְ הַמָּ֑יִם וִיהִ֣י מַבְדִּ֔יל בֵּ֥ין מַ֖יִם לָמָֽיִם׃
וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִים֮ אֶת־הָרָקִיעַ֒ וַיַּבְדֵּ֗ל בֵּ֤ין הַמַּ֙יִם֙
אֲשֶׁר֙ מִתַּ֣חַת לָרָקִ֔יעַ וּבֵ֣ין הַמַּ֔יִם אֲשֶׁ֖ר מֵעַ֣ל לָרָקִ֑יעַ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃
וַיִּקְרָ֧א אֱלֹהִ֛ים לָֽרָקִ֖יעַ שָׁמָ֑יִם וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום שֵׁנִֽי׃

Project 86

17th June 2008, 07:44 AM

Let’s get the history correct here. Both the Old and the New Testaments describe the earth as being flat and the Early Church Fathers clearly understood them to describe the earth as being flat.

Even when I was a Christ hating pagan I did not think that the Bible taught that the Earth was flat or that the sun rotated around the Earth. People that are not Christian still today use the same terms the Bible uses such as "corners of the earth" or the "sun rises or sets". That does not mean they believe the Earth is flat or that the sun is rotating around us. It is good to know though that you think the Bible has errors in it. It helps us to know your worldview.

eldermike

17th June 2008, 08:27 AM

Communion

17th June 2008, 12:45 PM

I suggest you add the study of geometry to your study of words. We can trace pi to about 750 BC in Indian mathematics. The bible will not support a flat earth, the same church Fathers you read and quote were wrong on a very important thing. So read and enjoy them but I suggest you let the HS lead you on your study. I would start with; there is no condemnation in those that are IN Christ Jesus.

Rom 8:1 –Rom 8:8 NKJV
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Sounds like there could be some conditional requirements~no condemnation as long as we walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh (maybe, just a thought?)..

eldermike

17th June 2008, 02:17 PM

Rom 8:1 –Rom 8:8 NKJV
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Sounds like there could be some conditional requirements~no condemnation as long as we walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh (maybe, just a thought?)..

No sir, "who do no walk" is a condition itself, it's a description of one who is IN Christ Jesus.

holyrokker

17th June 2008, 04:35 PM

I wish there were a way of deleting my own posts. I wouldn't make a fool of myself as often by typing a reply too hastily.

Communion

17th June 2008, 05:54 PM

No sir, "who do no walk" is a condition itself, it's a description of one who is IN Christ Jesus.

yes, but it seems like it could mean that if you do walk (as a Christian) in the flesh there is condemnation, could there be a warning in this part of scripture?

I'm not exactly sure on this stuff, just wondering.

Godbless you folks:)

holyrokker

17th June 2008, 07:09 PM

I think eldermike is right with this passage. The clause "who do not walk according to the flesh" is merely clarifying the previous clause.

Those who are in Christ do not walk accoring to the flesh.

I contend that it is impossible to walk according to the flesh and remain in Christ.

eldermike

17th June 2008, 09:18 PM

yes, but it seems like it could mean that if you do walk (as a Christian) in the flesh there is condemnation, could there be a warning in this part of scripture?

I'm not exactly sure on this stuff, just wondering.

Godbless you folks:)

Godbless you:wave:

When you study look first for Jesus and what He's doing, then look for how we should react to what He's doing and has done for us. The subject passage clearly shows the power of God, not the duty of man.
That's why we study Theology and not me-ology. The first allows us to know more of Him, the latter only leads us in circles.

Example: While we were yet sinners Christ died for us - if I, a Chrstian sins, God will throw me in hell...................one of these is in the bible, the other one we made up.

Salvation = God's grace and mercy not to forget His Glory and power.
Keeping my salvation by my works mocks every part of God's nature.

A Christian will not willingly sin, he may slip but God is able to catch what is falling.
A man that sins with ease is not saved, and never was.