The Gospel and Salvation according to various faith traditions...

[cmbl]

Subcategories of Plain Anabaptists:
4A (Older Orders) We cannot know if we are saved. We do the best we can and hope God will be satisfied. The more "alive" Old Orders believe we can have a "lively hope".

4B (Conservatives) We can know that we are saved. Basically #3, plus, "works show that we are indeed saved".

4C (Anabaptists with early church/early Anabaptist theology)
"Christ in you", Christ taking up residence in us makes us righteous and enables us to live lives that are pleasing to God, even if we do not do it perfectly.

I would note that 4A is being defined on 4B's terms. When 4A is permitted to define itself on its own terms, it ends up being expressed in a little different fashion.

One of the very first questions the ministers asked was this: "What do you people teach regarding salvation?" Thereupon the very intelligent [Hutterite] brother, who had very likely not anticipated this question, paused a moment and then said quietly, but with great assurance: "If we live in obedience to God's commandments, we are certain of being in God's gracious hands; we do not worry further about our salvation. Rather, we try to walk the narrow path in the fear of the Lord. We fight sin and practice brotherly love. How then can redemption be lacking?"

Rather than starting with, "We cannot," (a negative term) this brother started with, "If...we are certain..." (a conditional, followed by a positive term).

That said, whenever we compare, we need to find some way of expressing similarities and differences, so there can be a place to discuss 4A on different terms than its own.

[cmbl]

Subcategories of Evangelicals:
3A (Evangelicals: cheap grace/unconditional eternal security) If a 3A Evangelical lives an unholy life, it is assumed that he is still a Christian since he cannot lose his salvation.

3B (Evangelicals: costly grace/Lordship salvation/unconditional eternal security) If a 3B Evangelical starts out as a Christian but eventually walks away from God and holy living, it is assumed that he never was a Christian or else he would not be living in bondage to sin.

3C (Evangelicals: Arminian, one can lose his salvation) ????

3D (Evangelicals: conditional eternal security) If a 3D Evangelical starts out as a Christian but eventually walks away from God and holy living, it is assumed that he was likely a Christian previously, but is rejecting the Spirit's prompting to return to God and at some point will no longer have the ability to repent.

I would consider ohio jones' 3D to provide the explanation Ernie was requesting in 3C. Among (Evangelicals: Arminian) or (Evangelicals: conditional security) there may be some variation on whether the point at which one no longer has the ability to repent may occur in this life.

Another item of terminology: I never heard the phrase "conditional eternal security" before coming into Plain circles. In my experience, 3A and 3B use "Eternal Security" aka Perseverance of the Saints" aka "you cannot lose your salvation" and distinguish that view from "Conditional Security" aka "you can lose your salvation." So when I was forming my views on that, I described myself as someone who believes in "Conditional Security".

The phrase "Conditional Eternal Security" threw me for a loop the first few times. Kind of like lunch, dinner, and supper.

[Pelerin]

You might add sections for universalism and reformed views. The reformed section might overlap with the evangelical one somewhat, but the emphasis would be different.

I read somewhere that the New England Puritans couldn’t know whether they were among those that God elected to save, so they would work hard to be prosperous, thus demonstrating to themselves that they were among God’s blessed elect. It struck me as very similar to the Amish, especially as the reformed view is supposedly the opposite.

[ohio jones]

Another item of terminology: I never heard the phrase "conditional eternal security" before coming into Plain circles. In my experience, 3A and 3B use "Eternal Security" aka Perseverance of the Saints" aka "you cannot lose your salvation" and distinguish that view from "Conditional Security" aka "you can lose your salvation." So when I was forming my views on that, I described myself as someone who believes in "Conditional Security".

The phrase "Conditional Eternal Security" threw me for a loop the first few times. Kind of like lunch, dinner, and supper.

In this case I was attempting to keep the parallelism with "unconditional eternal security." But of course an unconditionalist would never use that term; it was invented by the conditionalists to explain their view.

I would see a distinction between conditional security and "you can lose your salvation." It was right here yesterday, I know it was, but now where has it gone? Maybe if I find my temper it would be in the same place, that's probably where I left it. There's not much security in that view. Passively "losing" (and never quite knowing if or when it happened) is quite different from actively "rejecting." Thus 3D, not 3C.1.

[PetrChelcicky]

There's a distinction that I miss here:
a) forgiving of sins already done (basically by the victims, or by God as their representant)
b) sanctification in the sense of overcoming sinful attritions and avoiding sins in future
These are, in my eyes, completely different processes. (I may be influenced by German evangelical literature which depends on Methodism, in particular the Holiness Movement which saw sanctification as a second stage.)

[Josh]

There's a distinction that I miss here:
a) forgiving of sins already done (basically by the victims, or by God as their representant)
b) sanctification in the sense of overcoming sinful attritions and avoiding sins in future
These are, in my eyes, completely different processes. (I may be influenced by German evangelical literature which depends on Methodism, in particular the Holiness Movement which saw sanctification as a second stage.)

For the purpose of this discussion / thread, we could narrow down to "The gospel and salvation, at an exact moment in time, according to various faith traditions".

[aussieandy]

I think the OP also missed out Calvinists (God's people are pre-ordained to be saved). That is, only the chosen will be saved.

Finally, I don't think Old Orders and Ultra Conservatives are all that different. Many ultra conservatives also believe in no eternal salvation and that only God truly knows if we are saved. We can have an idea that we may well be, but we don't truly know until after death. It's sort of like a halfway between those two options.

[PetrChelcicky]

I am not certain that "salvation", "being saved" or "redemption"
a) meant the same
b) were in use before the Evangelical Movement.
I suppose that "saved" means always "saved from eternal punishment"?

[Ernie]

I read somewhere that the New England Puritans couldn’t know whether they were among those that God elected to save,

Which is why Jonathan Edwards sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, has the effect that it did. People went out into the forests to weep and cry out to God with a desire to know whether they were part of the elect. The same sermon would likely not effect other faith traditions the same way.

[Sudsy]

I read somewhere that the New England Puritans couldn’t know whether they were among those that God elected to save,

Which is why Jonathan Edwards sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, has the effect that it did. People went out into the forests to weep and cry out to God with a desire to know whether they were part of the elect. The same sermon would likely not effect other faith traditions the same way.

Interesting to me that such a type of sermon as that was not recorded for us in the book of Acts. Seems to me that salvation from sins was preached more from a current situation of being saved from our current sinning now through the power of the Holy Spirit rather than the emphasis on escaping unending torment in hell. My father was a 'hell fire' street preacher and did focus on an escape from an unending state of torment but I don't see where the early apostles preached salvation in that way. Some say but Jesus did preach 'unending hell fire' but why didn't the early church preach the Gospel emphasizing that aspect of 'being saved' ? Seems to me they had a different understanding of what Jesus was saying than the doctrine of eternal conscious torment for those who don't receive Him as their Saviour.

I think my Anabaptist pastor would say we have been saved (forgiven of past sins when we receive Christ as Lord and Saviour), are being saved (the process of sanctification becoming more like Christ) and will be saved (saved from being annihilated, after judgment). However, other Anabaptists see the future state of not being saved more of the ECT (eternal conscience torment) doctrine. I doubt any that call themselves Anabaptist would preach that sermon that Jonathan Edwards preached. I could be wrong on that.