Talk:Perseverance of the saints

New Scriptural Support
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)

On the Catholic view
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)

More on the Roman Catholic view
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)

Supporting the difference from "once saved always saved"
I agree with the difference made in this article, between "perseverance of the saints" and "once saved always saved". The latter doesn't seem to have much to do with the rest of the Calvinist system. Faith, salvation, assurance, and perseverance all seem to be conflated in "eternal security", in a way that they are not in the Calvinst system. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Mark - To the non-Calvinist, "eternal security" or "once saved, always saved" are synonomous with "perseverance of the saints". This article mentions that they are different, because the character of a saved (or elected) person will mainfest godliness...and I get that.  But maybe you (or Flex or Jim) could add some quotes from Calvin or Beza or another prominent Calvinist to support that a bit more, and clarify it.  Thanks...Keith 02:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Jim, I think your most recent edits need some POV work. I favor returning the intro paragraph to more like it was before (the new version sounds more evangelistic than "neutral" explanations and is in Christianese), and words like "perversion", "mentality", and so forth need to be altered for the sake of neutrality. Perhaps we should move the Reformed confession citations to the last paragraph of the "Calvinist doctrine" section, rename the "History" section as "Objections" or "Alternate views" and combine the Arminian, OS/AS, and RC objections in one section (with subsections?). --Flex 15:10, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't stop me now, I'm preachin' Brother!! Jim Ellis 15:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Seriousy, however, I do see your point, Flex. Let me make some edits to the paragraph in question and then we can see about your other ideas.  It's a work in progress.  :-) Thanks, Jim Ellis 15:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the "once saved, always saved" view be explained more thoroughly, and NPOV? It, too, is part of "perseverance of the saints"...maybe not the "classical Calvinist" view, but still a part, and a pretty prominent part at that.  It all looks pretty POV to me, with all due respect.  Keith 16:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And the "objections" section contains quotes & explanations refuting the objections, but really no substantial discussion of the objections themselves (which are many, and real!). Keith 17:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To the extent that the idea of "once saved, always saved" is used as an excuse for continuing sinful behavior in the life of professing Christians, it is a perversion of the Calvinist doctrine. This perversion fits nicely into what has been called the doctrine of "carnal Chrsitianity" (recently popularized by some dispensationalists, Baptists, and Pentecostals) -- which teaches that it is both theoretically possible and experientially common for a person to be a born-again Christian (and eternally secure) and never give any long-term evidence of that fact in one’s life. I don't think such a view is worth explaining or defending. :-) Jim Ellis 17:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I assure you that your description of "carnal Christianity" is what non-Calvinists see as Calvinism. And, doubtless, Charles Stanley et al consider their version of perseverance of the saints as the definitive way of understanding it.  To that end, it needs addressed.  What you are calling the classical Calvinist view needs to be explained, as well as this "newer" definition, with both sides treated fairly and NPOV.
 * Hey, it's all wrong as far as Wesleyans are concerned. But we need to treat all sides in an NPOV fashion.  "Once saved, always saved" - from an NPOV perspective - is as valid as the "classical Calvinist" view (both are unbiblical in my estimation, but I digress...). You may not agree with it and find it theologically problematic, but it's still a prominent perspective that deserves fair mention.
 * "Once saved always saved" is not an "objection" to the doctrine; it's a "rephrasing", so to speak.
 * Maybe we can find a dispensationalist or Charles Stanley-ish Baptist to help. Do you know of any on wikipedia?  Keith 18:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keith, the dispensationalist advocates of the doctrine of perseverance mean to distinguish their view from the Reformed view. They believe that Calvinism is wrong.  They aren't confused.  They are on your side!  Listen to Zane Hodges, in his treatment of 2 Peter 1:5-11:
 * "A careful consideration of the context of these remarks shows that they are not supporting the Reformed Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. Indeed, they actually support the opposite conclusion, that believers in Christ are secure forever, whether they add Christian character qualities to their faith or not. What is at stake, here, as we shall see, is not kingdom entrance, but abundant kingdom entrance." (Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Spring 1998 &mdash; Volume 11:20)
 * The doctrine of eternal security, and once saved always saved, are not the same as the Calvinist doctrine. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * But some folks (Charles Stanley, for example) claim to be Calvinist, yet embrace "OS/AS". This is true of many people.  Also, the image of Calvinism is that "OS/AS" is part of it.  right or wrong, for good or ill.  So that needs addressed, I think.  Keith 19:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Once saved, always saved" is not a rephrasing, but indicative of a perversion. The fact that the doctrine of eternal security, when combined with decisional regeneration, easy believism and the dispensational doctrine of the Carnal Christian results in modern day antinomianism with a "once saved, always saved" response to criticism is tragic in my POV.  But it's not the subject of this article.  I say we only need to identify it enough to distance Calvinism's Perseverance doctrine from it, which we have done.  I'm not surprised that Wesleyans get confused over these distinctions, but they are usually in a state of confusion anyway.  Wesleyans apparently think it is a logical extension of the Calvinist doctrine, but Calvinists say it is an illogical extension combined with other errors -- something Paul's teaching on grace often encountered, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means!" Feel free to start a new article on Carnal Christianity.  Jim Ellis 19:30, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I do think it is a logical outcome of Calvinism...though I don't think Calvin wanted to see that happen. But, it's a flawed, human system (like Wesleyanism, et al, granted), and is imperfect (but, hopefully, going "on to perfection!").
 * But the point isn't what I think. The point is that there are folks who consider "OS/AS" or "eternal security" to be part of Calvinism.  My guess is that most Southern Baptists in the US think this...pretty big group.  Charles Stanley, for one, has written about it.
 * Whether or not "OS/AS" is faithful to classical Calvinism isn't the point. In an NPOV encyclopedia, the "OS/AS" definition of "perseverance of the saints" ought to be addressed fairly, not as an aberration or an objection (which it isn't), but as another way of defining the doctrine, which many (probably not all) OS/AS people feel that it is.
 * We don't have to agree with OS/AS (I certainly do not), but we ought to be NPOV about it, don't you think? Keith 19:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no support or explanation given for "once saved always saved" being any different than "perseverance of the saints" or "eternal security". Seems like exactly the same thing to me. Suggest the distinction be explained (with support) or removed. Whatintheworld2 (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This section is for a discussion of 12 years ago. I propose you just start a new section for this at the very bottom of this page if you want others to notice your request. tahc chat 03:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Eternal security
Correct me if I'm wrong, gentlemen, but I see the term "eternal security" viewed by many as a synonym for "perseverance of the saints". It is in common usage and so I have tentatively added it in the introductory section. However, if in your view this terminology implies the first step away from the true Calvinist position, and is rather a proper synonym for OS/AS, we can delete it. Hmmmm. I'm having second thoughts about using it even as I write this.Jim Ellis 12:29, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Eternal security does redirect to this article. Granted, I created the eternal security page...but that was in early July.  I assumed (as most non-Calvinists do, I think) that they are synonomous.  Keith 12:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Once saved, always saved also redirects here. Now, I just did that, but I think that the "OS/AS" discussion is best held in the light of the full understanding of this Calvinist doctrine.  Keith 12:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I have boldly charged ahead and added a section to hopefully address Keith's concern. Keith, Mark, and Flex, please jump in and correct or edit as you see fit. I think the four of us are the only ones with an active interest in the details of the article. Regards, Jim Ellis 14:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem with calling Stanley a "Calvinist", as you might expect, Keith, is that just as people who believe various things call their beliefs "Christian", there are also people who believe various things, who call what they believe "Calvinism". When Charles Stanley says that assurance belongs to every person who has once professed belief, even if for all practical purposes they later become an unbeliever, that is not Calvinism.  His views on this subject belong to the antinomian camp of people like Zane Hodges.  At least Hodges acknowledges that what he is promoting is opposed to the Reformed doctrine.  Similarly, the same problem exists when you foster the common perception that "eternal security" (as the term is commonly used) is equivalent to "perseverance of the saints".  As Hodges uses the terms, they are not compatible.


 * Because these obnoxious catch-phrases are commonly used as you say, it's fine with me to re-direct to this article. But, this article will not be accurate unless a very sharp distinction is made between OS/AS, eternal security, once-for-all-believism (or whatever it will be called), and "perseverance of the saints".  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with outlining the differences (concerning which, I gotta tell ya, I'm not convinced) between the classical understanding of perseverance of the saints and OS/AS. That would be a good thing.
 * But, Stanley et al still consider themselves Calvinist, and in an NPOV encyclopedia, that inclusion is fair. Their definition of PotS (bad abbreviation!) is also fair, even if we don't agree with it (I sure don't).
 * John B. Cobb considers himself a Wesleyan, but I don't. BUT, in an NPOV encyclopedia, I have to accept that.  And Stanley is a lot closer to being a faithful Calvinist than Cobb is to being a faithful Wesleyan in my opinion!  Keith 17:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To be fair, not all Reformed are convinced of the difference either - and there are controversies that flare up, here and there, between "antinomians" and "legalists" (as they might call one another). However, the legalists can easily refer to their tradition and their confessional documents to show that they are defending the traditional view; but the antinomians claim to be more pure and consistent (which is what all aberrant calvinists say, if you hadn't noticed).  I think that it should be workable to make a distinction between the doctrine of the Reformed churches (which speaks of persevering in faith and sanctification to the end) and other kinds of (self-described) Calvinism.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

How's it looking now, as far as the distinctions are concerned? (I might not be around to read your reply, for a few days). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to read the whole thing now, but I like the distinction Mark makes above: Calvinism teaches that the saints persevere in justification and sanctification unto glorification; OS/AS teaches that the saints (so to speak) persevere only in justification unto glorification. The tradtional definition of salvation (the ordo salutis) in Reformed theology proceeds from justification through sanctification unto glorification. OS/AS makes sanctification optional. --Flex 19:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Another thought: Maybe we should make a sort of disambiguation page called "Eternal security" which as a summary of and links to the two variations. To Keith's point: We do both believe in eternal security and OS/AS; we just mean different things by "saved." However, I think the title of this page should remain perseverance of the saints because of TULIP. (Do Charles Stanley et al. use the term PotS?) --Flex 21:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the intro. What do you think? (The rest of the article needs to be updated to match the terminology I used, but I thought I'd give you a chance for comment, correction, and criticism first.) --Flex 15:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree in principle with your recent edits, Flex. However, I have some thoughts which would lead me to some more adjustments.  Rather than explain ahead, permit me to make a few edits and see if it meets your approval.  I also assume Mark and Keith will jump in if they disagree.  Jim Ellis 17:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Jim. It looks like we were editing at the same time, and I stomped on your edits. Sorry! Since I changed the text, however, I'm not sure which ones you would reapply. Please don't take my overwrite as disapproval, and feel free to make any changes you see fit. BTW, the review by Seth Aaron Lowry under this book gives a good summary of the different views from the content of the book. --Flex 18:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Flex, I recovered that which I deemed still pertinent. I also deleted the "Calminian" comment.  I don't think the "carnal Christianity" school (ala Zane Hodges) is mediating btw Calvinism and Arminianism.  Rather, it seems to be accommodating easy believism and decisional regeneration.  It is tied to a particular understanding of "assurance", and it reduces faith to bare intellectual assent, i.e. essentially viewing faith as purely "volitional" rather then "feduciary".  Jim Ellis 18:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok. Calminian was more in reference to Geisler. I did some reorg. The intro was too long to be an intro (at least compared to the length of the article). I tried to replace "Christianese" with concepts discussed in other Wikipedia articles. It still needs to be systematically cleaned up, but that's a start. --Flex 19:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Monergism
The word "monergism" has become very popular, lately - to such an extent that I perceive it has attained almost the status of official endorsement by the Calvinist world. But I don't like it. It really goes too far to say that only God works - and that is what the word "monergism" means. The Calvinist doctrine is that those who are elect are passive in election. It says that God is the one who has made us what we are, and not we, ourselves. He is the savior, and he has saved apart from any of our deserving salvation. Our working is God at work in us. But, the Calvinist doctrine does not say that only God works: and, that is what the word, monergism, literally means. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. --Flex 20:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with the point you are making, Mark. Monergism is appropriate only so far as God's unilateral regeneration, bringing us to faith and joining us to Christ. But it is our faith, God does not believe for us. To say that "salvation" is monergistic is OK to a point, but it neglects the fact that historically, "salvation" has often been a term referring to the whole process unto glorification. Regards, Jim Ellis 22:10, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Very Wesleyan-sounding, gentlemen. Well done.  "...we're all Wesleyans now..."  Keith 01:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * We may all be Wesleyans now, but we'll all be Calvinists in Glory. ;-) --Flex 19:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Traditional Calvinist criticism of the non-traditional doctrine
Can the last paragraph (or 2) of this section be integrated into the "Traditional view" section? It always bothers me and gets up my "possible NPOV red flag" when a "criticisms" section is lengthier than the "base" section. Just a thought. Keith 17:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I moved the last paragraph to the non-traditional section and rephrased it slightly so that it's more of a comparison and less of a critique. Now the criticisms are shorter, but note that the argument is entirely historical (the theological one is at Lordship salvation) and primarily about naming conventions. --Flex 12:18, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Baptists
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)


 * 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)

Added links
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)

Trent Citation
I have specified the source of the 22nd Canon of Trent. By the way, this is a very informative, well-written article, and so charitably free of religious hatred! Sid Cundiff A.D. 2006 August 6 Transfiguation 19.21hrs EDT

Difficult Passages
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)

List of denominations that believe this?
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)


 * 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. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 12:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Classical Arminian View?
Oh, my, as a reader of quite a few works on theology, including several on Arminianism and Calvinism, I was dismayed to see the following (ridiculously) inaccurate statements in this article.

"the classical Arminian doctrine that true Christians can lose their salvation by denouncing their faith"

"The central tenet of the Arminian view is that believers are preserved from all external forces that might attempt to separate them from God, and further that God will not change His mind about their salvation, but that these same believers can themselves willingly repudiate their faith (either by a statement to that effect, or by continued sinful activity combined with an unwillingness to repent)."

Has the author/s actually read any Arminian theological writings? Did you know that Arminius himself (yes, the one for whom Arminianism is named) did not reject the doctrine of perseverance? He admitted to having questions about it, but did not reject it. (The passage of his writing were he explicitly states this is included in a book by Robert Picirilli which I own -- it is loaned out currently or I would type in the quote.)

Without a doubt there are many Arminians who don't believe in the perseverance doctrine, most notably among Methodists, and Methodist-related denominations such as the Nazarenes (you can check out just about any major denomination's webpage to find their official stance on this issue). However, I would guess that the majority of Arminians do (like Arminius, for Pete's sake) believe in it; just consider the Southern Baptist Convention, where the vast majority of the churches are Arminian, but essentially everyone believes in perseverance. (But that would of course be OR, I'm not sure I could cite anything.)

As for the second statement, I'm confident that even those Arminians who do not believe in perseverance would thoroughly reject calling this the "central tenet" of their views. Substitute "Methodism" and say "the central tenet of Methodism" and you still have a laughably innacurate statement.(Frankly I imagine this represents the POV of someone who both (1) misunderstands Arminianism and (2) dislikes his/her erroneous understanding of Arminianism.) Based on my studies I believe non-perseverance Arminians would cite either "free will" or "God's love" as the "central tenet" of Arminianism, with laypersons opting for "free will" and scholars/theologians opting for "God's love." General Arminian theological works spend great time on these concepts as well as grace and faith...but not much on perseverance.

Thus, it wouldn't be inaccurate to say "the doctrine held by many Arminians..." but you certainly cannot refer to this as "the classical Arminian doctrine," since Arminius is about as "classical Arminian" as you can get.

Actually it seems to me that what is called "Free Grace" here is in fact classical Arminian doctrine, and what is called "Arminian" here doesn't exist anywhere. With some changes in wording you might be able to call it "Methodist" or "Holiness Movement" -- you'd have to research a lot more denominations to be certain you could accurately label it (many Restoration Movement [Arminian] congregations, for example, are quite split on the issue -- funny how for the "central tenet" of their views this doesn't cause even the slightest problem). Or, you could call it "one important/major stream of thought within Arminianism."

Aren't there supposed to references here?

(Sorry, I do have a Wikipedia account but can't for the life of me remember the login and password...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.142.196 (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what Classical Arminian authors this anonymous contributor is reading to come up with his conclusions. I have read from the following prominent Classical Arminian writers: Jacob Arminius (1559-1609); John Wesley (1703-1791); Joseph Fletcher (1729-1782); Thomas Coke (1747-1814); Joseph Benson (1748-1821); Adam Clarke (1762-1832); Joseph Sutcliffe (1762-1856); Richard Watson (1781-1833); Samuel Wakefied (1799-1895); Amos Binney (1802-1878); Daniel Whedon (1808-1885); Miner Raymond (1811-1897); Thomas O. Summers (1812-1882); Albert Nash (1812-1900); John Miley (1813-1895); Randolph S. Foster (1820-1903); William Burt Pope (1822-1903); Daniel Steele (1824-1914); Benjamin Field (1827-1869); Joseph Beet (1840-1924); Aaron M. Hills (1848-1935); H. Orton Wiley (1877-1961).


 * All of these men believed in conditional security (Arminius included). All of them, except for Arminius, believed that it was possible for true Christians to sever their saving relationship with Christ through persistent unbelief characterized by sin and disobedience (i.e., apostasy). None of these men believed in unconditional eternal security. Arminius was the only one who was undecided on whether a Christian could actually commit apostasy. He remained undecided two months prior to his death. To say that Arminius believed in eternal security is a statement that cannot be supported from the writings of Arminius himself. I found it interesting that when I read Arminius’ interaction with Calvinist William Perkins on this topic, Arminius was unpersuaded by Perkin’s reasons for believing in eternal security. This would have been a perfect time for Arminius to come out and declare his belief in eternal security, but he never does. The Remonstrants (Arminian party) were initially undecided on this issue as well, but later became fully persuaded that the Scriptures taught that apostasy can and does occur. For documentation concerning these comments please see the External Link articles in Conditional Preservation of the Saints called, “James Arminius: The Security of the Believer,” and “The Opinions of the Remonstrants 1618.”


 * This anonymous respondent has the burden of proof to produce statements from these Classical Arminian writers to demonstrate that they held to unconditional eternal security. I know of no Classical Arminian from this list who ever did. Conditional security and the possibility of apostasy has always been a central tenet of Classical Arminianism.


 * If one has read the writings of Free Grace (or Moderate Calvinist) authors and Classical Arminians and compared them, there is no way one would arrive at the conclusion that the Free Grace view “is in fact classical Arminian doctrine.” Again, the burden of proof is on this anonymous respondent to back up such a claim. For the stark difference between these positions as it concerns saving faith please see External Link, “Saving Faith: Is it Simply the Act of a Moment or the Attitude of a Life?” Blessings,SWitzki (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Difficult passages
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)

Reason for removal of self-published book in arminian list
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 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links 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)

There are two forms of eternal security/once saved always saved.
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)

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


 * Oppose. I think Eternal security works well as the general article on the subject, of which Perseverance of the saints is one version (and Conditional preservation of the saints is another). StAnselm (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral on merge, but Eternal security has no references and so looks a LOT like original researchUnitedStatesian (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. @TheDragonFire and @Phil Bridger, Perseverance of the saints is a calvinist doctrine that describes how (true) Christians act on earth: they continue in faith and good works. Eternal security asks the question "what must a Christian do to be secure in salvation from hell?" So they are different topics. But calvinist is very popular and, for calvinists, eternal security is as simple as saying "God preserves the saints". But other groups have different beliefs. So @StAnselm is right that Eternal security is more the general topic while Perseverance of the saints is the calvinist view and conditional preservation of the saints is another view. @UnitedStatesian, it isn't original research because it is indeed attributable. However, I agree it would be good to have references and I did make a mistake on the catholic view that I will update shortly with a reference. Readingwords (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I have no issue with a split if that's what's needed. TheDragonFire (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that the necessary work is being done on Eternal security to implement the consensus here, but Perseverance of the saints is still presented as a synonym of that topic. I am way outside my comfort zone here, but I hope that those who know more about this topic than I do will edit this article to distinguish it from "Eternal security". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)