Did the Early Church Believe in Once Saved, Always Saved The Answer Will Shock You
Ancient Faith Explained | 24 March 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZLuXFo5FJs
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- The quotes they give for "once saved, always saved" are usually one of two classes:
"blessed" / "eternal life" = the state of grace can in fact be lost in this life, but if it isn't lost is the beginning of heavenly bliss, it's eternal in itself, because it's God's own life
"you" (not thou) = the hagiographer is adressing the Church, and it speaks of collective, not individual indefectibility
These classes, I would say, overlap.
- Ancient Faith Explained
- @AncientFaithExplained
- @hglundahl > That distinction between the Church's collective indefectibility and individual perseverance is exactly the patristic reading. The early Fathers never taught that an individual believer was unconditionally secure they taught that the faith delivered to the Church would not fail. Those are two very different claims. God bless.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @AncientFaithExplained Thank you.
Then there is another question, which of RC and EO is in continuity with the first millennium.
- Ancient Faith Explained
- @hglundahl it's essentially what the Great Schism video addresses. The short answer from the Orthodox position is that the first millennium's conciliar model, unchanged Creed, and absence of papal supremacy all point East. But that's a conversation worth having properly. God bless.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @AncientFaithExplained Absence of Papal authority? Not if you ask Pope St. Coelestine I.
Conciliar model? Not if you consider he had already greenlighted opposition to Nestorius as a non-holder of office in 430, so the year before the council.
Unchanged creed?
The change, if really such, could be a contamination from statements by St. Athanasius or from the creed against Priscillianism by Toledo I, where you find "ab utroque procedens" and in Toledo I directly the wording "a patre filioque procedens".
Is the change to the creed all that bad, if the new formulation is still perfectly Orthodox? Which Pope St. Leo I, a few decades later, considered about Toledo I. Recommending it to Bishop (St.) Turribius of Astorga.
- Ancient Faith Explained
- @hglundahl Celestine's intervention in the Nestorian controversy is real, but it was presented to the Council of Ephesus for ratification he didn't simply decree it unilaterally. That's still the conciliar model at work. On the Filioque the Orthodox objection isn't primarily about whether the theology is wrong, it's about the process. You cannot change the common Creed without an Ecumenical Council. That principle was held even by Pope Leo III who agreed with the theology but refused to add it. The Toledo council was regional, not ecumenical. God bless.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @AncientFaithExplained In 430, there was as yet no Council of Ephesus.
He simply approved the reaction.
The original acts of Constantinople I are lacking, so it's uncertain whether Spain kept or added filioque, but in the latter case, it was a question of conflating two statements. Thank you for admitting Pope St. Leo III agreed with our theology.
- Ancient Faith Explained
- @hglundahl Leo III's agreement with the theology while refusing to change the Creed is actually the point he understood that the process mattered as much as the content. Changing the Creed without a council breaks the model that held the Church together, regardless of whether the addition is theologically defensible. On Celestine approving an action before a council confirms it still required the council to give it authority. That's still conciliar. God bless.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @AncientFaithExplained There was a council that actually ratified filioque.
Florence.
"approving an action before a council confirms it still required the council to give it authority."
If that were the case, the people who opposed Nestorius would have been in mortal sin up to the council and St. Celestine would have encouraged mortal sin.
No comments:
Post a Comment