Up front, I confess that I am more Reformation-oriented in my soteriology than Arminian, though I am to a measure a Free Will advocate. That being said I am much more tolerant of free discourse between genuine Christian movements on this issue than many. It is an oddity of history that Predestination was largely viewed as the more orthodox view for many years, and Arminianism viewed with suspicion and at times as even a heresy.
But in places like the US, where Methodism has become prominent, the roles have reversed. Predestination, when coupled with Calvinism, is considered by some Methodists as heresy, while Arminianism is viewed as the prominent orthodox position. That being said, the truth needs to be told.
I'm a member of AoG and currently attend a Methodist church. Since I'm disallowed from discussing this elsewhere on this Forum, and people on the Forum continue to argue on this topic, I will confine my response here. And I will severely cut back my contributions on this Forum, since it is heavily censored on this matter, allowing for only one point of view. However, I've been told I am able to express ideas on this subject here, on the Unorthodox portion of the Forum, free of censorship.
OSAS is the Calvinist position expressed by some in more modern times. But the concept originates with early Predestination beliefs held by Augustine and the Reformers, though not necessarily expressed literally as "Once Saved Always Saved." Calvin went farther than some with his Double Predestination, as it was later called. TULIP came to present the 5 points of Calvinism, which included the Perseverance of the Saints, or one form of "Once Saved Always Saved."
Lutheranism and Calvinism were concerned to avoid the error of Pelagianism, the idea that we have within our nature the ability to independently produce righteousness and obtain Eternal Life. According to the Reformers we are predestined to Election by God, but once so Elected are free to make choices to exercise Faith and to Choose Salvation.
Methodism held to the idea that people have Prevenient Grace and are able to produce Faith by our own works with the caveat that Christ's redemption is essential to the formula. Some explain this as operating together with Christ synergistically.
A lot had to do with understanding the nature of Salvation itself in terms of Justification and Sanctification. Luther felt that a complete Conversion indicating one has true Faith and belongs to the Elect is at the heart of Salvation.
Arminius felt that conversion becomes real with Faith, and tends towards Perseverance, but nevertheless can be lost. Wesley believed the Arminian formula, but presented Instant Sanctification as a step beyond Nominal Christianity to indicate a more authentic Christian Conversion, or Rebirth.
Pentecostals saw Spirit Baptism as an important follow-up to Salvation, though like Methodist Sanctification seemed to confirm a real Conversion beyond Nominal Christianity. In reality, though, Nominal Christianity may represent a false Christianity, existing without a complete or true commitment to Christianity--less than a full Conversion.
So, all of these theological systems called for a step beyond the Nominal Church to provide real evidence of a true Conversion, or Rebirth. They are just called by different names, authenticating true Conversion, whether it is described as the experience of Faith for Election, Instant Sanctification, or Spirit Baptism.
And whether one can lose his Salvation or not may depend on whether the one exercising Christian gifts is representative of a true Christian Conversion or not. Jesus said that men would say, "Lord, Lord," when they are displaying gifts but not fully committed to Christ.
It is debatable, I suppose, whether someone who has the gifts of Christianity is really Christian when he turns away from Christianity permanently? That's the thing with OSAS--it doesn't seem to make much difference either way. If a Christian acts like a Christian and is not, or acts like a Christian and is, and turns completely away, the result is the same--the person who had acted Christian completely turns away. Paul and Peter both called for Christians, with gifts, to prove whether they are the Elect.
The big deal with Reformation Theology and Predestination is whether it is Fatalistic or has Free Will, in some measure? Regardless, all agree that whether Prevenient Grace or Faith by Election, nobody works righteousness acceptable to God for Salvation unless it is done with Christ's Atonement providing for it legally and spiritually. Even Predestinarians who are somewhat Fatalistic do allow for some measure of Free Will--just not Pelagianism.
Maturing in the Christian life has nothing to do with obtaining Salvation, which is what some call "Progressive Sanctification." We are actually Sanctified by the Work of Christ at Salvation, though the process of maturation continues progressively over time.
But in places like the US, where Methodism has become prominent, the roles have reversed. Predestination, when coupled with Calvinism, is considered by some Methodists as heresy, while Arminianism is viewed as the prominent orthodox position. That being said, the truth needs to be told.
I'm a member of AoG and currently attend a Methodist church. Since I'm disallowed from discussing this elsewhere on this Forum, and people on the Forum continue to argue on this topic, I will confine my response here. And I will severely cut back my contributions on this Forum, since it is heavily censored on this matter, allowing for only one point of view. However, I've been told I am able to express ideas on this subject here, on the Unorthodox portion of the Forum, free of censorship.
OSAS is the Calvinist position expressed by some in more modern times. But the concept originates with early Predestination beliefs held by Augustine and the Reformers, though not necessarily expressed literally as "Once Saved Always Saved." Calvin went farther than some with his Double Predestination, as it was later called. TULIP came to present the 5 points of Calvinism, which included the Perseverance of the Saints, or one form of "Once Saved Always Saved."
Lutheranism and Calvinism were concerned to avoid the error of Pelagianism, the idea that we have within our nature the ability to independently produce righteousness and obtain Eternal Life. According to the Reformers we are predestined to Election by God, but once so Elected are free to make choices to exercise Faith and to Choose Salvation.
Methodism held to the idea that people have Prevenient Grace and are able to produce Faith by our own works with the caveat that Christ's redemption is essential to the formula. Some explain this as operating together with Christ synergistically.
A lot had to do with understanding the nature of Salvation itself in terms of Justification and Sanctification. Luther felt that a complete Conversion indicating one has true Faith and belongs to the Elect is at the heart of Salvation.
Arminius felt that conversion becomes real with Faith, and tends towards Perseverance, but nevertheless can be lost. Wesley believed the Arminian formula, but presented Instant Sanctification as a step beyond Nominal Christianity to indicate a more authentic Christian Conversion, or Rebirth.
Pentecostals saw Spirit Baptism as an important follow-up to Salvation, though like Methodist Sanctification seemed to confirm a real Conversion beyond Nominal Christianity. In reality, though, Nominal Christianity may represent a false Christianity, existing without a complete or true commitment to Christianity--less than a full Conversion.
So, all of these theological systems called for a step beyond the Nominal Church to provide real evidence of a true Conversion, or Rebirth. They are just called by different names, authenticating true Conversion, whether it is described as the experience of Faith for Election, Instant Sanctification, or Spirit Baptism.
And whether one can lose his Salvation or not may depend on whether the one exercising Christian gifts is representative of a true Christian Conversion or not. Jesus said that men would say, "Lord, Lord," when they are displaying gifts but not fully committed to Christ.
It is debatable, I suppose, whether someone who has the gifts of Christianity is really Christian when he turns away from Christianity permanently? That's the thing with OSAS--it doesn't seem to make much difference either way. If a Christian acts like a Christian and is not, or acts like a Christian and is, and turns completely away, the result is the same--the person who had acted Christian completely turns away. Paul and Peter both called for Christians, with gifts, to prove whether they are the Elect.
The big deal with Reformation Theology and Predestination is whether it is Fatalistic or has Free Will, in some measure? Regardless, all agree that whether Prevenient Grace or Faith by Election, nobody works righteousness acceptable to God for Salvation unless it is done with Christ's Atonement providing for it legally and spiritually. Even Predestinarians who are somewhat Fatalistic do allow for some measure of Free Will--just not Pelagianism.
Maturing in the Christian life has nothing to do with obtaining Salvation, which is what some call "Progressive Sanctification." We are actually Sanctified by the Work of Christ at Salvation, though the process of maturation continues progressively over time.
