How do advocates of *Eternal Security* explain the phenomenon of life-long Christians leaving the faith? Here is a playlist of testimonies from former pastors: [YouTube Playlist](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLV9jojlG6VGunKZTBb8TmHfvg4ZPIjkXi) For example: - [Testimony of a former pastor after 30 years in ministry](https://youtu.be/e73jIl-bWuk) - [Testimony of a former pastor after 25 years in ministry](https://youtu.be/9Q3VXwcNxcA) - [Testimony of a former pastor after 20 years in ministry](https://youtu.be/2_A0ilgwg38) - [Dan Barker describes going from preacher to atheist and how nature designed the world, not God](https://youtu.be/YQMascSVBDg) Additionally, consider this [answer on Christianity StackExchange](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/108512/117426) , where an ex-Christian explains: > You generally can't get a good answer to this question from people who > haven't been through the process. > > I think the core reason for most of us is that we realized the > Christian narrative is simply mythology, and cannot possibly be true. > > And yes, I have PLENTY of good hard evidence to back that up. > > Bring hurt by people in the church? A secondary reason, but often just > an eye opener to start questioning the narrative. > > **Never a real Christian? Not a reason for most. Most of us who lose our** > **faith were among the very most dedicated Christians imaginable. Our** > **Christian experiences were just like yours if not more so. We led** > **worship, preached, served as missionaries, wept before Jesus, spoke in** > **tongues, gave our all, believed with our whole hearts, all of it.** > > Wanting to go sin? Not a reason for virtually anyone. > > We just loved the truth, and could no longer keep lying to ourselves > that the Christian narrative was the truth. Given testimonies like these, how do proponents of *Eternal Security* reconcile such evidence with their doctrine?

### Background "Alma" is a name given to a book in the Book of Mormon and two male BoM characters (father and son ), one of whom is the namesake of the book. "Alma" is also a Hebrew noun (עלמה) meaning "young woman", sometimes translated as "female virgin". In semitic languages, female words have a gender indicator of a trailing "a/ah" . Like many semitic nouns "alma"/עלמה has a male gendered counterpart "elem"/עלם which means "young man". It derives from a common Semetic root referring to time, eternity, endurance, and youth. ### Question As a native Hebrew speaker, it is very odd to hear about a male named "Alma" since that word is morphologically female. What reasons do Latter Day Saint scholars of the Book of Mormon and semitic languages give for males being given an apparently female name? What is the Latter Day Saint belief about this name?

As an example of human behaviour: "and he ate" Genesis 3:6. ESV. A. Adam acted out of freewill. B. Adam's action was determined by God positively withholding from Adam the grace to obey Him and refrain from eating. God did this because He wanted to make the point that grace to obey would come through the 2nd Adam, and therefore God withheld it from the 1st Adam. 1st and 2nd Adam are mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47. >"And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace." John 1:16 ESV

**Premise** 1Cor 8:6 KJV > But to us there is but one **God, the Father**, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1Tim 1:17 >Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, **the only God**, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. Romans 15:6 NASB >so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the **God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ**. Ephesians 4:6 KJV >One **God and Father** of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 2 Timothy 1:3 >I thank **God**, whom I serve with a pure conscience, **as my forefathers did**, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day, **Question** ***Who do Trinitarians understand Paul's God to be?***

The most famous use of Peter/rock is **Matthew 16:18**: > And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock … But it was long before that, when Simon first met Jesus, that he was given the Peter/Cephas nickname in **John 1:42**: > … And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. Without referring to the later events in Matthew 16, are there any published scholarly or doctrinal explanations for why Jesus gave Simon that particular nickname as soon as he met him? ## Note: - I'm not interested in explanations based on Matthew 16. - I'm not asking what *you* think is the reason.

In "The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity - Introduction" by Robert M. Bowman Jr., he states that God knows all future events. He provides the following verses as support - Is. 42:9; 44:7. Unfortunately, while he provides verses suggesting that God can control the future, he provides no verse supporting that God knows any or all future events which God chooses not to control. Which Bible Passages Support that God Knows All Future Events? I understand that the answer may require showing that God is outside of time.

> [Matthew 24:13 NASB] But the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved. > [Revelation 14:12 NASB] Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. > [2 Timothy 4:7-8 NASB] 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; 8 in the future there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing. If perseverance is the mark of the true believer, how do those who hold to Eternal Security know with certainty that they are among this group? How can they be sure they are not deceiving themselves (or being deceived by the enemy), mistaking themselves for good soil when in reality they may be rocky ground that will eventually fall away? After all, no one is omniscient—only God knows the future. A person in their twenties or thirties cannot know with certainty whether they might later apostatize in their fifties, sixties, or seventies. Or can they?

Some Protestants and Catholics believe that the "Angel of the LORD" mentioned in several Old Testament narratives is not merely a created angel but a manifestation of God—specifically understood by many as the pre-incarnate Christ. This is often described using the theological term theophany (meaning an appearance of God), though the term itself does not appear in Scripture. For instance: > It seems when the definite article “the” is used, it is specifying a unique being, separate from the other angels. The angel of the Lord speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and exercises the responsibilities of God (Genesis 16:7-12; 21:17-18; 22:11-18; Exodus 3:2; Judges 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-24; 13:3-22; 2 Samuel 24:16; Zechariah 1:12; 3:1; 12:8). In several of these appearances, those who saw the angel of the Lord feared for their lives because they had “seen the Lord.” Therefore, it is clear that in at least some instances, the angel of the Lord is a theophany, an appearance of God in physical form….whether the angel of the Lord was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ (Christophany) or an appearance of God the Father (theophany), it is highly likely that the phrase “the angel of the Lord” usually identifies a physical appearance of God. (Protestant apologetics site GotQuestions.org ) A Catholic “Dictionary” describes the term “theophany” like this: > A direct communication or appearance by God to human beings. Instances: God confronting Adam and Eve after their disobedience (Genesis 3:8); God appearing to Moses out of a burning bush (Exodus 3:2-6); Abraham pleading with Yahweh to be merciful to Sodomites (Genesis 18:23). These theophanies were temporary manifestations. They were not like the Incarnation, which, though it began in time, will continue for all eternity. One such “theophany” in the form of “the angel of the Lord” is found in Zechariah: > Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him. (Zechariah 3:1 - NKJV) Many Protestant and some Catholic scholars interpret this account as a theophany—an appearance of God in the Old Testament. In particular, some suggest that the figure identified as the Angel of the LORD may be a pre-incarnate manifestation of the second person of the Trinity, later revealed in the New Testament as Jesus Christ. This is formally referred to as Christology, which represents a more specific theological interpretation within the broader framework of theophany. > This angel was Christ, or the Logos, mentioned Zechariah 1:11, and called the Lord in the following verse (Benson Commentary) > standing before the Angel of the Lord; not any created angel, but Christ the Angel of God's presence, who is called Jehovah, Zechariah 3:2 is the rebuker of Satan, and the advocate of his people; (Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible) Interesting with this account is the following utterance by this “angel of the LORD” in Zechariah 3:2 > And the LORD [the Angel of the LORD speaking as the LORD] said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire (Zechariah 3:2 NKJV) Why does GOD in the form of the second person of the Trinity, manifesting Himself as the Angel of the LORD not rebuke Satan, but asks YHWH (the LORD) to do so? The Archangel Michael in Jude 9 uses a phrase closely resembling Zechariah 3:2—“The Lord rebuke you”—when disputing with the devil. While not a word-for-word quote (wording differs slightly across Hebrew and Greek), the parallel strongly echoes the rebuke found in the Old Testament passage: > Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you“ (Jude 9 NKJV) Could it be that the Angel of the LORD similarly “dared not bring against him (Satan) a reviling accusation” in Zechariah 3:2? If so, how could He be GOD? What other reason could there be NOT to rebuke Satan? One possible answer is found in 2 Peter 2:11 > whereas angels, who are greater in power and might [than humans], do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord. This would suggest that the Angel of the Lord does have the same level of authority granted by GOD YHWH than many other Angels. It would mean that “the Angel of the LORD” is neither God nor the second person of the Trinity. How do those that hold to the position of “the Angel of the Lord” in Zechariah 3:1-2 being Christ pre-incarnate/God reconcile this? Why does the AOTL not rebuke Satan but asks YHWH/the LORD to do so?

I was watching a well-known sermon by Paul Washer: ***[Shocking Youth Message (2002) | Paul Washer | HeartCry Missionary Society](https://youtu.be/HkPFv7v9CkY?t=1902)*** . At minute 31:42, Paul Washer says: > Brother Paul, it’s absolutely absurd. It is impossible, Brother Paul, to have an **encounter** with something as large as a logging truck and not be changed. > > And then my question would be to you: **What is larger—a logging truck, or God?** > > How is it that so many people today profess to have had an **encounter with Jesus Christ**, and yet they are not permanently changed? So my questions are: - What does Paul Washer mean by an "encounter with God" or "encounter with Jesus Christ"? How is this different from a "false" encounter with no lasting impact? - What is the scriptural support for the idea of having such "encounters"?

[This question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/38818/was-elohim-the-saviour-and-redeemer-of-his-world) discusses the LDS teaching that > “As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.” ( The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams , 1.) The teaching is partially motivated by the passage from John5:19, > So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. Joseph Smith himself said: >As the Father hath power in Himself, so hath the Son power in Himself, to lay down His life and take it again, so He has a body of His own. The Son doeth what He hath seen the Father do: then the Father hath some day laid down His life and taken it again > >-- History of the Church 5:426 > >I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning. > >-- History of the Church 6:373 From [LDS.org](https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question?lang=eng) : >The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” As to this notion in the modern LDS church, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Joseph Fielding Smith said in an address in 1971: > “This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us. Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’ So, in summary: - God the Father was once a man who became exalted to Godhood, and created us in _his_ own creation. - The man who is exalted now will be God of his own creation, as God is God of this one. - All Gods have endured this process. My question is: From a Mormon perspective, does God still worship the God he worshipped when he was a man on his own Earth?

Anyone out there who is able to identify the person behind the initials "B. K." in a theological book review in Wissenschaftliche Beilage der Leipziger Zeitung 1896?

The God described in the Old Testament can be violent and vindictive and seems to hold to a different set of moral rules than the God we see in the New Testament. How does the Catholic church explain these differences? A few of the better known examples of the more violent nature of the Old Testament's God are: 1. God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son (Genesis 22:2 ) > 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. This is then revealed to have been a "test" of Abraham's faith (Genesis 22:12 ) > 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. Since, by definition, the God of the Judeo-Christian faith is omniscient, this is not a test that could have provided Him with new information. It seems like a particularly horrible thing to do to a father. It is also at odds with the loving God of the later Christian faith. 2. The story of Lot (Genesis 19 ). Two angels have visited Lot's house and he treats them as honored guests. The men of Sodom ask him to let them "know" them: >5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. Lot wants to protect his guests and so, instead, offers up his virgin daughters: > 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. This is treated as a perfectly natural offer. Any father who would offer up his daughters for rape today would be considered the lowest of degenerate criminals, yet Lot is portrayed as the only righteous man in Sodom and the only one, along with his family, who is spared by God. The story of Lot also has two other examples of the extreme violence that the Old Testament God was capable of. The very smiting of the, presumably, hundreds or even thousands of inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the turning of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for the rather innocuous sin of looking back at her home while it was being destroyed: > 24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; > 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. > 26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. > 24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; > 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. > 28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace. 3. As a final example, the scourges of the Pharaoh. Each and every one of them is an action that does not square with the forgiving, loving and fundamentally good nature of the Christian God, but the following is particularly cruel (Exodus: 11 ): > 5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts. This is a kind and loving God who will kill innocent babies. What's more, His wrath is not restricted to the children of those, like the Pharaoh, who oppressed his people but extends to ay and all Egyptians and even goes so far as to include their animals. Clearly, a sheepherder living out in the middle of nowhere who has never seen any of the Jews living in Egypt cannot be blamed for their oppression under the Pharaoh. Yet, even this innocent shepherd is not spared God's wrath. Now, I imagine that all of these examples has been extensively debated and there will be various interpretations and apologetics for each. My question, however, is whether Catholics believe that the _nature_ of God has changed between the Old and New testaments. Jehova seems to be a very different God from the one described in the New Testament, how is that dealt with in the Catholic faith? PS. I have restricted the question to the Catholic church so it is not too broad bu welcome answers that also mention the positions of other denominations.

Joret, O.P., *Dominican Life* pp. 300 -1 claims: > The great theologian [\[Cdl. Tommaso de Vio Gaetani\] Cajetan][3] , who became Master General of our [Dominican] Order, went so far as to assert that a Friar Preacher who did not study for four hours a day could scarcely be held to escape the guilt of mortal sin. Where did Cdl. Cajetan write this? Quétif & Échard, *Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum* (vol. 2) p. 16 : > *Unde fertur dicere solitum, sodalem Prædicatorum vix se a peccato mortali excusare, qui quoto die quatuor horas studio non impenderit.* > >Hence the usual, a member of the Preaching [order] barely excuses himself from mortal sin who each day does not spend four hours studying. But they do not say where he wrote this.

What saint was martyred by his father, the king, for refusing to receive sacraments from an Arian heretic?

In answering a question on Bible Hermeneutics.SE, Carly Perkins asked, "Why can [Protestants] believe the men who decided which books were in the canon (around 400 A.D.) but not believe what they lived and believed?" I realize that my question is somewhat different from Carly's. What did the people who set the Protestant canon of the Bible believe were the requirements for salvation?

I watched the debate between James White and Trent Horn on whether a Christian can lose their salvation: [DEBATE | Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation? | Trent Horn vs. Dr. James R. White](https://youtu.be/72TRODe8BdA) . It's remarkable how well-educated scholars, studying the same biblical passages, can reach such diametrically opposed conclusions, particularly on a doctrine as pivotal as salvation. One would expect that salvation, being a cornerstone of Christian faith, would be communicated by God with utmost clarity to His church. Yet, we find ourselves debating the mechanics of salvation and the possibility of its loss. How do Christians reconcile the extensive debates surrounding salvation doctrines with the expectation that such a crucial tenet of the Christian faith would be revealed with unmistakable clarity by God?

According to their own words, Ephrem and Aphrahat annotated *The Gospel*, not a text called *Diatessaron*. How is it possible that these theologians had never heard of this work, let alone of its supposed author while their contemporary Eusebius had all this information at his fingertips? Did our blasphemous heretic covertly remove his name and replace the title with «The Gospel» before spreading his mischievous text among the unsuspecting Syrians? Is that what we are to believe?

I have been discussing Matthew 16:18 for years now with both Catholics and non-Catholics. This verse is obviously a very important verse concerning the doctrine of the Bishop of Rome being Supreme Pontiff. The non-Catholic argument that I come up against time and time again is the "play on words" interpretation summed up pretty well here . I understand that, according to this interpretation, Jesus calls himself "big rock," and calls Peter "small rock." > Looking up the original Greek I see that Jesus is referring to two > types of rocks and one is related to the other, but they are not the > same. > > Peter = Πέτρος, Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone > (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. > > Rock = pétra (a feminine noun) – "a mass of connected rock” The accepted answer goes on to say... > This revelation, being from God, is infallible, and if the Church is > built upon it, it can never fall. Simon was named petros because he > was the **archetype**, the first (of his contemporaries at least) to have > received this personal revelation from God. I've also heard other interpretations that place the "Rock-ness," if you will, on Peter's faith. The answer above labels Peter as an "archetype" for those *individuals* with faith, or those *individuals* who receive infallible revelations. I think this reads to much into it when considering the context of scripture, and is perhaps a presupposition. Obviously Catholics believe that Christ, by changing Simon's name to Peter, established a foundational office of headship upon which the "Keys to the Kingdom of God" rests until his return. Catholics believe that *that* change signified a newly established office, and is *why* Christ changed Simon the fisherman to Peter the fisher of men to begin with. > "The keys of the kingdom" > > 551 From the beginning of his public life Jesus chose certain men, > twelve in number, to be with him and to participate in his mission.280 > He gives the Twelve a share in his authority and 'sent them out to > preach the kingdom of God and to heal."They remain associated for > ever with Christ's kingdom, for through them he directs the Church: > >> As my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that >> you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones >> judging the twelve tribes of Israel. > > 552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; > Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the > Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the > living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on > this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not > prevail against it."Christ, the "living Stone",thus assures > his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. > Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable > rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every > lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it. > > 553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you > the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth > shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be > loosed in heaven."The "power of the keys" designates authority to > govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good > Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my > sheep."The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to > absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make > disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority > to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in > particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he > specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom. (*CCC 551-553*) My question is, from a non-Catholic point of view, why did Jesus choose "Rock" as a name for Peter in the first place? Answering whether or not Peter is called big rock or little rock doesn't answer why Jesus called him a rock - of any size. I'm wanting to know *why* exactly non-Catholics believe Christ changed Peter's name (rock...big or small), and what does it signify in comparison to what the Catholic Church teaches .

>#### Gift of perseverance > >The Gift of perseverance is the doctrine of Augustine of Hippo that persevering in the faith is a gift given by God, but a person can never know if they have the gift. According to Augustine, without having the gift of perseverance a person is damned, even if he seems to have been elected by grace. Augustine himself also believed that Cyprian held a similar view about perseverance being a work of God, and thus foreshadowing the Augustinian view. **Some Calvinists argue that the Augustinian view foreshadows the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints**. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_of_perseverance > [Matthew 13:20-21 NASB] 20 The one sown with seed on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the word **and immediately receives it with joy**; 21 **yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary**, and when affliction or persecution occurs because of the word, **immediately he falls away**. > [Luke 8:13 NASB] Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, **receive the word with joy**; **and yet these do not have a firm root**; **they believe for a while**, **and in a time of temptation they fall away**. How do advocates of the doctrine of *eternal security*, also known as *once saved, always saved* or *the perseverance of the saints*, explain God’s apparent withdrawal of the gift of perseverance from the individual described in Matthew 13:20-21 and Luke 8:13? In these passages, it seems that God allows a person to be exposed to the gospel, to experience genuine initial joy and even a measure of faith, yet for some reason does not grant them the gift of perseverance (otherwise they would have persevered). In other words, God is permitting this "sheep" to fall away from His hand, or never put this "sheep" in His hand in the first place, but why? Why is God not giving the gift of perseverance to the individual in Matthew 13:20-21 and Luke 8:13?

I came across this article on Augustine: [Why Do We And St. Augustine Believe “Once Saved Always Saved”?](https://koinos.church/why-do-we-and-st-augustine-believe-once-saved-always-saved/) . The article explains: >Augustine saw in scripture that the fall of Adam resulted in all humans receiving a nature totally depraved so that no one is capable of obedience without God’s grace providing the ability. This is why he uttered his famous prayer, “Lord command what you will and grant what you command.” This view of man’s depravity and God’s grace caused him to reject the idea that believers must maintain their perseverance by their own righteousness. All God’s work of salvation in man is an act of His grace. None of it could be accomplished by the mere will of man, not the beginning steps of repentance and not the perseverance in faith to the end. All of salvation is due to God’s grace alone. This led him to make these affirmations on “once saved always saved,” > >>I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we peresevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God. >> >>It is shown with sufficient clearness that the grace of God, which both begins a man’s faith and which enables it to persevere unto the end, is not given according to our merits, but is given according to His own most secret and at the same time most righteous, wise, and beneficent will; since those whom He predestinated, them He also called. >> >>When the gift of God is granted to them…none of the saints fails to keep his perseverance in holiness even to the end. (In De Perseverantiae). However, in [this debate](https://youtu.be/72TRODe8BdA?t=1411) , Trent Horn quoted a seemingly different passage from Augustine’s [*Treatise on Rebuke and Grace*](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1513.htm) : > If, however, **being already regenerate and justified**, he relapses of his own will into an evil life, assuredly he cannot say, I have not received, **because of his own free choice to evil he has lost the grace of God**, that he had received. I would like input from someone well-versed in Augustine’s writings: did Augustine’s views ultimately align with, or contradict, the doctrine of *Eternal Security*? Did Augustine actually believe in the doctrine of “once saved, always saved”?