Losing Salvation after getting saved?

[Gregg]

So you mean that all that 'DO's and 'DON'T's instructed in all the epistles right from Romans to Jude and also the book of Revelation are just Lullabies?

You are putting words in my mouth. You are expanding words into something that they are not.

 

[Butch5]

"My brothers, what is the gain if anyone says he has faith, but he does not have works? Is [that] faith able to save him?" (Jas 2:14).

"So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself" (Jas 2:17).

One makes James' statement to be contrary by misinterpreting it. Faith, having led to salvation, will be accompanied by works.

James is saying that faith [logical, natural, carnal, factual head knowledge only knowing about God] which continues not to produce works, is a faith that is 'dead being by itself' - that kind of faith was not born of God and did not result in salvation in the first place. That faith is alone, destitute, never having been accompanied by the grace of God and the blood of Jesus Christ and the sealing of the Holy Spirit.

But Gregg, that's what you're saying, it's not what the Scriptures say. He said faith without works is dead. If a dead faith cannot save but a living faith can save, then a living faith must have works, This faith in must have works to live, without it it is dead. As such works cannot be the product of faith if they are necessary for faith to live.

 

[Gregg]

If a dead faith cannot save but a living faith can save, then a living faith must have works . . .

Butch,
Oh the twisting of words. You continue puting words in my mouth. Please be genuine in you replies.

But what I adhere to is this: A living faith does not save - he who has a living faith is already saved. Jesus saves by His grace through faith, a faith given to us. He who has faith [that led to his salvation] is already living, and that life is in Christ. A Christian will have works, and those works are an evidence of the saving faith which he has.

 

[agua.]

Hi Agua,

I don't think he was correct because I don't see anything in Scripture that suggests it. I've looked at how he understands Ephesians 1 and it's pretty much the same way that Reformed theology does. He also came out of Manecheanism and I think that may be the basis for his understanding. However, the earlier writer argued hard against that idea.

Sure Butch; however I don't accept the argument that this implies Augustine was incorrect on this matter.

 

[Deborah13]

Hi Deb,

I agree with much of what you said, but, I believe your argument is based on a point in time salvation. I don't believe one is ultimately saved until the resurrection. You spoke of David, suppose he had never repented, do you still believe he would be saved? Look at Solomon, OSAS is in a tight spot here, in the Scriptures the last we hear of Solomon is that he was serving false gods and that his wives had turned his heart away from the Lord. OSAS is forced to say either Solomon was never "saved" or he stayed saved even though he allowed his heart to be turned away from God and to serve false gods. Either position puts OSAS in a very rough place. Most who hold OSAS would say such a person was never saved, yet I doubt they would claim that of Solomon. Therefore they are left to have a Christian saved who has turned from God and serving false Gods. As I said, most who hold OSAS today would reject such an one as Christian.

Regarding the widows Paul said that some had turn back to Satan, now that could mean they returned to their old lifestyle. But, even at that we are told that those who return to that life have not inheritance.

Do you remember my very first line....I'm not defending OSAS.

My point was that I don't think that's a good scripture to use to Dis-prove OSAS.
There just isn't enough information imo to do that. If one can repent their salvation has not been lost.

Her previous life-style was that of a married woman.
And her desire was to be married again.

 

[Butch5]

Butch,
Oh the twisting of words. You continue puting words in my mouth. Please be genuine in you replies.

But what I adhere to is this: A living faith does not save - he who has a living faith is already saved. Jesus saves by His grace through faith, a faith given to us. He who has faith [that led to his salvation] is already living, and that life is in Christ. A Christian will have works, and those works are an evidence of the saving faith which he has.

Gregg,

I've been nothing but genuine. If there is any twisting of words it's the argument that denies what James says. Faith without works is dead. That's a clear and simple statement. A dead faith cannot produce works. James said he would show his faith "out of" his works. For "A" to come out of "B", "B' must first exist. If James' faith comes out of his works his works must first exist. What James is saying is that works are a part of, not the product of, his faith.

How are works evidence of salvation when the lost can and often do more good deeds than Christians?

 

[Butch5]

Do you remember my very first line....I'm not defending OSAS.

My point was that I don't think that's a good scripture to use to Dis-prove OSAS.
There just isn't enough information imo to do that. If one can repent their salvation has not been lost.

Her previous life-style was that of a married woman.
And her desire was to be married again.

Hi Deb,

I realize you weren't defending the doctrine. I understand that she desires to be married again, however, she has made a vow to God to serve and according to Paul has renounced that vow. You said if one can repent their salvation has not been lost, that may be true. However, we don't know at what point God says, enough is enough. God grants repentance, we can just say I repent and its a done deal. Look at those in the wilderness, God had reached a point where He said, enough, they will not enter my rest. .In Romans one God reached a point where those who held the truth in unrighteousness were given over to their lusts and a reprobate mind.

 

[Butch5]

Sure Butch; however I don't accept the argument that this implies Augustine was incorrect on this matter.

What don't you accept, the that those before hand fought against the doctrine?

 

[agua.]

Hi Deb,

I realize you weren't defending the doctrine. I understand that she desires to be married again, however, she has made a vow to God to serve and according to Paul has renounced that vow. You said if one can repent their salvation has not been lost, that may be true. However, we don't know at what point God says, enough is enough. God grants repentance, we can just say I repent and its a done deal. Look at those in the wilderness, God had reached a point where He said, enough, they will not enter my rest. .In Romans one God reached a point where those who held the truth in unrighteousness were given over to their lusts and a reprobate mind.

Look at those in the wilderness, God had reached a point where He said, enough, they will not enter my rest.

This is interesting Butch. Are you suggesting all those who died in the wilderness are unsaved ?

What don't you accept, the that those before hand fought against the doctrine?

I don't accept that because Augustine differed from the main Church doctrine at that time on predestination and perseverance ( ~ 5th century AD ) that this implies he had it wrong.

 

[Butch5]

This is interesting Butch. Are you suggesting all those who died in the wilderness are unsaved ?

God said they would not enter His rest.

I don't accept that because Augustine differed from the main Church doctrine at that time on predestination and perseverance ( ~ 5th century AD ) that this implies he had it wrong.

The early Christians taught the opposite. That would mean those taught by Jesus and the apostles had it wrong.

 

[agua.]

God said they would not enter His rest.

Including Moses ? Maybe you're confusing physical death with loss of salvation.Yahweh killed some by plague etc and the other disobedient died in the wilderness etc. This is a physical type that doesn't necessarily imply individual salvation position though it can.

The early Christians taught the opposite. That would mean those taught by Jesus and the apostles had it wrong.

No it wouldn't. Do you have a 2nd century treatise of predestination and perseverance of the Saints ?

 

[Butch5]

Including Moses ? Maybe you're confusing physical death with loss of salvation.Yahweh killed some by plague etc and the other disobedient died in the wilderness etc. This is a physical type that doesn't necessarily imply individual salvation position though it can.

But Paul's argument is about entering the future rest. He uses those who fell in the wilderness as an example of those who fell short of making it into God's rest.

No it wouldn't. Do you have a 2nd century treatise of predestination and perseverance of the Saints ?

I don't know if there is a treatise but Origen did argue against what is the common Reformed understanding of predestination.

 

[agua.]

But Paul's argument is about entering the future rest. He uses those who fell in the wilderness as an example of those who fell short of making it into God's rest.

Yes Paul used this physical example to give a spiritual one. It doesn't necessarily imply all those who died physically in the wilderness will not inherit eternal life. eg. Moses.

I don't know if there is a treatise but Origen did argue against what is the common Reformed understanding of predestination.

I think Augustine's idea of perseverance of the Saints is real interesting and shouldn't be used as support of OSAS. ( OSAS is a poor term and doctrine imo ) He has deeper inferences which suggest a believer may leave the faith but I'm a bit unclear whether he considers such a person one of the Elect. I think he suggests there are specific individuals who were chosen for specific purpose eg. Abraham, Mary etc among the saved and also people who have been called according to the election of Grace. Either way he suggests salvation is monergistic.

 

[Butch5]

Yes Paul used this physical example to give a spiritual one. It doesn't necessarily imply all those who died physically in the wilderness will not inherit eternal life. eg. Moses.

Moses wasn't one of those who were disobedient in the wilderness. Here is Paul's argument.

5 And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward,
6 but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end1.
7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today, if you will hear His voice,
8 Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, In the day of trial in the wilderness,
9 Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, And saw My works forty years.
10 Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said,`They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.'
11 So I swore in My wrath,`They shall not enter My rest1.'"
12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;
13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,
15 while it is said: "Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion1."
16 For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?
17 Now with whom was He angry forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness?
18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey?
19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

NKJ Hebrews 4:1 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it.
2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them1, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.
3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "So I swore in My wrath,`They shall not enter My rest,'" although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works";
5 and again in this place: "They shall not enter My rest1."
6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,
7 again He designates a certain day, saying in David, "Today," after such a long time, as it has been said: "Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts1."
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.
9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God.
10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.
11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience. (Heb 3:5-4:11 NKJ)

Paul argues that there remains a rest for the people of God and that some must enter into. He said we who believe do enter that rest. This is a rest in the future and Paul says that those in the wilderness did not enter into that rest. This cannot be speaking of the Jews going into the promised land as Paul has put it in the future yet at the same time says that those in the wilderness did not enter into it because of unbelief. Then he admonishes his readers to make sure that they don't miss entering it because of the same disobedience.

I think Augustine's idea of perseverance of the Saints is real interesting and shouldn't be used as support of OSAS. ( OSAS is a poor term and doctrine imo ) He has deeper inferences which suggest a believer may leave the faith but I'm a bit unclear whether he considers such a person one of the Elect. I think he suggests there are specific individuals who were chosen for specific purpose eg. Abraham, Mary etc among the saved and also people who have been called according to the election of Grace. Either way he suggests salvation is monergistic.

One of the problems with Augustine's idea is that one cannot know if they are one of the elect until death.

 

[chessman]

Whether the passage would have us all doomed or not doesn't change what he said.

Correct, it doesn't change what he said but it darn sure helps us interpret what he said. Or it should, if one was truly trying to discern his point in that statement.

We can't determine his meaning based on how we perceive salvation.

i agree. But we can bounce what he says up against Scripture.

Let's throw your highlighted phrase (that you were obviously using to 'prove Irenaeus is a on-OSAS'r) up against the wall and see if it sticks?

in the same way is it with God, — those who do not obey Him being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.

As I said, taken out of context, sure it's Irenaeus sounding like he's saying the disobeying sons are disinherited (de-saved). Proof positive he's not just a non-OSAS person but a universal non-salvationist, as you and I observed. But guess what? Irenaeus doesn't think all disobedient per'sons' are condemned. He knows we are all disobedient (except The One).
For we ALL disobey our Father. That was my point. Obviously there's something else going on within his message than the way you used the phrase as a "proof text".

Which is why I asked you if it was him or someone else's quote. I've read him extensively studying other doctrines, not this one in particular, and it didn't sound like something he would say. Which is why I questioned where you got it. But you're right it is his words from Book 4.

So I read in and around the quote (which is his third point) to try and figure out what he really meant by the phrase (points 1 and 2 and even the previous few chapters were very helpful). I recommend it as a read as I did ALL of the 1 Tim 5 chapter.

I will not bother quoting the whole of what I learned. But I do know that his point was not so much about OSAS in the first place as it was about how all God's creatures (humans and angels), saved and un-saved, fallen and un-fallen are called 'sons of God' and yet at times called 'sons of Satan' (by Jesus).

In other words, how can all people (created by God, his sons) ever be called Satan's sons? Was Jesus literally meaning 'sons of Satan' or is that teaching heretical?

He says:"If, however, it were truly one Father who confers rest, and another God [Satan as some were saying, still are] who has prepared the fire, their sons would have been equally different"

Was Satan literally their father (their serpent seed). Ironically that was the heresy he was countering against with the phrase you highlighted. So, no ANTI-OSAS was not his topic.

And his points (3 included) was that Jesus was metaphorically calling the Pharisees and corrupt High Priest 'sons of Satan', not literally/naturally born from Satan's seed. Humans first became 'Satan's sons' when they first disobeyed God in the Garden.

He's using this phrase you highlighted to explain why Jesus says what He does about the Pharisees, etc (reprobate). Not as a de-salvation (de-inheritence) phrase. Which is the interpretation you pre-conceived that he meant by it. I admit it does sound like a De-salvation quote at first glance, which is why I questioned it. But upon further evaluation, it's not. In fact, the very next sentence after your quote is quite helpful in establishing his true 'subject'

Wherefore they cannot receive His inheritance: as David says, "Sinners are alienated from the womb; their anger is after the likeness of a serpent." And therefore did the Lord term those whom He knew to be the offspring of men "a generation of vipers; " because after the manner of these animals they go about in subtilty, and injure others



Ironically, Irenaeus says this also about these heretics:
"But it is necessary to subjoin to this composition, in what follows, also the doctrine of Paul after the words of the Lord, to examine the opinion of this man, and expound the apostle, and to explain whatsoever [passages] have received other interpretations from the heretics, who have altogether misunderstood what Paul has spoken, and to point out the folly of their mad opinions; and to demonstrate from that same Paul, from whose [writings] they press questions upon us, that they are indeed utterers of falsehood, but that the apostle was a preacher of the truth, and that he taught all things agreeable to the preaching of the truth; [to the effect that] it was one God the Father who spake with Abraham, who gave the law, who sent the prophets beforehand, who in the last times sent His Son, and conferred salvation upon His own handiwork-that is, the substance of flesh. Arranging, then, in another book, the rest of the words of the Lord, which He taught concerning the Father not by parables, but by expressions taken in their obvious meaning (sed simpliciter ipsis dictionibus), and the exposition of the Epistles of the blessed apostle,"

You said: "Here is Irenaeus actually addressing this issue"

Umm, no, not really is he addressing the OSAS issue. He may or may not be OSAS, but that is clearly not his point with the phrase you highlighted as a 'proof text' of his.

The only argument I see that could be made against this statement would be to claim that Irenaeus wasn't a Christian

I know, that's my point. Along with everybody else in the world back to Abraham and Noah and Adam. We ARE all disobedient sons, and Irenaeus knows this.

 

[agua.]

Moses wasn't one of those who were disobedient in the wilderness. Here is Paul's argument.

5 And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward,
6 but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end1.
7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today, if you will hear His voice,
8 Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, In the day of trial in the wilderness,
9 Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, And saw My works forty years.
10 Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said,`They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.'
11 So I swore in My wrath,`They shall not enter My rest1.'"
12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;
13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,
15 while it is said: "Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion1."
16 For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?
17 Now with whom was He angry forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness?
18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey?
19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Yes and this why we can't suggest all those who died in the wilderness are unsaved. Those who died in the wilderness who remained in rebellion would only be that category.

NKJ Hebrews 4:1 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it.
2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them1, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.
3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "So I swore in My wrath,`They shall not enter My rest,'" although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works";
5 and again in this place: "They shall not enter My rest1."
6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,
7 again He designates a certain day, saying in David, "Today," after such a long time, as it has been said: "Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts1."
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.
9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God.
10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.
11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience. (Heb 3:5-4:11 NKJ)

Paul argues that there remains a rest for the people of God and that some must enter into. He said we who believe do enter that rest. This is a rest in the future and Paul says that those in the wilderness did not enter into that rest. This cannot be speaking of the Jews going into the promised land as Paul has put it in the future yet at the same time says that those in the wilderness did not enter into it because of unbelief. Then he admonishes his readers to make sure that they don't miss entering it because of the same disobedience.

Yes the rest period spoken of here is future. Some of those who died in the wilderness will enter this rest when resurrected.

One of the problems with Augustine's idea is that one cannot know if they are one of the elect until death.

Until the resurrection ? Isn't that your claim anyway.

 

[Butch5]

Correct, it doesn't change what he said but it darn sure helps us interpret what he said. Or it should, if one was truly trying to discern his point in that statement.

i agree. But we can bounce what he says up against Scripture.

Let's throw your highlighted phrase (that you were obviously using to 'prove Irenaeus is a on-OSAS'r) up against the wall and see if it sticks?

in the same way is it with God, — those who do not obey Him being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.

As I said, taken out of context, sure it's Irenaeus sounding like he's saying the disobeying sons are disinherited (de-saved). Proof positive he's not just a non-OSAS person but a universal non-salvationist, as you and I observed. But guess what? Irenaeus doesn't think all disobedient per'sons' are condemned. He knows we are all disobedient (except The One).
For we ALL disobey our Father. That was my point. Obviously there's something else going on within his message than the way you used the phrase as a "proof text".

Which is why I asked you if it was him or someone else's quote. I've read him extensively studying other doctrines, not this one in particular, and it didn't sound like something he would say. Which is why I questioned where you got it. But you're right it is his words from Book 4.

So I read in and around the quote (which is his third point) to try and figure out what he really meant by the phrase (points 1 and 2 and even the previous few chapters were very helpful). I recommend it as a read as I did ALL of the 1 Tim 5 chapter.

I will not bother quoting the whole of what I learned. But I do know that his point was not so much about OSAS in the first place as it was about how all God's creatures (humans and angels), saved and un-saved, fallen and un-fallen are called 'sons of God' and yet at times called 'sons of Satan' (by Jesus).

In other words, how can all people (created by God, his sons) ever be called Satan's sons? Was Jesus literally meaning 'sons of Satan' or is that teaching heretical?

He says:"If, however, it were truly one Father who confers rest, and another God [Satan as some were saying, still are] who has prepared the fire, their sons would have been equally different"

Was Satan literally their father (their serpent seed). Ironically that was the heresy he was countering against with the phrase you highlighted. So, no ANTI-OSAS was not his topic.

And his points (3 included) was that Jesus was metaphorically calling the Pharisees and corrupt High Priest 'sons of Satan', not literally/naturally born from Satan's seed. Humans first became 'Satan's sons' when they first disobeyed God in the Garden.

He's using this phrase you highlighted to explain why Jesus says what He does about the Pharisees, etc (reprobate). Not as a de-salvation (de-inheritence) phrase. Which is the interpretation you pre-conceived that he meant by it. I admit it does sound like a De-salvation quote at first glance, which is why I questioned it. But upon further evaluation, it's not. In fact, the very next sentence after your quote is quite helpful in establishing his true 'subject'

Wherefore they cannot receive His inheritance: as David says, "Sinners are alienated from the womb; their anger is after the likeness of a serpent." And therefore did the Lord term those whom He knew to be the offspring of men "a generation of vipers; " because after the manner of these animals they go about in subtilty, and injure others



Ironically, Irenaeus says this also about these heretics:
"But it is necessary to subjoin to this composition, in what follows, also the doctrine of Paul after the words of the Lord, to examine the opinion of this man, and expound the apostle, and to explain whatsoever [passages] have received other interpretations from the heretics, who have altogether misunderstood what Paul has spoken, and to point out the folly of their mad opinions; and to demonstrate from that same Paul, from whose [writings] they press questions upon us, that they are indeed utterers of falsehood, but that the apostle was a preacher of the truth, and that he taught all things agreeable to the preaching of the truth; [to the effect that] it was one God the Father who spake with Abraham, who gave the law, who sent the prophets beforehand, who in the last times sent His Son, and conferred salvation upon His own handiwork-that is, the substance of flesh. Arranging, then, in another book, the rest of the words of the Lord, which He taught concerning the Father not by parables, but by expressions taken in their obvious meaning (sed simpliciter ipsis dictionibus), and the exposition of the Epistles of the blessed apostle,"

You said: "Here is Irenaeus actually addressing this issue"

Umm, no, not really is he addressing the OSAS issue. He may or may not be OSAS, but that is clearly not his point with the phrase you highlighted as a 'proof text' of his.



I know, that's my point. Along with everybody else in the world back to Abraham and Noah and Adam. We ARE all disobedient sons, and Irenaeus knows this.

A proof text? Who exactly do you suppose gets disinherited, the sons of the Devil? Way back in the beginning of this thread I made mention of logical arguments going by the wayside in the OSAS discusssion when passions arise. Every passage of Scripture and now the ECF's have been summarily explained away when logic dictates otherwise. Irenaeus makes the case that when a human son is disinherited he remains a son by nature yet is disinherited and does not get the inheritance. He then compared that to those who are disinherited by God and get no part in the kingdom. No matter how one decides to read this the comparison is clear, he said the disobedient are disinherited and have no part in the kingdom. I think it's pretty clear that He believed sons of God could be disinherited.

 

[Butch5]

Chessman,

Where did this statement come from?

He says:"If, however, it were truly one Father who confers rest, and another God [Satan as some were saying, still are] who has prepared the fire, their sons would have been equally different"

 

[chessman]

Moses wasn't one of those who were disobedient in the wilderness.

You sure? Which time?

Exodus 4:13-14 And he said, “Please, Lord, do send anyone else whom you wish to send.” And Yahweh was angry with Moses

Exodus 4:6-7, 10-12 And Yahweh said to him again, “Put your hand into the fold of your garment.” And he put his hand into the fold of his garment, and he took it out, and, to his surprise, his hand was afflicted with a skin disease, like snow. ​

Well, there you have it, be disobedient to God your condemned. Hmmm, read on:

And he said, “Return your hand to the fold of your garment.” And he returned his hand to the fold of his garment, and he took it out from the fold of his garment, and, to his surprise, it was restored like the rest of his body. And Moses said to Yahweh, “Please, Lord, I am not a man of words, neither recently nor in the past nor since your speaking to your servant, because I am heavy of mouth and of tongue.” And Yahweh said to him, “Who gave a mouth to humankind, or who makes mute or deaf or sighted or blind? Is it not I, Yahweh? So then go, and I myself will be with your mouth, and I will teach you what you must speak.” ​

 

[chessman]

Chessman,

Where did this statement come from?

He says:"If, however, it were truly one Father who confers rest, and another God [Satan as some were saying, still are] who has prepared the fire, their sons would have been equally different"

Irenaeus.

One of the inherent difficulties with reading his books is that he's almost always speaking against the heretic's view. Showing how illogical and unBiblical their arguments are. It's extremely important to pick out when he's presenting his take versus the heretic's view that he happens to be speaking against at the time. In the section/chapter that you quoted he's speaking against some that were teaching Satan had literal offspring. They taught Satan was a god and thus had sons.