Talk:Perseverance of the saints

message: I completely changed the Scriptural support for the doctrine. I included more Scripture, which gives an even clearer idea why Calvinists find the doctrine Biblical. If anyone thinks the old list was better, or the new list is too long, just change it back. --116Calvinist (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New Scriptural Support

message: I think the following is misleading, but I don't want to change it without flagging it up here:
:The twenty-second Canon of the Council of Trent supports a doctrine of perseverance: "If anyone says that the one justified either can without the special help of God persevere in the justice received, or that with that help he cannot, let him be anathema."
I do think that the two can be harmonized, but I don't think that it affirms that perseverance is a neccessary consequence of justification. Also, it implies that Catholicism as a whole can get along with the idea, though the article, rightly I think, explicitly calls it a point of doctrinal division. -- Tsoapm
:That sentence says they support a doctrine, which is not necessarily the same as the Calvinist doctrine. In fact, the article also tries to indicate where the Calvinist and Catholic doctrines differ: 
::The point of distinction is in whether God permits men to "fall away." Roman Catholics affirm that they can, and Calvinists, as described above, deny that they can if they are truly regenerate because, it is claimed, God keeps them from it.
:Feel free to make it clearer if you still think it is unclear. --Flex July 1, 2005 17:36 (UTC)
Don't Catholics believe that you can lose your salvation if you miss a confession?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: On the Catholic view

message: The last paragraph of the section on the Catholic view seems mostly irrelevant here and should probably be condensed and incorporated into the previous paragraphs with something like... "The Catholic view, resting on the teaching of the Magisterium, differs from that of the Calvinists, who like most Protestants rely on sola scriptura,...."  The last sentence that I deleted read: 
:Irenaeus is notable for being one of the first Christians to make use of it in his answer to the Gnostics, Adversus Haereses.
What does "it" refer to -- the method of arguing from tradition, sola scriptura, the doctrine of perseverance? --Flex 19:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
::No, that's a good call on your part.  I'm all for demonstrating the inconsistencies of Calvinism, but I'm not sure the Irenaeus reference did much for the article.  Good catch.  KHM03 19:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More on the Roman Catholic view

message: Flex -- I didn't make the Baptist edit, but are all Baptists evangelical?  Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "...Baptists and other predominantly evangelical denominations..." or something to that effect?  I'm not a Baptist, so I'll defer; just food for thought.  KHM03 15:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. You're probably right. At the mo., the text in question reads "some Baptist and other evangelical churches", which probably already satisfies your correction if we prefer the term "churches" to "denominations" in order to include "non-denominational" churches. --Flex 18:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baptists 

message: There's finally a page with the opposing Arminian view - Conditional Preservation of the Saints. I added to references to that but did not change any content. I feel this is a very well-done page. David Schroder 18:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added links 

message: I am surprised to see that Romans 11:22 is not mentioned. It is explicit that who Paul was writing to - the Christians in Rome -could be "cut off". Jarom22 (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficult Passages 

message: This page is not very welcoming for people who don't know the topic - like me. One thing that would help would be a list of denominations that believe in this doctrine. 
Also, inline citations are needed:) Malick78 (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed about the inline citations. As for the list of denominations, the intro refers to Calvinism, the Reformed confessions of faith and the Reformed churches as in general holding to the "traditional" doctrine and Baptists and other evangelicals holding to the "non-traditional" version. The body of the article gives more information about those who oppose it. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of denominations that believe this?

message: Shouldn't there be some citations for the various explanations of the difficult passages. Who said that the passages refer to eternal rewards or that they are meant to be hyperbolic in nature? Darkhorse686 (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Difficult passages

message: Due to the increasing interest of those with self-published books to place their book in the "further reading" section, it seems wise to exclude them on Wikipedia standards. 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 self-published book from the Arminian section here.ClassArm (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for removal of self-published book in arminian list 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Perseverance of the saints. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060401044507/http://ccel.org:80/ccel/calvin/institutes.iv.iii.vii.html to http://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iv.iii.vii.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130051817/http://modernmarch.com:80/2009/08/06/can-you-lose-your-salvation/ to http://modernmarch.com/2009/08/06/can-you-lose-your-salvation/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727221434/http://www.rochesterbible.org/how_to_go_to_heaven.html to http://www.rochesterbible.org/how_to_go_to_heaven.html#eternal_security
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first one is the one I believe in and seems biblical: that we get perservered by God, and the other one is the Calvinist one that we perservere ourselves. To me the Calvinist one, that Paul Washer, John MacArthur, Ray Comfort and John Piper teach, is rather not "eternal security", because it says if we don't do enough good works we may not be saved. I honestly cannot agree with this, I believe what John 10:27-29 says, that Jesus keeps us save. MrLW97 (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are two forms of eternal security/once saved always saved. 

message: Perhaps someone could clarify, but I'm not seeing the difference between these two articles. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no expert in theology, but you seem to be right. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Please don't take my opinion above as supporting either merging or not merging. It is obvious that we should cover both topics, with there being some books with the exact title "Eternal security" and others whose titles make it clear that they have it as their main subject, so this is about as far from original research as we can get. This is one of those cases where subject-matter experts should be taking the decision. Maybe this discussion should be advertised at the Christianity Wikiproject? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

text: It looks to me (still with the proviso that I'm not an expert in theology) as if some of the content in Perseverance of the saints is more general non-Calvinist stuff that belongs better in Eternal security, if separate articles are to exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no issue with a split if that's what's needed. TheDragonFire (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Long time coming, but I've moved the parts about eternal security to the eternal security page and added some clarification at the end of the summary of the perseverance page. Readingwords (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

text: I've removed split and merge notices on Eternal security and Perseverance of the saints since I believe this is resolved. Readingwords (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Eternal security]]