Early church fathers believed we can lose salvation?

[mikeuk]

If this creed was the extent of Catholic doctrine, then we would have no debate...
But it is not.

Even the capitalization of the word "virgin", and not of "He" is proof of corruption.

There are a few believers among the "Catholic" group, but they are few, and not in positions of authority.

Sophia. If you look for fault you will surely find it. In everyone. These editors are a nightmare, changing words and capitalization - is that really how you judge another?

All I can do is tell you what we believe, point to the catechism that proves we believe it.

Where then is your grievance? Sacraments - another main part of the catechism? Or Liturgy? One thing rings out from the early church fathers they believed in a liturgical sacramental church, and shared understanding of such as real presence. And indeed as the OP shows, they aired concerns about those who believed in OSAS too! In short the essence of the doctrine of what is now RCC

The magisterium, pope , and hierarchy often criticised are a complete red herring in two regards.
(a) First RCC regards the "church" as the people of god, body of christ, not a building or a hierarchy.
(b) The fruit of the magisterium is doctrine embraced in interpretation of the bible compiled in the catechism and creed. Disregard then , where it came from, our differences are in doctrine, and I suspect smaller than you think.

Can we not agree on the things we can agree on instead?

 

[mikeuk]

No anybody who can read can understand it...you don't need a pope or some prophet to tell you what it clearly says.

If that were so , how do you account for the myriad of mutually exclusive views on any topic from salvation, real presence, baptism and so on. All of these people hold opposite views with equal passion and conviction. So authority is certainly needed!

That is in essence why protestantism has fractured into thousands of pieces: whenever a serious disagreement springs up on doctrine, the congregation fractures, and people then choose the congregation that conformst to their beliefs. And that is a problem, because all should conform to the one definition of truth, the chruch shoudl not conform to them.. In one of luthers letters he expresses exasperation at every tom dick and harry deciding on truth, although I would have to search to find it again!

Longevity of constancy of doctrinal view should be the hallmark of the true church, yet only one denomination has had that for millenia! It is clearly stated in scripture that "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church" - notice the church not scritpure. It is hard to believe that one small splinter of a protestant faction set up in the last few decades even, can claim to be that pillar!

 

[The_highwayman]

They don't necessarily call them a heretic but they do argue over theology

My wife was Catholic for 25 years and used to come home beat up and burned out, because of arguments over theology

you are only here to stir up strife and dissension...

 

[The_highwayman]

And that was my journey too. From Protestant to evangelical to RCC. The more I studied history, the more I saw that the early church was liturgical, sacramental, believed in real presence, baptismal renewal,shared your observations on justification. In short, it was what evolved to become RCC. I then discovered that the standard objections, I had even held as a Protestant, did not stand scrutiny in the harsh light of day,.
Eg mary as queen is entirely compatible and proper for her position as mother of davidic king, because that is what the mother was called in the davidic kingdom, a position of honour not authority, with powers of advocacy, not rule.

I followed your path some ten years ago. Was it Newman who said " to be immersed in history is to cease to be Protestant"

Hope you like rotten tomatoes, there are plenty coming your way if you express such views here!

Except you will not find anywhere in the Bible that God sanctioned the office of a QUEEN

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

If anyone believes one can "lose their salvation," whether a so-called EOC of the 2nd century, or some misguided yay-hoo on ChristianChat.com, they were/are wrong, so who cares what they wrote or said?

Interesting, isn't it, that they never say they may have lost their salvation, and if you ask them about it, they go strangely silent until they think maybe you've forgotten you asked?

 

[mikeuk]

My wife was Catholic for 25 years and used to come home beat up and burned out, because of arguments over theology

you are only here to stir up strife and dissension...

I can imagine many leave this forum burnt out!

I have been RCC for over a decade and not seen a doctrinal dispute of consequence, other than the question of whether married people should be allowed to be priests , otherwise all seem content to conform to magisterium. I saw a lot of disagreements in evangelicals, whilstthere who did not seem to know what they believed.

It is certainly wearing to bat back the same old evangelical myths about RCC though! I don't mind discussing the points of difference, but not the ones that are not even true, or catholcs not behaving how they should. We all have some of those!

 

[oldthennew]

corruption coupled with Holiness is nothing new............

 

[mikeuk]

Except you will not find anywhere in the Bible that God sanctioned the office of a QUEEN

This is the wrong place for that particular issue, but I suggest you look at the Davidic kings, assuming you believe the OT is inspired, then the OT is God telling you himself!. Jesus was both prophesied to be a davidic king, and also the references there are legion. He aligned himself to Solomon by riding a donkey. The queen of Solomons kingdom is not a spouse but mother, to whom he bowed out of respect. She had no position of power but advocacy, but was told that he would honour what she asked of him. Indeed a dozen of the mothers of davidic kings are mentioned. Queen is a title conferring no power , but honorary . And that is what it means.

You cannot read the new testament without understanding the references from old. Take the keys of the kingdom a direct reference back to davidic keys. Jesus chose to align himself with that kingdom so he could be understood!

I noticed the evangelical sect I belonged to, never strayed out of the new testament. But that is very flawed. The analogies with Davids kingdome, Moses and so on are legion, and that is no accident. From Killing of newborns to 40 day fasts in the wilderness, to the word delivered on a mountain. You cannot read one without the other.

 

[Jeff_56]

yahweh doesn't tolerate it nor allow it for very long in the body of yahshua - he separates his ekklesia from the corruption of demons and man(rcc), by mercy and faith and grace in yahshua.

realize that many young people today never heard of the widespread abominations and murders
planned and orchestrated
by the nazi catholics , (or catholic nazis), under command of the papacy>>

http://www dot reformation.org/holoc4.html

Chapter 4

 

[notuptome]

To accept the concept that a born again Christian can lose their salvation is to believe that a butterfly can go back to being a caterpillar.

If you have never experienced Gods grace and been born again from above you will doubtless believe that you can lose your salvation.

Christians are not perfect and are subject to the frailties of the body of flesh. We become frustrated and tired because of the flesh. We do not however fear that we will perish in Gods condemnation of sin.

The promise of God is sure. Gods word never changes. Jesus Christ never changes. My salvation can never change because it is of God and not of me. My salvation is not dependent on early church fathers who were men just like me. My salvation is not dependent on rituals and superstitions like the RCC contends. My salvation is secure in the eternal grace of God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

If you have never experienced Gods grace and been born again from above you will doubtless believe that you can lose your salvation.

Wow, good point.

"Salvation lost" believers: Better ask yourself a question.

 

[mikeuk]

Wow, good point.

"Salvation lost" believers: Better ask yourself a question.

From a critical thinkers point of view it is a "no true scotsman" falasy, presented in a different but similar way. A straw man.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

From a critical thinkers point of view it is a "no true scotsman" falasy, presented in a different but similar way. A straw man.

Hardly. The reality is the Holy Spirit absolutely assures us of our salvation, our justification, our sanctification, and our redemption. If we doubt that assurance, thinking any of that process lays the onus on us, we haven't met the Holy Spirit. No straw man there. It is biblical fact.

 

[mikeuk]

Hardly. The reality is the Holy Spirit absolutely assures us of our salvation, our justification, our sanctification, and our redemption. If we doubt that assurance, thinking any of that process lays the onus on us, we haven't met the Holy Spirit. No straw man there. It is biblical fact.

Look vigilant, I respect your views. We don't agree, neither did the church fathers so they interpreted the scriptures differently. So let us leave it there. Agree to disagree.

But the "reductio" argument made is in effect "Unless you already are a true believer , you will not have the capacity to believe as we do"

It is the no true scotsman argument in different form, presented as "no true believer", since all of us consider we experience at least some grace, you must argue therefore we have the wrong kind of grace or perhaps not enough of it, because we are not "true" believers since we clearly do not believe as you do.

So as pure logic it is a straw man. A circular argument. Whilst The argument does not negate what you say, neither can it support it at any level of rigor either, and we are back to what we both believe about scripture, that divides us.

Anyway, I don't want an argument. Peace to all.

 

[michael56]

I think we would all do well to consider what it is we share, accepting Jesus as Lord, rather than air the differences!

Do you think it is possible for some to get so strung up by the letter of doctrine they lose sight of the heart of the Gospel-what really matters?

The biblical requirement to be a Christian seems a far more simple-and less convoluted theology/doctrine than has evolved over the centuries me thinks

 

[notuptome]

Look vigilant, I respect your views. We don't agree, neither did the church fathers so they interpreted the scriptures differently. So let us leave it there. Agree to disagree.

But the "reductio" argument made is in effect "Unless you already are a true believer , you will not have the capacity to believe as we do"

It is the no true scotsman argument in different form, presented as "no true believer", since all of us consider we experience at least some grace, you must argue therefore we have the wrong kind of grace or perhaps not enough of it, because we are not "true" believers since we clearly do not believe as you do.

So as pure logic it is a straw man. A circular argument. Whilst The argument does not negate what you say, neither can it support it at any level of rigor either, and we are back to what we both believe about scripture, that divides us.

Anyway, I don't want an argument. Peace to all.

Of course you want to drop the debate. You have been exposed. Your position has no merit according to the scriptures. You will believe the early church fathers but you will not believe God? You only hear those who tell you what you want to hear. Pity, just like King Agrippa who sadly said almost thou persuades me to be a Christian. Like those described as ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

You must be reconciled to God. God will not accommodate unbelief.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

Do you think it is possible for some to get so strung up by the letter of doctrine they lose sight of the heart of the Gospel-what really matters?

The biblical requirement to be a Christian seems a far more simple-and less convoluted theology/doctrine than has evolved over the centuries me thinks

The Gnostics have held to another gospel since the time of the apostles.

The gospel is simple so that even a child is able to comprehend it.

God has done all that is necessary for a man to be saved from his sin. Even the faith needed to be saved God supplies through His word the bible and Holy Spirit's ministry to bring, draw a man to Christ. Many simply will not to come. They prefer their own righteousness to that of Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[yogosans14]

The Gnostics have held to another gospel since the time of the apostles.

The gospel is simple so that even a child is able to comprehend it.

God has done all that is necessary for a man to be saved from his sin. Even the faith needed to be saved God supplies through His word the bible and Holy Spirit's ministry to bring, draw a man to Christ. Many simply will not to come. They prefer their own righteousness to that of Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Hebrews 10:26-28 ESV / 42 helpful votes

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Look vigilant, I respect your views. We don't agree, neither did the church fathers so they interpreted the scriptures differently. So let us leave it there. Agree to disagree.

Fine. Except, you didn't.

But the "reductio" argument made is in effect "Unless you already are a true believer , you will not have the capacity to believe as we do"

There is nothing reductio ad absurdum about that statement -- and it isn't an argument, it is an indisputable fact.

Matthew 13, NASB
11 Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.
12 "For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.
13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
14 "In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, 'YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
15 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES, HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.'
16 "But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.
17 "For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it." ​

There can be no doubt that Satan "has blinded the eyes of unbelievers," as Paul states in 2 Corinthians 4:4, and regardless of what you want to claim, the Bible clearly, unequivocally, and truthfully declares that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, as told in the Scriptures alone.

If anyone preaches or teaches anything outside the realm of those five solas, they do not hear the Holy Spirit. They may think they do, but what they here is a spirit not of God. I'm sure you disagree, and I'm sure you think I'm being harsh, unreasonable, erecting a straw man, whatever you are about to claim. I can't help that, I won't argue it, I stand by biblical truth and will not waiver. What I will do, what I can help, is -- if your mind, spirit, and soul are open -- share God's truth with you, show you why my statements are reasonable, and help your understanding.

God bless.

 

[michael56]

The Gnostics have held to another gospel since the time of the apostles.

The gospel is simple so that even a child is able to comprehend it.

God has done all that is necessary for a man to be saved from his sin. Even the faith needed to be saved God supplies through His word the bible and Holy Spirit's ministry to bring, draw a man to Christ. Many simply will not to come. They prefer their own righteousness to that of Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

The Gospel of repent, believe the son of God died for your sins, repent of your sin and ask him into your life as Lord and Saviour and be saved, I agree is a simple Gospel

But once saved, there is sharp disagreement, as seen on these kind of websites as to what it takes to remain saved.