Why do some denominations not believe in Once Saved, Always Saved?

[catholichomeschooler]

The reason it is irrevocable is that according to the understanding of Scripture that sees apostasy as possible, the one who commits it will never again repent, i.e. return to faith.

How would this apply to Peter, who denied Christ three times?

 

[NorrinRadd]

How would this apply to Peter, who denied Christ three times?

I'm not sure what the "official" Arminian response would be. Mine would be two-fold:

First, his denial was a lying denial based on fear, not a genuine decision to reject Christ.

Second, at that point he had not yet received the Spirit and been born again. He was not a "believer" in the same sense that we are, or that he himself was later.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

I'm not sure what the "official" Arminian response would be. Mine would be two-fold:

First, his denial was a lying denial based on fear, not a genuine decision to reject Christ.

Second, at that point he had not yet received the Spirit and been born again. He was not a "believer" in the same sense that we are, or that he himself was later.

Do you believe a person can lose their faith and then regain it in later in life?

 

[Albion]

Quotes that prove that the Orthodox Church came from the Catholic Church.

Yeh. How about some of that?

 

[NorrinRadd]

Do you believe a person can lose their faith and then regain it in later in life?

I don't believe a genuine believer can genuinely turn away and then return later.

Now, if you say to me, "Well, *I* genuinely believed, and *I* genuinely turned away, and now I'm a believer again," my response is "Whatever."

I realize that in some ways my view is not unlike the Calvinist's in my application of the word, "genuine."

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Actually, that was part of the argument presented to me . that "most christians acknowledge a 66 book bible"

the statement was most likely in response to that .

Only in the Bible belt.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Only in the Bible belt.

hehehe

 

[Root of Jesse]

People do back slide. However, like the parable of the prodigal son, the father welcomed him back because he was his child.

But the child had to come back. If he had not, he would still be his child, but living in the muck with the swine. For that matter, Jesus didn't heal anyone who didn't ask him to do it. You had to make an act of faith before you were healed.

 

[bottomofsandal]

But the child had to come back. If he had not, he would still be his child, but living in the muck with the swine. For that matter, Jesus didn't heal anyone who didn't ask him to do it. You had to make an act of faith before you were healed.

Where do we see Lazarus' act of faith before he was resurrected by Jesus ?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Where do we see Lazarus' act of faith before he was resurrected by Jesus ?

Lazarus wasn't resurrected. He was raised at the request (act of faith) of Mary and Martha. It's kinda obvious that Lazarus was a friend of Jesus already.

 

[bottomofsandal]

Lazarus wasn't resurrected. He was raised at the request (act of faith) of Mary and Martha. It's kinda obvious that Lazarus was a friend of Jesus already.

No, reread what you wrote.

Anyone (lazuarus) who wants to be healed must ask to be healed.

Lazarus was dead and did not ask to be healed.

You words are confusing and conflated.



Is your pov that only those who ask receive ?

 

[FireDragon76]

... F. Leroy Forlines or Robert Picirilli, both of whom affirm that the Arminianism developed by the first followers of Arminius taught that apostasy, when it occurs, is irrevocable. The reason it is irrevocable is that according to the understanding of Scripture that sees apostasy as possible, the one who commits it will never again repent, i.e. return to faith.

You are aware that seems to be contradicted by history? There are plenty of examples of apostates being reconciled to the Church. Are you saying their faith was in vain?

You criticize Olson for using Methodists as sources at times, but Forlines is a Free Will Baptist. Methodism is closer to the Dutch Reformed faith of Arminius than it is the to the Baptist faith, so I don't see how that criticism is fair.

I think it's more likely that the authors just misunderstood what Arminius meant by apostasy being "irrevocable", as you put it (he probably meant that it means a person who dies apostate is damned).

 

[Albion]

Only in the Bible belt.

That'll come as news to millions of Christians in the UK, Germany, and the Low Countries--to find that they're in the "Bible Belt."

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Regional Distribution of Christians | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

 

[Mama Kidogo]

That'll come as news to millions of Christians in the UK, Germany, and the Low Countries--to find that they're in the "Bible Belt."

It was a joke. But it seems to be a long belt.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It was a joke.

a funn-ee joke

 

[Mama Kidogo]

a funn-ee joke

Should we rename it Route 66?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Should we rename it Route 66?

Inspired Idea!

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Quotes that prove that the Orthodox Church came from the Catholic Church. IF eastern patriarchs acknowledged being Catholic and that the Bishop of Rome was the leader of the Church, then I have made my case.

You may not like it, but....

Except it began in Jerusalem. You know back when you guys were Orthodox.

 

[NorrinRadd]

You are aware that seems to be contradicted by history? There are plenty of examples of apostates being reconciled to the Church. Are you saying their faith was in vain?

As I said in post 345:

I don't believe a genuine believer can genuinely turn away and then return later.

Now, if you say to me, "Well, *I* genuinely believed, and *I* genuinely turned away, and now I'm a believer again," my response is "Whatever."

I realize that in some ways my view is not unlike the Calvinist's in my application of the word, "genuine."
​

You criticize Olson for using Methodists as sources at times, but Forlines is a Free Will Baptist. Methodism is closer to the Dutch Reformed faith of Arminius than it is the to the Baptist faith, so I don't see how that criticism is fair.

I think it's more likely that the authors just misunderstood what Arminius meant by apostasy being "irrevocable", as you put it (he probably meant that it means a person who dies apostate is damned).

No, I'm certain I properly understood Forlines and Picirilli.


I believe this Wikipedia article gives a reasonable overview.