Posted on 11/05/2004 11:18:15 AM PST by saltwater
Which denominations believe in conditional salvation or that salvation can be lost? That is not Mormons, JW.
Do Methodist and Calvary Chapel and Nazarene believe this? Or do they believe salvation is be grace, but faith without works is dead and salvation can be lost?
The "Church of God" group of churches are confusing to me too. There are so many.
I am a Southern Baptist and we believe in the security of the believer. Once saved always saved. I think the Church of Christ believes one can fall from grace but then if that is so then man has part in salvation and it is not by the grace of God alone.
Lutheran theology one of single predestination. You are saved BY God, but have the free will to reject God.
I'm a catholic and go to confession regularly. However, if I die in a state of mortal sin, then I'm toast.
Of the ones you mention, Calvary chapel does not.
The issue, imho, seems to be having a real salvation experience in the first place. Those who are real will persevere.
If they don't persevere, then they weren't real ... or at least should be avoided and let God sort it out.
I thought Calvary Chapel believes
- saved by grace
- faith without works is dead
- salvation can be lost if you walk away
Don't they?
No.
Calvary Chapel doesn't believe in loss of salvation for real Christians, if I remember correctly.
The Church of God (Anderson, IN) does not teache that you can lose your salvation.
denominationally you'll find many who aren't in accord with Scripture. The Roman Catholic system as it is in particular cannot exist without the denial of actual new birth and that God is His Word that creates us as new creation and so will say in a speech they themselves admit is not-God you can lose your salvation and they will never bring up actual new birth. I'm grew up presbyterian, (not PCUSA), Calvinistic basically, and within the denomination there will be many who think they must re-earn their non-new birth 'salvation' every day despite what is on paper as offical orthodoxy. ( a comment by a friend recently was "You never know what you're going to get with the presbyterians these days"..)
Works-based, non-new creation 'theology' is more of general lie that blankets all denominations, some more than others irrespective of their doctrine on paper. Southern Baptists for instance are historically Calvinistic (must be born again, real, literal new creation in Jesus Christ..). But many if not most of their individual churches are out and out free willers and speak the false gospel of non-new creation 'salvation'/'get saved'. On paper as a denomination they are generally orthodox. But day to day... It has never been the truth that real, literal new birth in Jesus Christ can be un-done and genuine salvation lost.
The Mormons are very works based. The Methodists. etc. All have some alternate literal form of 'grace' --that denies out and out new creation in Jesus Christ.
You'll find that those who argue back and forth as if there were some real doubt on that have a very particular vocabulary they use and avoid any discussion of actual new birth and how that new birth comes to be in order to drive the mere arguing as a supposed demonstration of piety/zealotry.
They don't really take a firm position on it.
They take the position that after you are saved you are in God's hands and nothing can take you out of God's hands, but leave open the possibility that maybe you can jump out.
I'd say that most CC members believe in eternal security.
Churches of Christ teach that one can fall from grace -- as do Luke 8:13, Acts 8, Romans 11:22, Galatians 5:4, I Timothy 3:7, 4:1, II Timothy 2:11-13, I Corinthians 10:12, Hebrews 3:12-14, 6:4-6, II Peter 3:17, Revelation 2:4-5, etc.
Are you sure on that ctd?
I grew up knowing about lot's of people who were "backslidden."
I'm not sure about any denominations, but the apostles Peter and Paul felt that it could.
At one time the CoG did teach that one could lose their salvation, but to my understanding, that has changed.
It would also be fair to say that at one time the Cog was against women wearing jewelry and makeup, and also believed (in the 1880s) that the return of Christ was going to happen before the end of the century; and so did other holiness churches. They were also anti-dancing or the consumption of any alcoholic beverages.
One thing that I think is commendable about the CoG is that they are willing to recognize their past errors and set them aside. They also do not deny that they ever existed, either.
That makes sense. I haven't been a part of them since the early 70s.
When my parents were married, my Mom continued to go to the Methodist church for a long time. Mainly over the legalism (no makeup, jewelry, etc.). That and it was where she was comfortable (her grandfather was a circuit rider).
She and my step-dad are still in a CoG. But in their 70s, they're part of the "younger" crowd in this congregation. I wish they felt free to move on.
...Literal.....Pre-Tribulational.....Pre-Millennial......ping.
The problem with the belief that you can lose your salvation means it is a salvation of works and worth not mercy and grace .
every southern baptist church I know is very hard core free will. I only know of their calvinistic roots via the web and news organizations.
I think you should re-examine the day to day truth of your denomination. Granted, the Presbyterian Chruch in America is calvinistic on paper too. But day to day go to any given pulpit and the sermon is going to be in a speech that says what you should do (with your ''free will), how you should do it (with your 'free will') and 'why' and the preacher will make an outright virtue of God's NOT speaking through him so he can demonstrate his 'reason'. It's the same in every southern baptist church I have ever been in with more emotion thrown in for good measure. On the face of the question some will say "no. you can't lose your salvation." But in practice, everything is 'of course you can. That's why you should.....do what I want you to do...or else."
Catholics agree, of course.
It's really hard to make sense of the Scriptures otherwise. You have to posit silly things like the idea that St. Paul's worries about being "rejected" after "having preached to others" are worries about something that can't actually happen. (Why would the Holy Spirit bother to inspire Scriptures to warn us against an impossibility?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.