Talk:Conditional preservation of the saints

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)