First let me state that our Catholic or Orthodox friends would like us to believe the Protestantism just POPPED into existence 1500 years after they've been humming along. This is far from true. The Reformed belief is the true belief of the western early church. The Orthodox church built their theology around John Cassian, a student of Pelagius, both of whom were condemned by the western church as heretics. Many of us Reformers would argue that we are the remnant of the true western church. The Roman Catholics started heading east around 600AD and finally made the transition with Trent.
That being said, when the Arminians broke away from the Calvinists they created the Remonstrant laying out their 5-Points. One of these points was the belief that a person could so fall away from grace that they would no longer be saved (btw-You'll find the 5-points of the Remonstrant to be very close to Roman Catholic theology.) The Synod of Dort countered the Remonstrant with the TULIP which stated while it IS possible for people to fall away, it will never happen simply because we are sustained by God's grace through our Lord Jesus who watches over His flock.
My understanding on this whole OSAS mess is that over time there were some Arminians didn't like the idea of losing one salvation. It smack of works. However they couldn't overtly go back to the Calvinists and say, "Well, looky here. I guess you fellers were right about the PotS all along." Instead they invented OSAS which is a bastardized version of the two views. Please see: A review article on R. T. Kendall’s Once Saved, Always Saved This view allow men to continue to be saved while at the same time retaining their free will. If there is one thing Arminians don't want to give up it's their free will.
To be frank while I believed in OSAS for 30 years I never understood the scriptures behind it and certain I did not understand how one could fall away and still be a Christian. It made no sense and when I would ask questions I simply get the standard, "Let's move on..." kind of comment. Of course if you go with the Catholic/Orthodox/some Protestant view of man losing his salvation, IMHO, you are into works. PotS is the only system that seems consistent with God's grace and salvation while placing the right emphasis on works. Plus it has scripture the Arminians can't explain.
"The Orthodox church built their theology around John Cassian, a student of Pelagius...."
Harley, that's just plain silly. +John Cassian's thought was thoroughly patristic and bible based. In any event, many of the greatest theologians of The Church, like +Athanasius the Great, +John Chrysostomos, +Basil the Great, +Gregory the Theologian, etc. etc. all were born before +John Cassian and certainly were of far greater impact on the theology of The Church than he was. Your statement is just Calvinist apologetics and fantasy.
As for your theory that John 10:11-18 supports Calvinism and somehow condemns works, that's just a Calvinist innovation. Read +John Chrysostomos' Homily LX on the Gospel of +John. Foreknowledge, Harley, doesn't equal predestination and the passage you use as a proof text hasnothing to do with works, though as you well know, the role of works in the process of theosis is well established by both scripture and the Fathers. BTW, The Fathers deal with that one too!
By the way, am I wrong in assuming that in Calvinist theology there is either no such thing as the Final Judgment, a separating of the goats from the sheep, or there is one but merely for show or to give God a chance to wreak a little "vengence"?
What are the pillars of Protestantism? Faith without works saves; The Bible alone is the rule of faith; man is imputed justification, rather than infused. Man is depraved totally and has no free will. Did I miss any major ones? Oh, and man is saved and cannot fall upon his baptism/sinner's prayer.
I would say that you will have a difficult time finding these innovations in the Fathers of the Church - and you CERTAINLY will not find them all in ANY Father. Thus, Protestantism as we know it did INDEED "pop" into existence during the 1500's. If you can point out ONE Church Father that holds even 3 of the 4 ideas simulataneously, you will have proved your point. It is a shame that you keep spouting off this nonsense about the Fathers. Perhaps you should actually read them. You will be surprised with what you can learn - even if you remain a Baptist/Reformed man. There is a lot of insight from reading their interpretations of Scriptures. Can we point to more holy men then them?
The Orthodox church built their theology around John Cassian, a student of Pelagius, both of whom were condemned by the western church as heretics. Many of us Reformers would argue that we are the remnant of the true western church. The Roman Catholics started heading east around 600AD and finally made the transition with Trent.
Mere assertions without a shred of evidence. This has been disproved here before. Don't you grow tired of this? I have asked you time and time again for such evidence of the changes between Orange 2 and Trent, but I never hear an answer...
The Synod of Dort countered the Remonstrant with the TULIP which stated while it IS possible for people to fall away, it will never happen simply because we are sustained by God's grace
A big leap of self-determination, as we can't know we are of the Elect in the FUTURE. Certainly, the Elect will be saved - but it is presumption to "write yourself" into that book. God might be holding you up as an example of the importance of perseverance to other Christians, only to bring you down later! "Wow, Harley seemed like such a good Christian, but look at him now...I guess I better work out my salvation in fear and trembling..." Who can say what God has planned for you. It is nonsense to presume you are of the elect.
My understanding on this whole OSAS mess is that over time there were some Arminians didn't like the idea of losing one salvation. It smack of works
You don't appear to understand the concept of works in the Bible. Work is not an action, but something we do for pay. Isn't it obvious I can do an action, but out of love and not for pay? Doesn't Christ leave us with ONE Commandment that sums up the Law?
I did not understand how one could fall away and still be a Christian.
Because we aren't Christian in name only. By severing YOURSELF from the Family of God, you are "Christian" by virtue of your Baptism, but this has little meaning if we later reject Christ. Re-read Matthew 7:21 again. The emphasis is on doing the Will of the Father, not on making verbal declarations at an altar call.
Regards
Thank you for that confirmation. I remember when you first taught me about PotS I slapped my forehead and said "Eureka!, that's it!". PotS really is the only view that satisfies all scripture, and includes Godly good deeds (not for pay) in their proper context. Thanks also for the link :)