I'm not sure if my beliefs actually qualify me as a Methodist or not.

[Krillin]

I don't want to start a debate. I just want to lay out what I believe.

Personally I do not believe a person can "lose" their salvation...ever. If they have it, they will always have it. If they currently don't have it, they never did. That said, I still believe in free will. I do believe that God chooses those who he saw would choose him.

I hope this prevents confusion, but let me explain:

I once was waiting outside my church. Across the street, I saw a mother and (who I assumed to be) her child playing in their yard. On a few occasions the child would make his way to the street when the mother would quickly try to direct him away from it. I suppose the mother got a bit worried about it and thought to just go ahead and take the child inside. I didn't understand the situation, but what I've described is nevertheless a real world scenario. This is kind of how I see our relationship with God in terms of our freedom. I believe that, for the truly saved, we belong to God. See, the child expressed his "freewill" in trying to go out in to the street, and the mother expressed her "sovereignty" by keeping him in safety. God is a perfect father and it would not be loving (just according to what I believe) for a parent to allow their child to run in to danger like that without stopping them. Oh sure, God let's his people backslide. But this doesn't meant they aren't saved, and if they belong to God then he will surely restore them.

I like the Methodist Church, and have attended one my entire life. Is this too big of a deviation for one to not technically be considered Wesleyan or Methodist?

 

[GraceSeeker]

Personally I do not believe a person can "lose" their salvation...ever. If they have it, they will always have it. If they currently don't have it, they never did. That said, I still believe in free will. I do believe that God chooses those who he saw would choose him.


Oh sure, God let's his people backslide. But this doesn't meant they aren't saved, and if they belong to God then he will surely restore them.

You sound more like a freewill Baptist than any form of Wesleyan to me.

I like the Methodist Church, and have attended one my entire life. Is this too big of a deviation for one to not technically be considered Wesleyan or Methodist?

We are just as happy to welcome freewill Baptists as Wesleyans into the life of our faith community. Just hope you understand that there are going to be some differences. As long as they aren't significant to you, we can live with it too.

 

[Dave-W]

In most Wesleyan-based denominations like Nazarene, Wesleyan, Free Methodist (and even Assy of God) a pastor can lose his credentials for even SUGGESTING that a person cannot lose salvation.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

You're certainly welcome here!

The easiest way I can describe our theology of salvation is simply to understand how we view free will. Simply put; certainly, God is yearning. God is always and infinitely calling us. But we DO have the free will, to choose to reject our salvation. We don't lose it like a person might lose their keys. We reject it, like a person might divorce a spouse or distance themselves from a friend. We make a conscious decision to reject God; and God honors our free will in that decision. He doesn't chain us to the table and say "Too bad, I've got you know".

And, I know the common response was "Then they weren't saved in the first place", and my only response to that is that, simply, I don't believe that. I believe they were, and I believe they aren't now. (Well, sort of. I don't believe I get to know who is saved and who isn't, either.)

 

[RomansFiveEight]

In most Wesleyan-based denominations like Nazarene, Wesleyan, Free Methodist (and even Assy of God) a pastor can lose his credentials for even SUGGESTING that a person cannot lose salvation.

I guess I can't attest to those denominations. But in the UMC I don't think that's true at all. In fact, I've never even heard of it happening. Now, if that theology exists alongside some of the things that often coincide with that theologically, then they'd probably never BECOME a UM Pastor; they'd never get through the required processes. But I've never heard of a UM Pastor getting defrocked for suggesting OSAS might be true. Although, I don't think I know of a UM Pastor who espouses that.

 

[Dave-W]

Like any doctrine - "salvation security" can be taken to extremes on either side. One church I attended in high school (kind of uber-Arminianist) said you could be "saved" for only a few seconds at a time. As soon as you committed any sin whatsoever (and everyone commited hundreds every day they were not aware of) you lost salvation.

One of that pastor's most ridden hobby horses was the sin of alcohol. Even accidently smelling it he equated with the sin of drunkenness, so there were countless sermons on the evils of having Scope or Listerene or even Vanilla extract in the house because to smell or tase any of those alcohol laden products lost you your salvation. (at least that was what he believed and taught)

 

[circuitrider]

Like any doctrine - "salvation security" can be taken to extremes on either side. One church I attended in high school (kind of uber-Arminianist) said you could be "saved" for only a few seconds at a time. As soon as you committed any sin whatsoever (and everyone commited hundreds every day they were not aware of) you lost salvation.

One of that pastor's most ridden hobby horses was the sin of alcohol. Even accidently smelling it he equated with the sin of drunkenness, so there were countless sermons on the evils of having Scope or Listerene or even Vanilla extract in the house because to smell or tase any of those alcohol laden products lost you your salvation. (at least that was what he believed and taught)

One of the places where the misunderstanding comes from is the idea that you can lose your salvation like you can lose a quarter out of your pocket. It makes salvation into a thing or a possession that can be lost or misplaced by a single action.

But salvation is actually an ongoing relationship with God. IMHO the only way you forfeit your salvation is by purposefully turning your back on God and determining never to come back. Such breaks the relationship and ends the journey of being a disciple.

What most disturbs me about extremes in Calvinism and extremes in some Arminianism is the idea that salvation is an event a possession rather than a journey.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

One of the places where the misunderstanding comes from is the idea that you can lose your salvation like you can lose a quarter out of your pocket. It makes salvation into a thing or a possession that can be lost or misplaced by a single action.

But salvation is actually an ongoing relationship with God. IMHO the only way you forfeit your salvation is by purposefully turning your back on God and determining never to come back. Such breaks the relationship and ends the journey of being a disciple.

What most disturbs me about extremes in Calvinism and extremes in some Arminianism is the idea that salvation is an event a possession rather than a journey.

Yup, absolutely. Losing salvation is an intentional, conscious choice. It's rejecting God on purpose; not losing God on accident. But, to say OSAS is to say God won't let you go; thus it eradicates free will. The straw man argument that replaces it is "But they weren't saved to begin with", which I just thinks totally negates everything the scriptures tell us about salvation, the works of the spirit; and everything we understand ABOUT salvation.

 

[Dave-W]

Yup, absolutely. Losing salvation is an intentional, conscious choice. It's rejecting God on purpose; not losing God on accident. But, to say OSAS is to say God won't let you go; thus it eradicates free will. The straw man argument that replaces it is "But they weren't saved to begin with", which I just thinks totally negates everything the scriptures tell us about salvation, the works of the spirit; and everything we understand ABOUT salvation.

Well - OSAS is one of the 5 petals of Cavinist TULIP; the "P." There is no free will at all in Calvinism.

"T" is Total Depravity meaning you are incapable of responding to the gospel when you hear it. That goes hand in hand with "I" or irresistable grace. When it comes to you, you cannot resist it. So of course the product of those 2 concepts is "P" or perseverance of the saints (aka OSAS). It makes a nice neat theological package; but does serious damage to much of scripture which states otherwise.

 

[tulipbee]

I don't want to start a debate. I just want to lay out what I believe.

Personally I do not believe a person can "lose" their salvation...ever. If they have it, they will always have it. If they currently don't have it, they never did. That said, I still believe in free will. I do believe that God chooses those who he saw would choose him.

I hope this prevents confusion, but let me explain:

I once was waiting outside my church. Across the street, I saw a mother and (who I assumed to be) her child playing in their yard. On a few occasions the child would make his way to the street when the mother would quickly try to direct him away from it. I suppose the mother got a bit worried about it and thought to just go ahead and take the child inside. I didn't understand the situation, but what I've described is nevertheless a real world scenario. This is kind of how I see our relationship with God in terms of our freedom. I believe that, for the truly saved, we belong to God. See, the child expressed his "freewill" in trying to go out in to the street, and the mother expressed her "sovereignty" by keeping him in safety. God is a perfect father and it would not be loving (just according to what I believe) for a parent to allow their child to run in to danger like that without stopping them. Oh sure, God let's his people backslide. But this doesn't meant they aren't saved, and if they belong to God then he will surely restore them.

I like the Methodist Church, and have attended one my entire life. Is this too big of a deviation for one to not technically be considered Wesleyan or Methodist?

Elects are elects. It means they were elected by God. The elects can never be a reprobate.

They died elected.

 

[tulipbee]

In most Wesleyan-based denominations like Nazarene, Wesleyan, Free Methodist (and even Assy of God) a pastor can lose his credentials for even SUGGESTING that a person cannot lose salvation.

deleted

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Elects are elects. It means they were elected by God. The elects can never be a reprobate.

They died elected.

That theology is incompatible with the theology of the Wesleyan churches; which is the subject of this thread and these forums.

 

[jacks]

When we try to quantify something as magnificent as salvation, there is bound to be some issues. For the most part I embrace the Methodist doctrine on salvation. A “journey”, “not lost like you would a possession” and other ideas nicely articulated by previous posts.

This can lead to some questions however. For instance how some never seem to come to the Lord, even though they seem to try. Or if we are on the journey of salvation (sanctification?) and reject grace, are we back at square one? Can we later continue the journey as if nothing happened? If so then timing becomes very important. It would be unfortunate to reject God (maybe not for the first time) and then get hit by a bus the next instant!

As with many weighty issues, even my understanding is a journey. Personally I look to my own walk, ask for Gods help and trust in His wisdom.

 

[tulipbee]

That theology is incompatible with the theology of the Wesleyan churches; which is the subject of this thread and these forums.

What makes it a theology?

 

[GraceSeeker]

Elects are elects. It means they were elected by God. The elects can never be a reprobate.

They died elected.

They already lost thier credentials.

What makes it a theology?

CF rules state:

Congregational Forum Restrictions and orthodox Christian Only Forums
Members who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum. There are forums reserved for orthodox Christian members only. Please do not post in these forums unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in the Unorthodox Doctrinal Discussion forum.

Are you here to post in fellowship and ask questions?
Or, are you here to teach and debate?

The above comments appear to be the later. If so, you need to do that in your own congregational sub-forum or go to the section of CF that is called "Theology (orthodox Christians only) Category for orthodox Christian members to discuss orthodox theology." This sub-forum exists for discussing Wesleyan Theology amongst Wesleyans; your posts indicate that you neither fit that definition nor have come here for that purpose. We invite you to make your presence felt elsewhere until you fit the above description.

 

[tulipbee]

CF rules state:


Are you here to post in fellowship and ask questions?
Or, are you here to teach and debate?

The above comments appear to be the later. If so, you need to do that in your own congregational sub-forum or go to the section of CF that is called "Theology (orthodox Christians only) Category for orthodox Christian members to discuss orthodox theology." This sub-forum exists for discussing Wesleyan Theology amongst Wesleyans; your posts indicate that you neither fit that definition nor have come here for that purpose. We invite you to make your presence felt elsewhere until you fit the above description.

I deleted that one post. You're right on that rule. I slipped here. I'm just a standard common christian.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Thank-you. You are certainly most welcome here for conversation.