How many here hold to The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints

[Silverhair]

Puritan writings did hold that the saints will infallibly persevere, yet the warning passages were to be taken as they were and heeded, as if your salvation depended upon you heeding the warning. I'm not asking that anyone else embrace that but the thread asked where we stood and that's where I stand.

When you consider what the Puritans wrote then it is obvious they did not take the warning seriously.

"the warning passages were to be taken as they were and heeded, as if your salvation depended upon you heeding the warning."

If they thought they could never be lost then of what value were the warning?

Why warn someone about something that can never happen?

Dave you are an intelligent man so I ask does it seem rational to include warning if the danger were not real?

Perhaps it is because of the OSAS or calvinist perseverance/preservation view that so many have fallen into such moral sin. If you think you can never be lost then what restraint is placed on you except your own moral views.

 

[DaveXR650]

When you consider what the Puritans wrote then it is obvious they did not take the warning seriously.

I guess I don't express things very clear. The Puritans are the ones that wrote to take the warnings seriously! They did so because many people were not taking the warnings seriously. But because they also took the passages seriously that say you aren't saved one day and lost again the next they did not feel like it would be right to express something in a way that was clearly at odds with other scriptures.

If they thought they could never be lost then of what value were the warning?

If you are saved, the idea is that on account of God providentially looking out for you, accompanied by your efforts (which are all by God's grace) to heed all scriptures and to pursue holiness and personal sanctification, doing so for the rest of your life is what is called " the perseverance of the saints". That is the only way to explain it and be true to all scriptures, both the warning passages, and, those passages that show the eternal security of a true believer.

But if that doesn't work for you then I guess you should stick to the idea that you can lose your salvation. The only practical difference as I see it is that they would insist a person who sins with presumption while assuming they cannot lose their salvation was never actually saved. You would say they lost it. Both agree that the person described is ultimately lost.

 

[DaveXR650]

Perhaps it is because of the OSAS or calvinist perseverance/preservation view that so many have fallen into such moral sin. If you think you can never be lost then what restraint is placed on you except your own moral views.

That can happen. Baxter and Wesley both tried to tweak the reformation theology to correct that from happening. The Roman Catholics charged the Reformers with this also and Owen wrote a lot refuting that and even issued a challenge to Roman Catholics that he would put up Protestants against Catholics any day they wished to compare piety and holy living!

The gospel itself, preached right, does suggest this. It seems outrageous that God is literally handing out pardons for the asking. Yet he is. So that question naturally comes up like it did in Romans 6:1. I am satisfied with the idea of the perseverance of the saints as explained in Puritan writings but if you feel more comfortable with Arminian theology then I have no problem with that. I do not personally think it matters much except to a student of theology or an official who has to support his denominational stance.

 

[Silverhair]

I guess I don't express things very clear. The Puritans are the ones that wrote to take the warnings seriously! They did so because many people were not taking the warnings seriously. But because they also took the passages seriously that say you aren't saved one day and lost again the next they did not feel like it would be right to express something in a way that was clearly at odds with other scriptures.

If you are saved, the idea is that on account of God providentially looking out for you, accompanied by your efforts (which are all by God's grace) to heed all scriptures and to pursue holiness and personal sanctification, doing so for the rest of your life is what is called " the perseverance of the saints". That is the only way to explain it and be true to all scriptures, both the warning passages, and, those passages that show the eternal security of a true believer.

But if that doesn't work for you then I guess you should stick to the idea that you can lose your salvation. The only practical difference as I see it is that they would insist a person who sins with presumption while assuming they cannot lose their salvation was never actually saved. You would say they lost it. Both agree that the person described is ultimately lost.

I agree with your last comment "Both agree that the person described is ultimately lost." Where I see the problem with the OSAS or perseverance of the saints is that it would actually make the warning passages moot. I mean to tell someone to live AS IF they can loose their salvation is really not a warning is it.

I would see the eternal security of the believer to be just that. Those that hold to the salvation they once received by grace through continued faith will be saved. Those that do not hold to that salvation by latter rejecting the only means of that salvation will be lost. The warning passages would have no meaning to those that have never believed so logically they are for believers.

To say that those that later turned away were never saved in the first place is to read a theological view into scripture.

I find that the warning passages do not fit with either the OSAS or perseverance/preservation views.

We see in Heb 3:12-13 that believers are warned. These ‘brothers and sisters’ are the same ones the writer addresses as Holy brothers{{Heb 3:1} whom he assumes to be actual “partakers of the heavenly calling”, and not pretenders. THESE are the ones he warns to take heed lest in THEM there is found a heart of unbelief in departing from God…and one can’t depart from God unless he was with Him to begin with.

That is why I see both OSAS or perseverance/preservation views as just a man-made system designed to comfort those that believe them to be true.

 

[Silverhair]

That can happen. Baxter and Wesley both tried to tweak the reformation theology to correct that from happening. The Roman Catholics charged the Reformers with this also and Owen wrote a lot refuting that and even issued a challenge to Roman Catholics that he would put up Protestants against Catholics any day they wished to compare piety and holy living!

The gospel itself, preached right, does suggest this. It seems outrageous that God is literally handing out pardons for the asking. Yet he is. So that question naturally comes up like it did in Romans 6:1. I am satisfied with the idea of the perseverance of the saints as explained in Puritan writings but if you feel more comfortable with Arminian theology then I have no problem with that. I do not personally think it matters much except to a student of theology or an official who has to support his denominational stance.

I would really be surprised to hear that question in church but I think some do think they can.

Are we not all supposed to be students of theology? I like our interactions as you always give me food for thought.

 

[DaveXR650]

To say that those that later turned away were never saved in the first place is to read a theological view into scripture.

I would just suggest that rather than reading a theological view into it that what they were doing was taking into account other clear scriptures that indicate those who are saved are not going to be lost. Wesley mentioned some verses in post 5 above and there are others. It is true that a purpose of theology is indeed that you have an explanation for passages that on their face seem to say the opposite. So we come up with an explanation and it is called a "theology". Personally, I don't have any problem believing at the same time that a person is saved irrevocably and for sure because it is clearly taught that it was a work of God from the beginning - and yet such a person is exactly the one who heeds the warning passages, worries lest they fail, and actively is involved in living a Christian life.

If I was still a youth and struggling to be mediocre at a sport for instance, and God were to come and say "some day you are going to be great in that sport", I would think I would practice harder, work out more, and keep away from distractions more after knowing this promise. But I certainly see how it's possible that you could just figure that now it doesn't really matter. That is just as logical I guess.

Bottom line is that the passages indicating salvation as being the initiative of God and the passages indicating your being kept by God are equal in importance to those passages that warn of falling away. And your complaint against the perseverance of the saints and the OSAS is the same complaint that I have against the OSAS people which is why I prefer the "perseverance of the saints". But like I said before, I know plenty of strong OSAS people who live lives as exemplary as any Puritan, all the while believing strongly that there is absolutely nothing they could ever do to lose their salvation. So you have to keep it all in perspective.

 

[Silverhair]

I would just suggest that rather than reading a theological view into it that what they were doing was taking into account other clear scriptures that indicate those who are saved are not going to be lost. Wesley mentioned some verses in post 5 above and there are others. It is true that a purpose of theology is indeed that you have an explanation for passages that on their face seem to say the opposite. So we come up with an explanation and it is called a "theology". Personally, I don't have any problem believing at the same time that a person is saved irrevocably and for sure because it is clearly taught that it was a work of God from the beginning - and yet such a person is exactly the one who heeds the warning passages, worries lest they fail, and actively is involved in living a Christian life.

If I was still a youth and struggling to be mediocre at a sport for instance, and God were to come and say "some day you are going to be great in that sport", I would think I would practice harder, work out more, and keep away from distractions more after knowing this promise. But I certainly see how it's possible that you could just figure that now it doesn't really matter. That is just as logical I guess.

Bottom line is that the passages indicating salvation as being the initiative of God and the passages indicating your being kept by God are equal in importance to those passages that warn of falling away. And your complaint against the perseverance of the saints and the OSAS is the same complaint that I have against the OSAS people which is why I prefer the "perseverance of the saints". But like I said before, I know plenty of strong OSAS people who live lives as exemplary as any Puritan, all the while believing strongly that there is absolutely nothing they could ever do to lose their salvation. So you have to keep it all in perspective.

I do keep it all in perspective and for me that is why I have to take the warning seriously. I do not neglect the promise of salvation and His keeping those that believe. But what I do see is that faith is the condition of initial salvation and also final salvation.

Complacency is the devil in the details.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Absolutely

 

[Charlie24]

[Jhn 6:27 KJV] 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
[Eph 1:13 KJV] 13 In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
[Eph 4:30 KJV] 30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
[2Ti 2:19 KJV] 19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

To me it is clear that The Good Shepard will NOT loose ANY of his sheep! God does not make mistakes. If you are born-again, you cannot over-ride God's will and be un-born.

You are welcome to prove me wrong based on scripture.

I can understand why a Calvinist believes salvation cannot be lost, from the beginning they believe God makes the choice.

What I can't understand is the one who believes in free will to choose to believe the Gospel but yet once they believe they no longer have that free will to depart from the faith, that the Scripture warns us of.

They see this departure as having a flaw in faith from the start and salvation was never actually experienced. This is the common belief in the IFB Church that is primarily non-Calvinist.

So that leaves me stuck in the middle somewhere not agreeing with either side on OSAS. I stand that man can depart from the faith through experiences in life that leaves him bitter toward God, eventually losing the faith that originally saved him.

I believe in free will and God honoring that free will, though it is not His will that man depart from Him, and after correction to bring that person back with no effect, God honors mans free will and allows the falling away. The reason there are so many warning in Scripture.

 

[DaveXR650]

I can understand why a Calvinist believes salvation cannot be lost, from the beginning they believe God makes the choice.

Yep. That is the argument.

What I can't understand is the one who believes in free will to choose to believe the Gospel but yet once they believe they no longer have that free will to depart from the faith, that the Scripture warns us of.

Man. That's a good point. It's almost like they have a combination free will to get in and then hyper-Calvinism once you are in.

They see this departure as having a flaw in faith from the start and salvation was never actually experienced. This is the common belief in the IFB Church that is primarily non-Calvinist.

Exactly. We always used to have those discussions with some Church of Christ friends. It came down to we said such a person never had it. They said he lost it.

So that leaves me stuck in the middle somewhere not agreeing with either side on OSAS. I stand that man can depart from the faith through experiences in life that leaves him bitter toward God, eventually losing the faith that originally saved him.

I know a person who did that. He actually had been a missionary and ran a school for missionary kids in South America for most of his adult life. I heard it second hand but late in life he left the faith. I always think of him when something really bad happens to someone and I see them going down dangerous pathways.

I believe in free will and God honoring that free will, though it is not His will that man depart from Him, and after correction to bring that person back with no effect, God honors mans free will and allows the falling away. The reason there are so many warning in Scripture.

This seems to be the most realistic take on all this I have seen in a while.

 

[Some Rando]

Yes. Most people use the terms interchangeably and it works fine. There is a group on the OSAS side that say that once saved a person is saved no matter what they do - even if they deliberately turn away. I think they even have developed a "free grace" society that teaches that. The "perseverance of the saints" school of thought also believe that once saved a person will stay saved - but the difference is that a truly saved person will not fall away. They tend to be reformed or at least read a lot of Puritan writings.

I hold to the perseverance of the saints. I have noticed though that some of the best and most pure in life people I know believe OSAS. I carry a Ryrie study bible and he was OSAS and is listed with the free gracers. I guess it's one of those things where what you do with the teaching means more than the precise school of thought.

I think you've got it.

As I understand it, they are "different" in a technical way, if not a practical one:
"Perseverence" essentially reads the warning passages as theoretical possibilities which are counter-factual inasmuch as it could occur if a true believer actually "fell-away". However, they inevitably persevere and do not fall away. Sometimes the answer to why then, the warning passages exist is that they are the tool that God uses to ensure that none of the elect ever fall away. This is at least consistent with Reformed Theology.

OSAS tends to explain away the warning passages as impossibilities. OSAS (which is the non-Calvinist brand) essentially denies that the warning passages are actually about someone "falling-away". And as Charlie put it:

They see this departure as having a flaw in faith from the start and salvation was never actually experienced. This is the common belief in the IFB Church that is primarily non-Calvinist.

Emphasis mine.

Since I take the warning passages at face value, I assume they are more than counter-factual theoretical passages and I embrace neither doctrine personally, and I accept that a genuine believer can "make shipwreck" of their faith and apostacize.

 

[DaveXR650]

Since I take the warning passages at face value, I assume they are more than counter-factual theoretical passages and I embrace neither doctrine personally, and I accept that a genuine believer can "make shipwreck" of their faith and apostacize.

It is surprising to me in that I thought the vast majority of people on here would be OSAS or "perseverance of the saints". I did not realize that many are not in either camp. I would be interested in whether this is due to going to churches that are free will Baptist, or Wesleyan, or Church of Christ or Pentecostal . Or is it more of an influence of internet theology sites, like Provisionism. Just curious. As a side note, I read Puritans for years, benefiting from the serious way they portrayed following Christ and pursuing holy living, all the while not realizing that most of them were strict Calvinists. We probably have all read Pilgrim's Progress, by the Puritan Bunyan. Without prior knowledge of his theology, would you say he was teaching that Christian was guaranteed that he would complete his journey to the Celestial city? It almost appears that there is a practical theology found in what was taught to the congregations by preaching, and the academic theology, which was designed to combat the Roman Catholic scholars and differentiate from other denominations. Just thinking out loud.

 

[Some Rando]

It is surprising to me in that I thought the vast majority of people on here would be OSAS or "perseverance of the saints". I did not realize that many are not in either camp.

I imagine they would have been about 20-30 years ago:
I was raised traditional SBC and I was always taught "OSAS"...Never "Perseverence" though, as we were not Calvinists.

I would be interested in whether this is due to going to churches that are free will Baptist, or Wesleyan, or Church of Christ or Pentecostal . Or is it more of an influence of internet theology sites, like Provisionism.

I think it is something like that:
Not, particular websites per se, but, more a fact of the internet/"information age". I also think the influence of podcasts and Youtube can't be overstated.
The Seminaries and the clergy simply don't have the monopoly on and stranglehold on Theology that they used to.
Individual believers have access to as much info as anybody at their fingertips. Many believers are questioning what they were raised to believe by seminary-trained pastors, and not only on this particular doctrine.
I remember how critically important it was years ago to ask of a ministerial prospect: "what seminary did he go to?" as though it was a guarantee of what he believed. It may have been at one time. I no longer think so.

Just curious. As a side note, I read Puritans for years, benefiting from the serious way they portrayed following Christ and pursuing holy living, all the while not realizing that most of them were strict Calvinists. We probably have all read Pilgrim's Progress, by the Puritan Bunyan. Without prior knowledge of his theology, would you say he was teaching that Christian was guaranteed that he would complete his journey to the Celestial city?

My reading of Bunyan was years ago, but, as I recall, it didn't seem to me that Bunyan assumed "Christian" was guaranteed anything. I read it as though it was a nail-biter each and every time whether he would escape the traps laid for him and continue each time. I don't know for sure what Bunyan himself thought. I would only loosely place him in the "Puritan" camp though, as he was a non-conformist. I assume he was "reformed" in his Theology (Calvinistic, at least for the most part) but he wasn't a formally trained theologian. So, that may have made a difference in the way he portrayed the Christian walk.

It almost appears that there is a practical theology found in what was taught to the congregations by preaching, and the academic theology, which was designed to combat the Roman Catholic scholars and differentiate from other denominations. Just thinking out loud.

I agree.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

I can understand why a Calvinist believes salvation cannot be lost, from the beginning they believe God makes the choice.

What I can't understand is the one who believes in free will to choose to believe the Gospel but yet once they believe they no longer have that free will to depart from the faith, that the Scripture warns us of.

They see this departure as having a flaw in faith from the start and salvation was never actually experienced. This is the common belief in the IFB Church that is primarily non-Calvinist.

So that leaves me stuck in the middle somewhere not agreeing with either side on OSAS. I stand that man can depart from the faith through experiences in life that leaves him bitter toward God, eventually losing the faith that originally saved him.

I believe in free will and God honoring that free will, though it is not His will that man depart from Him, and after correction to bring that person back with no effect, God honors mans free will and allows the falling away. The reason there are so many warning in Scripture.

Interesting to learn what Calvinist believe.