>#### Gift of perseverance > >The Gift of perseverance is the doctrine of Augustine of Hippo that persevering in the faith is a gift given by God, but a person can never know if they have the gift. According to Augustine, without having the gift of perseverance a person is damned, even if he seems to have been elected by grace. Augustine himself also believed that Cyprian held a similar view about perseverance being a work of God, and thus foreshadowing the Augustinian view. **Some Calvinists argue that the Augustinian view foreshadows the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints**. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_of_perseverance > [Matthew 13:20-21 NASB] 20 The one sown with seed on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the word **and immediately receives it with joy**; 21 **yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary**, and when affliction or persecution occurs because of the word, **immediately he falls away**. > [Luke 8:13 NASB] Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, **receive the word with joy**; **and yet these do not have a firm root**; **they believe for a while**, **and in a time of temptation they fall away**. How do advocates of the doctrine of *eternal security*, also known as *once saved, always saved* or *the perseverance of the saints*, explain God’s apparent withdrawal of the gift of perseverance from the individual described in Matthew 13:20-21 and Luke 8:13? In these passages, it seems that God allows a person to be exposed to the gospel, to experience genuine initial joy and even a measure of faith, yet for some reason does not grant them the gift of perseverance (otherwise they would have persevered). In other words, God is permitting this "sheep" to fall away from His hand, or never put this "sheep" in His hand in the first place, but why? Why is God not giving the gift of perseverance to the individual in Matthew 13:20-21 and Luke 8:13?

I came across this article on Augustine: [Why Do We And St. Augustine Believe “Once Saved Always Saved”?](https://koinos.church/why-do-we-and-st-augustine-believe-once-saved-always-saved/) . The article explains: >Augustine saw in scripture that the fall of Adam resulted in all humans receiving a nature totally depraved so that no one is capable of obedience without God’s grace providing the ability. This is why he uttered his famous prayer, “Lord command what you will and grant what you command.” This view of man’s depravity and God’s grace caused him to reject the idea that believers must maintain their perseverance by their own righteousness. All God’s work of salvation in man is an act of His grace. None of it could be accomplished by the mere will of man, not the beginning steps of repentance and not the perseverance in faith to the end. All of salvation is due to God’s grace alone. This led him to make these affirmations on “once saved always saved,” > >>I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we peresevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God. >> >>It is shown with sufficient clearness that the grace of God, which both begins a man’s faith and which enables it to persevere unto the end, is not given according to our merits, but is given according to His own most secret and at the same time most righteous, wise, and beneficent will; since those whom He predestinated, them He also called. >> >>When the gift of God is granted to them…none of the saints fails to keep his perseverance in holiness even to the end. (In De Perseverantiae). However, in [this debate](https://youtu.be/72TRODe8BdA?t=1411) , Trent Horn quoted a seemingly different passage from Augustine’s [*Treatise on Rebuke and Grace*](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1513.htm) : > If, however, **being already regenerate and justified**, he relapses of his own will into an evil life, assuredly he cannot say, I have not received, **because of his own free choice to evil he has lost the grace of God**, that he had received. I would like input from someone well-versed in Augustine’s writings: did Augustine’s views ultimately align with, or contradict, the doctrine of *Eternal Security*? Did Augustine actually believe in the doctrine of “once saved, always saved”?

> [Hebrews 6:4-6 NASB] 4 **For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit**, 5 **and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come**, 6 **and then have fallen away**, to restore them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. > [Hebrews 10:26-31 NASB] 26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has ignored the Law of Moses is put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, **and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace**? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. > [2 Peter 2:20-22 NASB] 20 For if, **after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first**. 21 **For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them**. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.” And other similar passages: > [Galatians 5:1-5 NASB] It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore **keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery**. 2 Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised, that he is obligated to keep the whole Law. 4 **You have been severed from Christ**, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; **you have fallen from grace**. 5 For we, through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. > [Luke 8:13 NASB] Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and yet these do not have a firm root; **they believe for a while**, **and in a time of temptation they fall away**. > [Matthew 13:20-21 NASB] 20 The one sown with seed on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no firm root in himself, **but is only temporary**, and when affliction or persecution occurs because of the word, **immediately he falls away**. > [John 15:5-6 NASB] 5 I am the vine, you are the branches; the one who remains in Me, and I in him bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6 **If anyone does not remain in Me, he is thrown away like a branch and dries up; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned**. > [Romans 11:18-22 NASB] 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 See then the kindness and severity of God: **to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness**; **for otherwise you too will be cut off**. > [1 Corinthians 9:24-27] 24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? **Run in such a way that you may win**. 25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. So they do it to obtain a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 Therefore I run in such a way as not to run aimlessly; I box in such a way, as to avoid hitting air; 27 **but I strictly discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified**. > [Revelation 3:5 NASB] The **one who overcomes** will be clothed the same way, in white garments; and **I will not erase his name from the book of life**, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. > [Revelations 22:19 NASB] and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, **God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city**, which are written in this book. How were passages typically quoted to refute OSAS interpreted by the early Church? You can find more passages here: * https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/87015/117426 * https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/12097/117426

James 1:12 (NIV) says: >“Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.” I'm trying to understand what specific kinds of hardship or trials this verse is referring to. Does it include all forms of suffering (e.g., sickness, poverty, personal tragedy), or is it focused more on spiritual trials—such as those that come from the flesh (sinful desires), the world (opposition to godly living), or the devil (temptation and spiritual warfare)? Does persevering through these inner and external spiritual battles also qualify one for the crown of life? Or is the verse mainly referring to persecution and martyrdom for the Christian faith? Also, is the “crown of life” best understood as a metaphor for eternal life itself, or is it a distinct reward for faithful endurance beyond salvation? I'm seeking perspectives grounded in Scripture and theology across Christian traditions.

I watched the debate between James White and Trent Horn on whether a Christian can lose their salvation: [DEBATE | Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation? | Trent Horn vs. Dr. James R. White](https://youtu.be/72TRODe8BdA) . It's remarkable how well-educated scholars, studying the same biblical passages, can reach such diametrically opposed conclusions, particularly on a doctrine as pivotal as salvation. One would expect that salvation, being a cornerstone of Christian faith, would be communicated by God with utmost clarity to His church. Yet, we find ourselves debating the mechanics of salvation and the possibility of its loss. How do Christians reconcile the extensive debates surrounding salvation doctrines with the expectation that such a crucial tenet of the Christian faith would be revealed with unmistakable clarity by God?

How do the proponents of the idea that salvation once received cannot be lost explain the following verses: Hebrews 6:4-6: > For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have > tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy > Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the > world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto > repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, > and put [him] to an open shame. and Hebrews 10:26-29: > For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of > the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain > fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall > devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy > under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose > ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of > God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was > sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of > grace? It seems to me that both places are about Christians who had once received salvation, but later lost it due to their change in mind or in faith.

> Every branch in me (εν έμοι ) that beareth not fruit, he taketh it away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he [the Father, v1] cleanseth it, that it may bear more fruit. (John 15:2, ASV) Some reformed like James White say that once someone is “in Christ” they are eternally saved. But Jesus said that some branches in him that don't bear fruit will be removed from him and burned. (15:5) How do reformed theologians reconcile John 15:2 with the doctrine of “once saved always saved"? ----- 3) the phrase en Christo (in Christ) or its equivalent in Him, is central to Paul’s thought. All of salvation takes place only “in Christ.” (https://reformedspirit.blogspot.com/2015/08/god-is-redeeming-for-himself-people-and.html?m=1)

According to *Wikipedia* in it's entry of 'perseverance of the saints', eternal security has its roots in Church Father St. Augustine of Hippo. Considering that Augustine lived centuries after the Apostolic Age, and the variety of theologians that have predated him (from Origen to Athanasius the Great, Polycarp to Ignatius of Antioch), were the Early Church Fathers really so uniform in thought concerning salvation? I find it especially hard to believe because of the fractured and polemical nature of early Christianity, as it was full of controversy and wavering opinions surrounding essential doctrines (ie. Christology).

I was listening to a debate between Trent Horn and James White on the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. In it, Trent Horn presented an argument to demonstrate that those who hold to the doctrine can’t know if they are saved. One argument against the perseverance of the saints is the citation of the thousands of people who have appeared to be fully involved in Christianity and then walked away from the faith. What the person who adheres to the PoS will do to defuse these stories is to say those people were never saved in the first place. But that means we can’t have confidence that any of us are saved, despite the fruit we exhibit! But the Bible says we can have confidence in our salvation, so PoS must be false. For a syllogistic form, see below. 1. If PoS is true, then any person *x* who exhibited belief in Christianity but walked away later was never a Christian. 2. For any person *p* who adheres to PoS, they could be a person *x*. 3. Thus, that person *p* cannot have confidence in their salvation. 4. The Bible says we can have confidence in our salvation. (1 John 5:13) 5. Thus, PoS is false.

The Doctrine of Eternal Security (also called the Perseverance of the Saints) teaches that once a person truly experience salvation, that person's eternal destiny of eternal life is immutable. What is the biblical basis or biblically-based argument for this doctrine?

**Q**: What is the Reformed Protestant Answer/interpretation to **1 Timothy 1:19** as it pertains to “**eternal security**”? We read in the immediate context: > “I put this charge before you, Timothy my child, in keeping with the > prophecies once spoken about you, in order that with such > encouragement you may fight the good fight. > > > ***To do this you must hold firmly to faith and a good conscience, which > some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck in regard to the > faith***. > > > Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I handed over to Satan > to be taught not to blaspheme.” ‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭1:18-20‬ ‭NET‬‬ Some commentators note that in verse 20 Paul is referring to **remedial discipline** in handing them over to Satan, yet they could also be those who profess to know God but by their deeds they deny Him(Titus 1:15-16). If they are true believers on the other hand, what does this mean for “Eternal Security”? **See also**: (Jeremiah 32:40, John 6:37-40, John 10:27-30, John 17:1-26, 1 Peter 1:3-5, Hebrews 6:9, Philippians 1:6, 1 Corinthians 1:4-9).

To lay out the context of the verse at hand: > “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, > and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. > > Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will > profit you nothing. > > And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a > debtor to keep the whole law. > > **You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified > by law; you have fallen from grace.** > > > For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness > by faith. > > For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails > anything, but faith working through love.” ‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5:1-6‬ > ‭NKJV‬‬ **Q**: **What is the Reformed/Calvinistic interpretation of Galatians 5:4?** **Note**: *Since reformed doctrine holds to the P (Perseverance of the Saints)*

Philippians 2:12 Says: >12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 1st Corinthians 15:2 Says: >2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. There are a large sect of Christians (mainly fundamentalist evangelicals) in America who hold salvation to be a once a done, one time event. How do they respond to these passages? ----------------------------------------- Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/57396/how-can-1-corinthians-153-be-reconciled-with-calvinism-and-limited-atonement

Upon questioning, eternal security advocates (those who say a Christian cannot lose their salvation), will point to a variety of Bible verses to support their position. So, this begs the question of what Bible verses support ones ability to lose their salvation?

According to Wikipedia, the doctrine of [Perseverance of the saints](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints) is: > [...] a Christian teaching that asserts that **once a person is truly "born of God" or "regenerated" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they will continue doing good works and believing in God until the end of their life**. On the other hand, the doctrine of [Eternal Security](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_security) is defined as follows: > Eternal security, also known as "once saved, always saved", is the belief that **from the moment anyone becomes a Christian, they will be saved from hell, and will not lose salvation**. **Once a person is truly "born of God" or "regenerated" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit**, nothing in heaven or earth "shall be able to separate (them) from the love of God" (Romans 8:39) and thus **nothing can reverse the condition of having become a Christian**. So it appears that *Perseverance of the saints* is about unshakable **sanctification** after true conversion, whereas *Eternal Security* is about unshakable **salvation** after true conversion. So there appears to be a very subtle distinction between the two doctrines. **Question**: are there any denominations that believe in one doctrine while denying the other? Is it even possible to endorse one doctrine without endorsing the other?

**Jon Ericson** made a statement in this answer that is fascinating to me: >In other words, we aren't secure in our salvation because of the nature of salvation, but because of the nature of Jesus. This is something that I've wondered about, but have never really formulated. Among those who hold the doctrine of eternal security, what is considered the nature, or origin, of that security? Some possible viewpoints that I see are: * Salvation is eternal in its very nature. This implies that abiding in Christ is evidence of salvation * Salvation is not eternal in nature, but **is** eternal in practice because of God's keeping power. In other words, though theoretically possible to forsake Christ and thus forsake salvation, God promises to keep us, never allowing us to do so. This would seem to imply that abiding in Christ is the *cause*, or medium, of salvation, but the work behind that cause is performed by God. What are the Biblical arguments for or against these viewpoints?

Not much to add to the title. How do Christians who advocate the "once saved, always saved" doctrine back it up with Scripture? How do they commonly defend their interpretations against rebuttals from critics?

It appears to me that the so-called "Doctrines of Grace" contain a practical contradiction. The T in TULIP states that the reprobate (and even the unregenerate elect) are zealous in their hatred of God. The reprobate completely and totally despise God with their words, thoughts, actions, etc. The P in TULIP states that all of God's elect will be regenerated and will persevere in faith unto death. Now these two points do not seem contradictory in and of themselves, but what of the subject of apostasy? From Biblical texts and our own experience, we come to understand that some people who appear to love God eventually lose interest for one reason or another and fall away from the faith. Jesus even speaks of such people, who accept the gospel with great joy, only to eventually fall back into the world because they get busy and distracted with the cares of daily life. It is a typical Calvinist response to simply say that those people were never saved to begin with. Fair enough, but if they were never saved, then they were never regenerate, and if they were never regenerate then they must experience vicious hatred towards God according to TULIP's T. So what would compel a reprobate hater of God to go to church, read their Bible, pray fervently, ask God for forgiveness of sins, get baptized, etc. These do not seem to be actions of people who despise God. Why would a reprobate man experience joy upon hearing the gospel, as Jesus plainly stated? To Calvin's credit, he attempted to plug this hole by coming up with a doctrine called evanescent grace. Roughly speaking, God in his good pleasure, actively causes a deception to fall upon some reprobate men, which gives them a fleeting desire to worship him and follow Christ. However, this false faith is never the 'real deal' and at the appointed time, God removes the illusion and leaves the man in a worse state than he began. This gives God all the more justification to judge the man to death and condemnation. Understandably, Calvinists do not appear to have endeared themselves to this doctrine. I'd venture to say that many Calvinists have never ever heard of it. But if a Calvinist does not subscribe to evanescent grace, then there must be some other explanation as to what would compel a God-hating reprobate to praise the name of Jesus Christ, even if only for a limited period of time. What explanations, other than evanescent grace, have Calvinists posited to solve this seeming contradiction in their theology? > Our natural, fallen inner disposition is to hate the God of the Bible – the true and living God who created us – and to replace Him with gods (or “concepts of god”) more to our liking. -- http://lakeopc.net/2017/calvinism-101-total-depravity/ > > Total Depravity means that every sinner is possessed with a nature, inherited from Adam's fall, that is completely hostile toward God. We were all born with a "positive" aversion to God and His authority. By nature, every sinner wants "his own way." Romans 8:7 makes this fact very clear. "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so." -- https://www.monergism.com/doctrine-total-depravity > > But a man who is totally depraved can not will to be saved. He hates God and wants nothing to do with Christ's death. So it must not be said that Christ died for all men. -- http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_41.html

When I read the writings of early Christians I am constantly seeing references to persevering to the end and absolutely nothing resembling this teaching. It is almost as if everything taught prior to Calvin suggests a different Gospel to the one preached by Calvinism. When I look at Scripture like Hebrews 10:29, I don't see these passages mentioned in Bible only circles, like GotQuesions.org for example where many pro perseverance scriptures are mentioned but not this one or the 80 some on other scriptures that speak opposite of this position are left out. Was the Doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints ever understood by any Christian before John Calvin? Even in the slightest?

My question is coming from a Protestant / Evangelical perspective. I've always been taught that once one is saved, nothing and no one can snatch him from the Father's hand. That is to say, one cannot lose one's salvation. Now, we know from the parable of the seeds that there are those who come enthusiastically to Christ and then gradually lose interest as the cares of the world 'choke out' their initial interest. That case is pretty clear cut; These people were never saved to begin with. But the parable of the Unforgiving Servant is different. In this story, the master (God) grants the servant (us) full forgiveness. But the servant's hardness of heart towards those in his debt leads the master to revoke the forgiveness He previously provided, and hand that servant over to be tortured (hell) until the servant's debt is paid in full (for eternity presumably, since our debt to God can never be paid via our own work). This parable is a bit bewildering to me, to be completely honest. This doesn't appear to be a case of a man who was offered salvation and then demonstrated his rejection of that offer through his lack of good works (i.e. a forgiving attitude toward his peers). Instead, this appears to be a man who had earnestly repented, received salvation, stumbled immediately out of the gate in the sanctification department, and then had the offer of salvation completely revoked as a result. GotQuestions, which I typically turn to for information on parables, doesn't seem to address the issue at all. So I'll ask the question here: Does the parable of the Unforgiving Servant have implications re: "once saved, always saved" ? I'm looking for an answer from those who hold the view of "Once Saved, Always Saved" or are familiar with it.