Talk:Eternal security

Augustine and eternal security
I think that the Augustine topic that you just added to this page deals only with perseverance of the saints not security itself. However Augustine was a very important link for the further propagation of the doctrine of Eternal Security. In order to have a rough idea of this history, you can read this short article:



At the end of the article you will find a bibliography, where you will find some books that are online, especially this one, for further details:



For recent history of this doctrine you can see also :



So I think that what you added belongs more to a "History of the doctrine" chapter. ---Telikalive (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * While what Augustine held is similar to Perseverance, its not the same, Augustine believed only **SOME** Baptized believers held eternal security, thus I believe for it to deserve its own place in the article, as it still differs from the Calvinist view of perseverance. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Augustine's perseverance is the idea that the elect are going to be eventually saved. Calvin and Luther slightly modified it. But in Augustine latter view, Luther early view, and Calvinism "official" view (Calvin himself only mentioned the idea of eternal security beside the Calvinism "official" view), none of the elect know that they are actually elect. The concept of eternal security is that now, you know that you will be saved, (related or not to a concept of election. It can be another explanatory concept). But in the Augustinian view you can't reach the knowledge that you are an elect, and then that you are eternally secure... Thus, Augustine perseverance is a part of the history of eternal security, as well as Calvinist Perseverance of the Saints, but they aren't eternal security from the believer perspective. ---Telikalive (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, on the possibility of Apostasy
Hello, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch taught the possibility of apostasy for true (regenerated) Christians. This teaching opposes any post-regeneration determinism (included in eternal security). See quotations of "Ignatus" and "Clement" here :

Example : "Take heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all." (1 Clement 21)

Sorry : I was totally unclear in my modification comment. I hope I'm clearer now. Bye ---Telikalive (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Telikalive I want to answer shortly, and I disagree with your statement, firstly Reformed do teach the possibility of apostasy, not for true believers but that those in the covenant without being truly saved (External vs Substantial membership in the CoG), the Reformed have interpreted the quotes send to fit their theology. Additionally, Lutherans teach predestination without eternal security, so predestination is not incompatible with the possibility of total apostasy. Also the comment that predestination is Gnostic is debated, as in not every scholar agrees with Ken that Augustine got his views from the Manichees. A more neutral manner would perhaps to express both views, the view of John Gill and the views of Arminians. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Gnostic" or "stoic" were just examples to illustrate what I meant by "theological determinism" (in the early Christianity). But I don't use those terms in my rationale. I detail more my rationale here, using the case of Clement of Rome for instance :
 * 1. Clement believes he is justified : “And we, too, [...] are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men.” (1 Clement 32) (And Clement had faith of course...)
 * 2. Clement believes he can commit apostasy : "Take heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all." (1 Clement 21) (the same idea appears in other writings mentioned above)
 * 3. This opposes the theological deterministic idea that someone who is justified can't commit apostasy.
 * John Gill quotations of early church fathers are taken obviously out of context, and are not worth citing in any Wikipedia article for this reason. Moreover his intend is to defend Calvinistic "Perseverance of the saints", not "eternal security" that is the topic of the present article. ---Telikalive (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The article discusses all kinds of forms of the believer not being able to lose their salvation. ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think so : We need to comply with WP:PLA related to expression "Eternal Security" which has a very specific meaning, as I already mentioned in first point of this talk page. I will try to add some material about as soon as I can find some time. Regards---Telikalive (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Eternal security is not a synonym for the Free Grace teaching, the article says: "we will begin with a basic definition of what is meant by eternal security or perseverance of the saints in two primary groups, Calvinism and Moderate Calvinism". Eternal security is an umbrella term that includes both teachings. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Another source that calls the Reformed view "Eternal security": "The vast majority of Christians recognize the possibility of losing one’s salvation. This is clearly taught in multiple Bible passages. However, in the 1500s, John Calvin proposed a teaching now known as eternal security. Today this teaching takes two forms."--ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Major Reformed ministries also called Calvin's teaching "eternal security", along with other Reformed sites. I think I have given enough sources for my claim that Perseverance of the Saints is eternal security. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It's clear also to me that the "free grace" form of eternal security is not the main one nowadays. In my first post, I gave you input showing that the main form appeared around 1900, in the non-Calvinist circles (Darbyist circles Southern Baptists circles and others evangelicals.) My point is that this form of "eternal security" is the most prominent form in Protestantism, "'In the majority of cases, however, the doctrine of eternal security is not grounded on the Calvinistic dogma of unconditional predestination. While all who teach eternal security are frequently called 'Calvinists,' actually the greater portion of them are no more than 20 percent Calvinistic.'" Thus, nowadays there are 3 form of "eternal security" : The second view of "eternal security" is now so prominent, that even some Calvinists insist to differentiate "perseverance of the saints" from the common usage of "eternal security" : "'It is common to hear the term “eternal security” used basically as a synonym for “the perseverance of the saints”. [...] However, the term “eternal security” is often used in a very different and unbiblical way [...] Hence, in common usage, the term “eternal security” can sometimes refer to a doctrine diametrically opposed to the Reformed doctrine of perseverance.'" If we want to lead the reader to the nowadays "common usage" of "eternal security", in order to comply with WP:PLA I think we need to distinguish "perseverance of the saints" from "eternal security" and consider only the views 1, 2, 3 above mentioned as "eternal security". This approach is also legitimized by the first historical occurrence of the terms "security of the believers" (1841) and "eternal security" (1913) which was in relation with the common view. ---Telikalive (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1 the eternal security based on the faith that the believer is an elect (Calvinist circles, minority view)
 * 2 the eternal security based on the faith that regeneration leads to unconditional perseverance and then salvation. (non-Calvinist circles, majority view)
 * 3 the eternal security based on the faith that regeneration leads to salvation independently of perseverance (free grace, minority view)

"Preservation of the saints" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Preservation_of_the_saints&redirect=no Preservation of the saints] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Telikalive (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources on the claims of Ken Wilson
Ken Wilson was likely referring to Augustine's "City of God", which reads thus: But, say they, the Catholic Christians have Christ for a foundation, and they have not fallen away from union with Him, no matter how depraved a life they have built on this foundation, as wood, hay, stubble; and accordingly the well-directed faith by which Christ is their foundation will suffice to deliver them some time from the continuance of that fire, though it be with loss, since those things they have built on it shall be burned.

I don't think there is sufficient reason to delete this from the article. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I added information on these individuals from multiple scholars such as J.N.D Kelly and Gregory Lombard (A Catholic scholar) alongside the Wilson reference. I think this should suffice. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @ValtteriLahti12 Wilson quote, "likely" referring to the City of God, was not enough, but Kelly and Lombard sources are OK. However, I question the mention of Ambrose, whose position is debated (see Ambrose). He seems to hold to Christian Universalism which is not the same thing as eternal security, because eternal security states that those who are not aware about the Gospel will not be saved. Telikalive (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Lombard seems to state that Ambrose would have belonged in the same category as those whom Augustine criticized. However, it should probably be somehow added that his soteriology is debatable. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"Generally" non-Calvinist free grace ?
@ValtteriLahti12 Hello. What do you mean by "generally" ? Do you have some source ? Telikalive (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Some Free Grace authors such as Charles Ryrie (here) affirmed moderate Calvinism. There are others to name, but I don't have the time to go through all of the sources again right now. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like the link didn't work on Wikipedia (atleast not for me), but I can access it through typing "Charles Ryrie Calvinism" to google, however, he affirmed moderate Calvinism also in his systematic theology.--ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Charlie Bing also in his discussion of election and Free Grace, mentions moderate Calvinism as being held by some Free Grace advocates: "Some who call themselves moderate Calvinists recognize God's election in eternity past or before one believes, but also recognize the necessity of man's faith to actualize that salvation. God's will and man's response are working together, compatible, or synergistic. Since the Bible affirms both God's will and man's agency in salvation, they are congruent, or work in harmony. Some who believe this prefer to view man's will working within God's greater sovereign will. How God's will and man's will work together cannot easily be understood or explained. TULIP Calvinists object that man has no freedom to respond to the gospel and consider such a view of faith as a human work. This moderate Calvinism is held by some Free Grace followers." This is the view defended by Norman Geisler in his book "Chosen But Free", and he is also associated with the more moderate wing of Free Grace theology. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @ValtteriLahti12 Thank you. Charles Caldwell Ryrie is two points Calvinist, which is not Calvinism. The acceptable variants of Calvinism are here: Reformed_Christianity, all those variants contradict the tenets of free grace theology. Moderate Calvinism claimed by Geisler doesn't correspond to the consensus about what can legitimately called "Moderate calvinism". I switch back to "non Calvinist" for the moment. Telikalive (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Charles Ryrie in his writings claimed to believe in Amyraldianism, with perseverance of the saints substituted for eternal security. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @ValtteriLahti12 Yes, and the second aspect distances his belief from a variant of Calvinism (according to the current consensus). Said differently, no current Orthodox Calvinist theologian will accept to call someone who reject the necessity of perseverance a "Calvinist". Telikalive (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, just writing "non-Calvinist" would give the impression to most readers that they held to no kind of unconditional election. Maybe the article could write it as non-Calvinistic, but also give a reference to the fact that some still proposed a form of unconditional election. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @ValtteriLahti12 As it is a minority view among free grace theologians, and as it is already stated in the dedicated article: Free_grace_theology, I don't see so much the interest to mention it in the article "eternal security". Telikalive (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a minority in the modern Free Grace movement, but it was far more prevailent in the past, such as in the teachings of Walvoord, Lewis Sperry Chafer and RT.Kendall, who were major voices (alongside Ryrie). --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @ValtteriLahti12 Ok, this point can be added to the free grace article if relevant for the reader. Telikalive (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)