Talk:Conditional preservation of the saints/Archive 1

Archive 1

additional passage

An excellent article! I added one more biblical passage under the section "Scriptures that have to be reconciled". 192.231.128.68 04:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Categorization Furthers Misconceptions

I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian in my beliefs, and it is frustrating to see people attack the issue of eternal security only from the perspective of one of these views. As such, I believe there should be content expressing the fact that there are views outside of the two most commonly referred to.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.32.75 (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Losing Salvation?

Can someone please start a program to stop incorrect terms being used regarding the theological term of salvation. It is not possible to loose your salvation. That is equivalent to saying I lost my keys. you simply misplace something and can not find a way to immediately recover the item or thing. People do not loose their salvation ever. They either neglect their soul to the point of not taking care of the gift God has provided or they simply and unequivocally "sell" their new found "birthright" in Christ. I do not loose Christmas gifts so to speak. I neglect them to the point of decay or I take them back. In other words. People sell out when it comes to what is most precious to them. Hence the plain to understand story of Esau selling his birthright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.238.181.61 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the term "forfeiting" salvation. I agree that it is not accurate to say that anyone can "lose" their salvation as if losing one's car keys. No theologian teaches that it is possible to "lose" salvation as such. I have changed the terms "lose" and "lost" to "forfeit" in this article. Kristamaranatha (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Why This Page

I started this page as resource for armchair theologians to read neutral, accurate descriptions of various theological systems. I noticed that Calvin's Perseverance of the Saints had a very well-developed page, so I tried to mimic that here.

I did my darndest to cite everything, and am confident there is no original material. If you find spots that require a citation, bring them to my attention. In light of all the work that I put into citing everything, please do not change things that are citation-specific. Please feel free to add more.

I also did as much as I could to maintain neutrality of the page. If there is a problem with neutrality, please don't automatically change it - let it be discussed here first. If you are going to make any major changes, please leave your reasoning here.

(7 hours later) Enjoy! David Schroder 04:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Since significant changes have been made to this article, it was appropriate that I let readers know who and why these updates were made. I'm Steve Witzki and I have been reading, writing, and researching the topic concerning the security of the believer for nearly 20 years. This does not make me an expert, just someone well read on the topic.

I appreciate the work of Dave Schroder that gave this page its start. I talked with him about doing some updating and he encouraged me to do so. Please note, if you look in the History section you don't see my name with the recent changes made. I'm not sure why this happened. I logged in and it said that I was logged in, but it doesn't show this in the History. Nevertheless, here are some of the reasons why I felt an updating was needed.

• More sources needed to be used to demonstrate the essential unity between Arminian writers/scholars from the past and present.

• Arminius and the Arminian leaders after him (the Remonstrants and John Wesley) needed to be given more attention on this topic, especially since this article falls under the heading of Arminianism.

• The comment in the previous article that “the Remonstrants never completely affirmed the ability to forfeit one’s salvation” was not historically accurate. It is true that they initially maintained their leaders uncertainty on the possibility of apostasy. However, sometime between 1610, and the official proceeding of the Synod of Dort (1618), the Remonstrants became fully persuaded in their minds that the Scriptures taught that a true believer was capable of falling away from faith and perishing eternally. This was clearly communicated in 1618 in “The Opinions of the Remonstrants.”

• Since belief in apostasy has been historically associated with Arminianism, attention needed to be given to defining apostasy and explaining its dangers. This was necessary due to the fact that Calvinist and Arminians define apostasy much differently. This new section replaces the previous section titled, “Doctrine,” for the reasons explained below.

The "Doctrine" section that featured a comparison of Ashby (Reformed Arminian) and Harper (Wesleyan Arminian) needed to be omitted for several reasons. First, Ashby misrepresents what Classical Arminians have believed in when he wrote: “To understand the Reformed Arminian position, we must recognize that one is not saved by quitting sinning. Nor does committing sin or failing to confess sin cause one to lose salvation” (Four Views on Eternal Security, 172). All Christians would agree with the first statement, but it is the second one that Ashby makes that does not line up with Classical Arminianism.

If Ashby is suggesting that he is representing Reformed Arminianism from James Arminius onward, then he definitely is not representing RA accurately. Arminians believe that persevering in faith (which manifests itself in love and obedience) is the condition for remaining in a saving relationship with Christ; and persevering in unbelief (which manifests itself in sin and disobedience) is the condition for severing this relationship. Sinning against God’s revealed will is evidence that a person is developing an evil, unbelieving heart that leads to a person falling away from the living God (Heb 3:12-19; see Robert Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will, 204-208).

I. Howard Marshall says, “sin is an act and attitude which is incompatible with the obedience of faith, and hence constitutes a denial of faith. (Kept by the Power, 197). This is the same view that the later Remonstrants held in “The Opinions of the Remonstrants”: True believers can fall from true faith and can fall into such sins as cannot be consistent with true and justifying faith; not only is it possible for this to happen, but it even happens frequently. True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish. (See article)

In my readings in the Works of John Wesley (and other Wesleyan Methodist scholars), and from the Later Remonstrants (or Reformed Arminians), I find that they agree on the following issues on this topic:

God’s grace is necessary for faith from first to last; persevering in faith is necessary in order to remain in a saving relationship with God; God protects and preserves his people through faith; and faith expresses itself in love and obedience. They both hold that “without holiness, no one will see the Lord” (Heb 12:14). They both see sin as opposed to true and living faith. They both agree that Christians can backslide and recover from it through repentance. They both agree that a Christian can go from backsliding to eventual apostasy and perish eternally.

While some Arminians disagree as to whether apostasy is irrevocable, clearly, Wesley, in his "Serious Thoughts on the Perseverance of the Saints," saw some passages teaching that apostasy was final and total. Since Classical (Reformed) Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism have so much in agreement on this issue, I don’t feel there was warrant for separating them as before. If you disagree, please feel free to interact with me on this page.

I have also updated the Comparisons with Opposing Views with much needed quotes from primary resources for both Traditional and Non-traditional Calvinists. Of course, the Notes section needed to be updated with new information being added. I omitted the Criticism and Responses section since these will be covered in an External Link Article. I will be providing a lot of articles (in PDF Format) for the External Link section. This is sorely needed to improve the usefulness of this article. These articles will enable interested readers to research this topic further before needing to buy books which go further in depth.

It is my hope that others will provide suggestions and interact with my updates before making significant changes. I spent a ton of hours re-reading and combing through all of the Arminian resources used in this article. It was my intention to adhere to the standards set by Wikipedia for their articles: maintain a neutral point of view; no original research; use verifiable and reliable resources. Please let me know if you think I have failed to abide by these standards.

Thanks, SWitzki98.145.232.112 (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Greetings,

I have just added several articles to the External Links section. If you have any questions about them, please feel free to respond here. Thanks, SWitzki98.145.232.112 (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Resource List (Arminian, Traditional Calvinist, Non-traditional Calvinist)

Greetings,

I have significantly updated the resource list for each of the views. I have read all the books in the resource page except for a couple. I thought it was logical to put them in order from oldest to newest. I have excluded some resources in the Arminian section since they do not, in my opinion, represent the best scholarship. All the books in the Arminian section are published by reputable publishers except for one (Dan Corner’s book is self-published). I have stayed away from self-published works since, whether people like it or not, they generally are not well-received or respected by those in the publishing or scholarly community. I am not saying this is right, but only making an observation from my own readings and from a recent conversation I had with a Christian author who has had a lot of books published and helps others to become published. Dan Corner’s book is well-known via the internet and his website, so I thought it was prudent to include this work. To the best of my knowledge, all the books in the resource section are still in print. Of course, this is important for those wanting to research this topic further.

Thanks, SWitzki98.145.232.112 (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to protest this article receiving "Top" importance rating. That rating is at this point used to determine which articles are of the greatest importance to the subject of Methodism in general, so articles like Methodism, John Wesley, and other articles which are, basically, the ones that would be most necessary for a full coverage of the subject in an encyclopedia. I do not believe, based on my own, admittedly limited, knowledge of the subject that this subject is that central to the topic of Methodism requires that it be given the Top priority rating. If you can convince me and the other editors why you believe it is so vital an article to the topic of Methodism to be valid, of course, then I would have no doubt that the rating would be maintained. But I honestly have to wonder whether the topic of saints in general is that important to Methodism as a whole, let alone a subtopic within the broader topic of saints in Methodism. John Carter (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings John,

IMO this article deserves to be of “Top Importance” in Methodism for several reasons. John Wesley and other Wesleyan/Methodist scholars after him spent significant time defending conditional security and the possibility of apostasy. Wesley wrote two lengthy pieces specifically against the fifth point of Calvinism—the Perseverance of the Saints. It appears that Wesley was in theological debate with Calvinists through much of his ministry (see Allan Coppedge, “John Wesley in Theological Debate”). In a number of his writings Wesley felt it was important to show the biblical, theological, and logical problems with the other points of Calvinism (i.e., TULIP). Wesley believed that there was an “insidious danger of false security and moral complacency,” in believing the fifth point of Calvinism. He did not believe that it helped to promote holy living among God’s people. Of course, holiness was, and still is, a very important issue to Wesleyan/Methodists. To this day, Wesley is known as an Arminian theologian and Arminians are known for believing that it is possible for true Christians to sever their saving relationship with Christ through persistent unbelief characterized by sin and disobedience. This belief has always been central to Arminians like Wesley. For these reasons I believe the “Top Importance” rating for the Methodism work group should definitely remain the same. Blessings, SWitzki (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Conditional Salvation?

"The Arminian position is accurately portrayed by someone throwing a lifeline to a drowning man and saying 'grab hold of this and keep holding on tightly until I pull you to safety.' I would maintain that no one rescued in this way would dream that he had saved himself or even made a 'contribution' which merited his rescue. He would be filled with gratitude towards his rescuer"

Reach for this lifeline (rope?) and hold on "tightly". Holding on tightly takes work. Not to criticize but it appears to be a flawed analogy. I believe we agree that Salvation is a free gift, unmerited favor (grace through faith alone). If it is not something we earn then why would we have to hold on to it tightly? Once you gain the gift, the only way you lose it is by giving it back. You would need to make a very concious decision to give it back. Losing it would indicate that you just forgot it was there and it went away. Salvation cannot grow stale.

I do not condone gaining salvation and then ignoring the life Christ wants you to live. If you are truly saved you will want to please Christ and live at the center of His will. I don't think you can lose your salvation by not attending church or by not praying etc. It is a deliberate act of hating the Holy Spirit and trampling Jesus under your feet and rejecting God. If that is what it takes to lose salvation then you don't lose it, you give it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.161.126 (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment you are expressing, but this talk page is not a discussion forum for debating the merits of Arminianism. Do you have some concern about the article? (FWIW, I think that quotation is neutral and suitable for inclusion here.) --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The comments about "throwing a lifeline to a drowning man . . ." are no longer a part of this article. SWitzki (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

List of verses

I have again redacted the list of verses used to support this doctrine that was added by User:204.225.7.15. A few verses are sufficient (cf. WP:LAUNDRY on overly long lists), though I'm not fixed on the particular verses that are currently listed. The most important directly related passages should be listed here, and the rest can be supplied as chapter/verse references only or omitted. For instance, I'd recommend that Jas 4:17 ("Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.") be removed since its connection is harder to discern than, say, Ga 5:4 ("You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.").

Also, it might be handy to break up the verse pro and con lists to include more prose describing the relevant interpretations of the verse (with sources, of course) -- something akin to what is already done for Jn 5:24 and 10:27-28. For instance, "traditional Calvinists" agree that there can be backsliding but define it differently than Arminians (to wit, the permanent backslider enjoyed the benefits and blessings of the covenant community but was not truly saved -- not all Israel are Israel, Ro 9:6), and so some verses (e.g., Mt 24:13: "But he who endures to the end shall be saved.") don't obviously conflict with that viewpoint. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

I've chosen to use the ESV translation as the primary text because I think it is a slightly better reading translation than the NKJV. I choose to include other translations as well, such as the ISV translation (International Standard Version). You can easily find out about this new translation with a simple google search.

In the past there has been at least one person who shorted up the List of Scriptures Used for Support because it was viewed as too long. In Wikipedia’s vocabulary it could be considered a “Laundry List.” I agree that such lists can be too long, but when is a list too long? How many “bullet points” are too many? I observed that the biblical support for the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints has a 36 bullet point list. That’s more than we have for Conditional Preservation (25). I looked at the article on laundry lists and it reads:

The goal of Wikiproject:Laundromat is to scrub laundry lists from articles when they detract from an article's usefulness, and salvage usable content from those laundry lists into readable, encyclopedic text. A list can also be the best way of presenting detailed material, and it is not intended to remove such lists.

In my opinion, the present list of Scriptures does not detract from the articles usefulness, but is the best way of presenting the material for those investigating this issue. While it would be easy to make the list much longer, I don’t think it is necessary. This article should provide a nice entry into the topic and point people to resources that look at it in more detail.

It should be noted that I have omitted Picirilli’s comments that appeared at the end of the original Scripture list. They are excellent comments, but I’ve chosen to include his comments in an article I placed in the External Link section. It’s called: “Arminian Responses to Passages Used to Support Perseverance of the Saints.” There is no original research in this lengthy article, I simply quote Arminians (found in the Arminian Resourse section) who have responded to these passages in their books.

Blessings, SWitzki98.145.232.112 (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I believe that any verse claimed to be in favor of losing salvation must necessarily be taken out of context, I will concede that there are some that seem to suggest the possibility. However there were a few on the list that seem to be obviously referring to something else or not relevant, so I removed them. I can see the value of having a list of verses for and against, though. Perhaps I should expand the list of opposing verses since there are more that explicitly affirm eternal salvation. Also, in providing an explanation on the later list, I was unable to cite a reference properly, so I left it inline hoping that somebody could fix it. Kainosnous (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to remove verses that Arminians have seen as referring to conditional security and the possibility of apostasy. This is an article that reflects views of Arminians from their own writings. You are welcome to your own opinion about whether a particular verse is relevant or not, but your opinion does not matter when it pertains to accurately reflecting what verses Arminians have used to support their position. The standards set by Wikipedia for their articles: maintain a neutral point of view; no original research; use verifiable and reliable resources has been followed. If you look at Arminian scholar Robert Shank's book Life in the Son you will see that he lists 85 verses in Appendix A (p. 333-337) to support conditional security, which includes the verses you thought should be removed. Your two articles that were added to the External Link section have been removed since they do not reflect the Arminian position and the External Links section has been dedicated to Arminian views reflected in the article. I would add that there is no need to add additional opposing verses since anyone can go to the Calvinist perseverance of the saints article and find a longer list of opposing verses. Those that are here are good representatives and need not be expanded upon.ClassArm (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for your correction. I had believed that both lists were NPOV and thus subject to being thinned out. Since the first list is from the verses traditionally used by Arminians, I can see how it is important to keep the list intact to show their perspective. I have added that clarification to the article so that others don't make the same mistake that I, and seemingly Flex a few paragraphs earlier, have made. However, I disagree with your removal of my other edits as that section is clearly the place for opposition by "Those who hold to perseverance..." The explanations are popular and well documented refutations of this particular doctrine, and as such would not be better suited to "Perseverance of the saints". The reason for the edit is not only to provide a more neutral point of view, but to give context to the proceeding scriptures such as is done with the previous section. Furthermore, without this context, a person may incorrectly conclude that these two sections provide unresolvable contradictions in the scripture. I believe that there may be better references to this view or that the wording may be improved, but I feel strongly that it is important to this particular article. If you could think of a better place within this article for it (such as an "Other Views" section like the other article) or perhaps better wording, then I would encourage that edit. Kainosnous (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding that clarification. I agree that the list should stay as is for the reasons I provided on the discussion site earlier. I still disagree that there needs to be a place for opposing articles in the external link section. Since anyone can access articles in favor of perseverance of the saints on its site, there is no need to place them on this site. Nevertheless, I have added to the See also section a link to Perseverance of the saints and mentioned that it has articles in the external links section that support its position. I don’t have any problems with the perseverance of the saints site not having external link articles that oppose their position. They do, but they don’t need to since they could simply provide a link to the conditional security site where a person could find plenty of articles in favor of its position. As to the two sections being in contradiction, I have provided a better subheading titled: “Scriptures that appear to contradict conditional security.” I also provide the following two sentences after this list: Arminians would argue that they have adequately provided explanations for how these verses and others can be reconciled with conditional security. These explanations, taken solely from the writings of Arminian scholars and theologians, can be found in the external link article: "Arminian Responses to Key Passages Used to Support Perseverance of the Saints." I hope that this has addressed some of your concerns. I think that your feedback has helped to improve this article. ThanksClassArm (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Reason for removal of self-published books

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, sources that are usually not reliable are self-published sources. Why? They give the following reason:

Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.

For this reason I have removed the two self-published books from the Arminian section.ClassArm (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Original Research

The last paragraph in the Historical backround section appears, from the footnote, to be original research. Is there no source that states this? Indyguy (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct call by Indyguy here. Thus, the paragraph was removed. ClassArm