Eternal Security Examined Historically
Did the Apostles Teach Eternal Security to the Early Church?By Nick Liguori
Next Section: 1st and 2nd Century Fathers | More About Eternal Security | False Doctrine
Introduction
We make a bold claim: we can prove historically, by looking at early evidence outside of the New Testament, that the apostles did not teach eternal security. We want to circumvent the Biblical debate over this controversial doctrine and instead take a historical route to prove that the apostles did not teach eternal security to the early Church. So rather than, "what does the Bible teach?" we will instead be asking, "historically, what did they teach?" This historical route will likely be foreign terrain, and you will likely be shocked by what you learn. We will be following the trail blazed by David Bercot, Roger Forster and others.
**Note: the reader may wish to skip ahead to early Christian quotations. If so, click one of the links below. Otherwise continue reading this introductory material.
- 3rd and 4th century writings (earlier than 325 A.D.)
- 1st and 2nd century writings (earlier than 200 A.D.)
The Calvinist doctrine of unconditional eternal security is summed up in the phrase "once saved always saved." Charles Stanley, perhaps the leading advocate of this doctrine in the Church today, says:
"eternal security is that work of God in which He guarantees that the gift of salvation once received is possessed forever and cannot be lost."[*]Stanley writes:
"But a man or woman who has been rescued once from a state of unforgiveness need not worry. For once 100% of a man's or woman's sins have been forgiven, the potential for being unforgiven has been done away with. The risk factor is zero. There are no more fires from which the believer needs to be saved."[*]
So what are the practical implications, or could we say, applications, of this doctrine?
"No matter what you do as a child of God, you are forgiven. You say, 'Murder?' Forgiven. 'Stealing?' Forgiven. 'Adultery?' Forgiven. 'Worshiping idols?' Forgiven."[*]Does this sound revolting? Stanley further writes,
"Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy."[*]Again he writes,
"believers who lose or abandon their faith will retain their salvation."[*]
"A believer who commits suicide is already forgiven."[*]
Revolting as this may seem, Stanley's view is far from "fringe." In fact, eternal security is a prevalent doctrine in most evangelical and protestant churches today. But is this doctrine true? The reader must wonder: could this doctrine have anything to do with the Church's present state of worldliness, complacency, and high divorce rates?
We believe that a conditional security is the clear position of scripture. This has been discussed in my Eternal Security Re-examined.[*] Conditional security, as opposed to (unconditional) eternal security, simply states that future unbelief can disqualify one from future salvation. Salvation can be lost. It is true that we are saved in an instant of faith and repentance toward Christ, but it is also true that continued salvation in Christ is not automatic. Rather there are conditions that we must continue to meet, with the help of God's grace and power working in us.
A Valid Approach
In the course of this work, we intend to establish the following:(1) If the apostles taught eternal security to the newly born Church, we had better find somebody teaching the doctrine in the writings of the early Church.We believe that the following conclusion is inevitable:
(2) Rather than eternal security, the ancient Church universally taught conditional security until St. Augustine after 400 AD.
(3)The testimony of the patristic writings proves that the apostles preached a conditional, rather than unconditional, security.
Before we go any further, we must answer a number of questions from our Calvinist friends.
The Calvinist asks, "How do you know what the early Christians taught?"
We possess a large body of manuscripts, the most prominent of which have been translated and compiled into a ten volume work, The Ante-Nicene Fathers.[*] These patristic writings consist primarily of apologetic works, writings against heresy, and epistles of correspondence between Churches.[*] We have writings from dozens of prominent early Christians, from bishops (Ignatius) and presbyters (Hippolytus) to apologists (Justin Martyr) and historians (Eusebius). Their writings are often easier to read than the Bible, making it easier to determine their views on eternal security.
"Who cares what they believed anyway? You shouldn't give them the same weight as Scripture."
Agreed. While certainly not scripture, these writings are of tremendous importance for many reasons. The first generation of early Christians -- such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp -- knew the apostles personally! They could ask them questions. This renders them experts on whether the apostles taught eternal security. Others had been to churches founded by the apostles, such as Corinth, Rome, or Thessalonica. The language of the New Testament (Greek) was their native tongue. They were in a unique position to tell us what were the apostolic traditions and teachings that were so carefully preserved. Just as the earliest manuscripts carry the most weight in textual criticism, those nearest the fount of Jesus and the apostles are our greatest and most authentic commentators.[*]
What if the early Christians chose totally different gospels than us? What if they didn't believe in Jesus' deity? We would be in serious trouble as Christians, with no historical basis for our faith. Our beliefs on the New Testament and Jesus Christ have been shaped by their beliefs. The beliefs of the Ante-Nicene Christians are critically important to us. How then can we say that their beliefs on the doctrine of salvation are less important? How can we ignore what they believed about eternal security?
"So are you a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox?"
Certainly not. In fact the primitive Christians predate these Churches, which did not begin until the fourth century. Unfortunately, we disagree with those Churches on a number of points which are beyond the scope of this work.
"Are you just picking and choosing those quotations which suit your preconceived notion?"
Of course we are only going to present passages relevant to the issue of eternal security. And we have included less than 1% of the early Church writings, but we boldly assert that there is nothing in the other 99% that will contradict the unanimous view presented herein. That is to say, you will not find even one early Christian writing embracing eternal security before 400 AD. We therefore issue an open challenge to the Calvinist: find one early Christian writer before Augustine who taught any form of eternal security. John Jefferson Davis, the renown Calvinist theologian, even admits that his doctrine was not taught until St. Augustine.[*] However, Davis and others have not admitted that this disproves eternal security. We will be pushing for a further concession on this point.
"What does history have to do with whether a doctrine is biblical? Is your historical method really valid?"
A great question. This argument is valid because our Calvinist friends make an implicit claim regarding eternal security. In addition to saying, "it's biblical," the Calvinist continues by saying, "and the apostles taught eternal security." You see, the Calvinist makes two claims: the doctrine's true and the apostles must have preached it to the newborn Church. Although it seems trivial, it is actually significant because Calvinism now becomes vulnerable to falsification from a second front -- history. Whatever the apostles passed down to the Church must be the true position of scripture. Having formed this simple connection between doctrine and preaching, history is indeed a valid means of falsifying a biblical doctrine, provided the historical evidence is sufficient.
The Historical Method
Let us consider an analogy regarding creation versus evolution. Evolutionists not only state that evolution can occur, but also that it did occur. What kind of evolutionist would say, "Evolution is fully possible, but I personally don't think it happened"? Of course the evolutionist insists on both claims. But because he makes two separate claims, his view is open to falsification from two directions, microbiology and paleontology. The creationist microbiologist can say, "Microbiology proves evolution couldn't happen," or the paleontologist could declare, "We still can't find the missing link! Evolution didn't occur." Both fields had better agree, either "yes and yes" or "no and no." But only one proof is necessary, either microbiology or paleontology. In the latter case, no bones means no evolution. Likewise, no evidence in the early Church that the apostles taught this doctrine means no eternal security.
We must modify this statement. Arguing from silence is never valid. If we really had no fossils at all, we could neither prove nor disprove evolution. The paleontological disproof requires positive proof: a whole lot of fossils of creatures with wholly formed limbs, and not merely a lack of transitional fossils undergoing evolution. So it is with refuting eternal security. Not only do we need a silence on eternal security, we also need positive evidence that they taught the alternative, conditional security.
Now if you believe that the early Christians accurately preserved the faith of the apostles, you need not read any further. You have made a sound judgment that eternal security cannot be biblical because the early Church never taught it. Proof will be provided in the following pages. But consider the fact that many Calvinists admit our claim is true. Now after admitting this much, these same Calvinists reject the obvious conclusion that eternal security was never taught by the apostles. How do they avoid that? In a desperate attempt to defend their doctrine, they accuse the early Christians of failing to preserve the apostles' teaching regarding eternal security. They say that the apostles definitely taught eternal security, but it went 'in one ear and out the other' with the early Christians. Thus, the Calvinist retreats as far as admitting that the early Christians did not teach it, but he takes his final stand on the only remaining option: blaming the early Christians for "reinstituting legalism," warping or even denying the apostolic doctrine of eternal security and imposing their own cruel manmade doctrine of conditional security.
Of course this puts our Calvinist friend in a tight spot and gives rise to the same problems we alluded to earlier. Namely, if the early Christians failed to preserve eternal security, what other doctrines might they have failed to preserve accurately? If they altered eternal security, what else could they have altered? Jesus' deity? The Trinity? The atonement? The Bible? We certainly hope not!
But we have no reason to accuse the early Christians of altering the doctrines of our faith, as Bercot aptly points out the difficulty in making that argument or accusation:If the churches had departed from the one true faith preached by the apostles, how did they all end up teaching the same thing? There were no church-wide councils, seminaries, printed literature, or any other means to quickly disseminate erroneous teachings throughout the church. So how could all the congregations have independently come up with the same interpretations and practices unless they were simply following what Paul and the other apostles had taught -- even three hundred years after the death of Jesus, orthodox Christians were still one united body. [*]
Bercot adds that each congregation was indeed quite independent from other churches, which protected against heresy spreading quickly, say, from Rome to the other churches. The ultra-conservative spirit of these early Christians, like the Jewish scribes, equating change with error, coupled with their personal integrity and the previously said points, give us great confidence in them.[*]
It seems absurd that the Calvinist should still, against all odds, cling to the view that the early Church altered eternal security, intentionally or unintentionally. But if so, we will proceed to firmly establish a link from the early Church's belief in a conditional security to the inevitable conclusion that the apostles also taught the conditional form. If having proved this conclusion, the Calvinist should still refuse to concede, it will be due to stubborn prejudice rather than reason. At the same time, we can understand that it is difficult to accept early Church testimony that contradicts one's view, especially for one who teaches his view to others. As long as it is even remotely possible that we could be wrong, we must show a degree of humility.
We have some questions for the tenacious Calvinist:
If the apostles taught eternal security, what should we expect to find in a writing that dates from 200 AD? From 150 AD? From 100 AD? If the apostles taught eternal security, what should we find the churches of Corinth, Rome, Ephesus, etc., professing at 175 AD? It the apostles taught eternal security, and the doctrines of the churches have remained unanimously the same from 100 to 200 AD, what should that unanimous view be? If the apostles taught eternal security, what should we expect to find the disciples of the apostles, those who knew the apostles personally, teaching in the early 100s? What should we find the churches teaching before 100 AD, while John was still alive? Will they sound like Charles Spurgeon for eternal security, or like John Wesley for conditional security? And if our prediction turns out to be totally wrong, what does that mean about our assumption?
We will also note that the Apostle John lived until about 96 AD, a date which will serve as a benchmark for our discussion. Based on the Calvinist assumption that the apostles taught eternal security and that the early Church eventually perverted it into conditional security, we have identified the following conclusions.
Under the assumption that the apostles taught eternal security:Antiquity - An earlier writing is more likely to endorse eternal security than a later writing.
Authenticity - A writing with a known author or source and greater textual reliability is more likely to teach eternal security than one which is spurious or has possibly been altered by some monk teaching conditional security.
Author Identity - A church leader is more likely to teach eternal security than a common Christian layman. Those who personally knew an apostle or who knew someone who knew an apostle are most likely to believe in eternal security.
Apostolic Churches - The Churches founded by the apostles (such as Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome) were the most ancient churches, and they received written and oral instruction from the apostles. These Churches are most likely to have preserved eternal security.
Scope - An authoritative, church-wide view is more likely to support eternal security than one writer's mere personal opinion.
Origin of the Doctrine
The doctrine of eternal security, at least a form very similar to the modern doctrine, was not conceived until Calvin's Institutes of Religion in 1536. That is, eternal security did not exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity. But the roots of Calvinism are found in Saint Augustine of Hippo, who first preached a doctrine somewhat resembling eternal security around 428 AD. At the beginning of Augustine's On the Gift of Perseverance, we read:
I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God;[*]
More could be said about the nuances of Augustine's doctrine of perseverance, and how it is somewhat different than Calvin's doctrine of "perseverance of the saints,' but we will suffice it to observe that this is the earliest mention from within the Church of anything similar to eternal security that we possess. A brief glance through Calvin's Institutes will reveal that Calvin highly admired Augustine and modeled his own theological system quite similarly. For this reason, Calvinism has been called "Augustinianism."
We must also point out that during Calvin's day, the patristic writings were generally not available. Luther and Calvin had access to Augustine, but most of the earlier Fathers were inaccessible.[*] It seems that the reformers mistakenly assumed Augustine to be a representative specimen of early Church doctrine. It is interesting to speculate what their theology might have looked like, had these reformers read the works of the early Fathers. But today we have the privilege of diving into these records of early Christian thought. So let us open wide the wardrobe and take a peek into history to see what the earliest Christians believed about the security of the believer. Can a truly saved Christian fall from his or her salvation? Is continued salvation unconditional or conditional? Can a once saved Christian go on sinning without risk of forfeiting salvation?
The following quotations are taken from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, and are cited in the format (volume number : page number). The reader is encouraged to look up these quotations personally by going to: http://www.ccel.org/father2/ We will be scanning the Fathers from most recent to most ancient. The introductions provided below were found by consulting Ante-Nicene Fathers, Bercot's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs[*] and the Catholic Encyclopedia.[*]
3rd & 4th Century Fathers
Or the reader may wish to skip ahead to 1st & 2nd Century FathersApostolic Constitutions, c. 390 AD
We begin with a fourth century compilation of eight books on Christian instruction. Within the first page we read:
Take care, ye children of God, to do all things in obedience to God; and in all things please Christ our Lord. For if any man follows unrighteousness, and does those things that are contrary to the will of God, such a one will be esteemed by God as the disobedient heathen. (7:391)Another example of the early Christian view:
The Holy Spirit always abides with those who are possessed of Him, so long as they are worthy. ... The Holy Spirit remains with a person so long as he is doing good, and He fills him with wisdom and understanding. (7:462)Lactantius, Christian teacher and apologist, c. 310
Lactantius was a prominent Christian in the early fourth century and has been lauded as the "Cicero of Christianity" for his eloquence. In his old age, he was asked by Emperor Constantine to personally tutor his oldest son. His writings are significant, as they prove that the Christian faith had remained intact all the way until the reign of Constantine. More specifically for us, the following quotation shows that Lactantius taught conditional security. See also 7:191 for his position at greater length.
A son ... who deserts his father, that he may not pay him obedience ... is considered deserving of being disinherited, and of having his name removed for ever from his family, -- how much more so does he who forsakes God, in whom the two names entitled to equal reverence, of Lord and Father, alike meet? ... Of what punishments, therefore, is he deserving, who forsakes Him who is both the true Master and Father? (7:155)Anonymous Treatise on Re-baptism, c. 255
As to one who again denies Christ, no special previous standing for be effective to him for salvation, for anyone of us will hold it necessary that whatever is the last thing to be found in a man in this respect, that is where he will be judged. All of those things that he has previously done are wiped away and obliterated. (5:674)Cyprian, bishop of Carthage church, c. 250
Cyprian led faithfully during a time of intense persecution. He was eventually captured and beheaded in 258. Most of his writings are letters of correspondence with leaders of foreign churches, which makes them very valuable to us. Consider the following quote:
We must not at all depart from the evangelical precepts ... Therefore, I wonder very much from where this practice has originated. For it is contrary to evangelical and apostolic discipline. (5:361)Cyprian claims that the Church still knows what the apostles originally taught, saying that it needs only to be preserved. Because of his expertise on apostolic teaching, we should expect to find him teaching eternal security. But he doesn't, as we see below:
For it is written, "Praise not any man before his death. And, again, "Be faithful unto death and I will give you a crown of life." And, the Lord also says, "He that endures to the end, the same shall be saved." (5:283)This is very powerful testimony against eternal security, as a revered man who claims to hold the original teachings of the apostles, and one who has communicated extensively with leaders of other churches, only 150 years after the Apostle John, writes that believers can fall from salvation. To the Calvinist's surprise, Cyprian sounds very much like John Wesley.
You are still in the world. You are still in the battlefield. You daily fight for your lives so you must be careful. It is a small thing to have first received something. It is a greater thing to be able to keep what you have attained. Faith, itself, and the saving birth do not make alive by merely being received. Rather, they must be preserved. Solomon and king Saul, and many others were able to keep the grace given to them so long as they walk in the Lord's ways. However, when the discipline of the Lord was forsaken by them, grace also forsook them. (5:284)
I ask ... that you grieve with me at the [spiritual] death of my sister. For in this time of devastation, she has fallen from Christ. (5:298)
Origen, Christian teacher and presbyter of Caesarea, c. 225
There is a prevailing rumor about Origen that must be addressed. I have often heard people say, "Origen was a Gnostic. He got kicked out of the Church." But there is no evidence for this view. We find it helpful to correct this common misunderstanding so that we can establish his credibility. It is true that Origen was expelled from his church of Alexandria by the bishop Demetrius, but for what reason? From Eusebius' account, we learn that Origen was a presbyter of Alexandria, and he took a trip to Greece to combat heresy. Later visiting Palestine, he ended up strangely being ordained presbyter at Caesarea by the bishop of that Church. Upon learning this, Demetrius barred Origen from returning to the Alexandrian church. But according to Eusebius, Origen was not at fault. Demetrius "accused him bitterly." Origen continued his ministry in Caesarea and died a faithful martyr around 254 AD.[*]
Origen is considered the first Christian theologian. Because of his exceeding brilliance, Origen expresses unorthodox views in some of his commentaries. The reader should take his views with an occasional grain of salt, but these were often just personal speculation, not intended as dogmatic assertion. In general he was quite orthodox. Often misunderstood, Origen was by no means a Gnostic. In fact, he wrote against the Gnostics! It is very ironic that some mistaken Calvinists would call Origen a "Gnostic." In the following quotation, Origen rejects the teachings of some Gnostics as heresy -- teachings which resemble those of Calvinists today!
Let us begin, then, with what is said about Pharaoh ... also the statement of the apostle, "Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth." And some of those who hold different opinions misuse these passages, themselves almost destroying free-will by introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation, and others saved which it is impossible can be lost; (4:308)We see later in the same chapter, on page 317, that Origen is referring to the Gnostics as the "heretics" who are destroying free will and teaching that some are unconditionally saved. See also pp. 266, 309 where Origen again rejects eternal security. What then is the verdict? The Calvinist, rather than Origen, seems to be teaching Gnostic doctrine. On the other hand, it appears we've found an ancient John Wesley.
Hippolytus, presbyter of Rome, c. 225
Much like his teacher, Hippolytus defended the Church of Rome from heresy. Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. The testimony of this Greek Father should therefore be given great weight. Based on our assumption, we should expect to find that this man taught eternal security.
The disciples, moreover, after they had appointed these Ordinances and Laws, ceased not from the preaching of the Gospel, or from the wonderful mighty works which our Lord did by their hands. For much people was gathered about them every day, who believed in Christ; and they came to them from other cities, and heard their words and received them. Nicodemus also, and Gamaliel, chiefs of the synagogue of the Jews, used to come to the apostles in secret, agreeing with their teaching. Judas, moreover, and Levi, and Peri, and Joseph, and Justus, sons of Hananias, and Caiaphas and Alexander the priests - they too used to come to the apostles by night, confessing Christ that he is the Son of God; but they were afraid of the people of their own nation, so that they did not disclose their mind toward the disciples. And the apostles received them affectionately, saying to them, "Do not by reason of the shame and fear of men, forfeit your salvation before God, nor have the blood of Christ required of you; even as your fathers, who took it upon them: for it is not acceptable before God, that, while ye are in secret with His worshippers, ye should go and be associated with the murderers of His adorable Son. How do ye expect that your faith should be accepted with those that are true, whilst ye are with those that are false? But it becomes you, as men who believe in Christ, to confess openly this faith which we preach." And, when they heard these things from the disciples, those sons of the priests, all of them alike, cried out before the whole company of the apostles, "We confess and believe in Christ who was crucified, and we confess that He is from everlasting the Son of God; and those who dared to crucify Him do we renounce."[*]
Hippolytus narrates an account of the apostles' preaching not found in the New Testament, likely a tradition of some sort, in which the apostles explicitly say that salvation can be forfeited. Regardless of whether the apostles ever uttered these words, this Hippolytus certainly taught a conditional security. To the great chagrin of the Calvinist, we've dug up another ancient John Wesley.
Tertullian, Christian apologist in Carthage, c. 200It should be noted that Tertullian left the Church later in life and joined the Montanist heretical sect. Fortunately, more than half of his writings were written prior to his becoming a Montanist. And since Montanistic theology is still similar to that of the early Church, even these writings can be of value to early Christian research. Dozens of passages throughout his years of writing could be cited to show that Tertullian believed that salvation could be lost. It is possible, I regret to say, that Tertullian was judged by his own doctrine.
Some think that God is under a necessity of bestowing even on the unworthy what He has promised to give. So, they turn His liberality into His slavery. For many afterward fall out of grace. Is not this gift taken away from many? (3:661)But Tertullian tells us more. He taught the same things as the ancient Churches founded by the apostles. This is certainly not what we would expect if the apostles taught eternal security! If our prediction is therefore wrong, what does this tell us about our assumption?
God has foreseen that faith even after baptism would be endangered. He saw that most persons after obtaining salvation would be lost again, by soiling the wedding dress, by failing to provide oil for their torches. (3:639)
We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth. (3:252-253)From these statements we may be certain that Tertullian's view of conditional security is the same as that of Corinth, of Ephesus, of Rome, of Philippi, and so forth. The doctrine of eternal security was too important to be overlooked. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the Calvinist to show how all the apostolic Churches could have possibly been corrupted less than 100 years after John.
I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion [the Gnostic], that his is. I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is. Now what is to settle the point for us, except it be that principle of time, which rules that the authority lies with that which shall be found to be more ancient? (6:349)
No other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation. (6:286)
Next Section: 1st and 2nd Century Fathers | More About Eternal Security | False Doctrine