Faith Alone

[Pax]

Your last statement is borne out of pure prejudice. Biblical support for the believer’s, once for all, positional sanctification in the risen Christ has been amply shown to you. In fact, you have been shown that this glorious doctrine is keynote in Pauline theology. The believer’s new and irreversible identity in the risen Christ is an essential Christian doctrine. To deny it is to deny the gospel itself. This being that not only did Christ die for our sins, but that we (believers) died with Christ (i.e., all who we were in Adam) and are raised with Him to new life, and now presently seated with Him in the heavenly:Col 3:1-3 “Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory” (cf. Eph. 2:4-7):Can’t get more “positionally sanctified” than that, Pax. In fact, Paul calls for the believer’s practical or experiential sanctification only after he has first understood his positional sanctification in the risen Christ. Shown by the word, “Therefore” in Col. 3:4.

What you refuse to believe, Pax, is:Eph 1:19-20 “…what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe, in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly;” No, Pax, the believer’s postional sanctification is as divinely revealed as salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone:Heb 2:11 “For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one {Father;} for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren,”

Heb 10:10 “By this will we have been sanctified (how? Works? No!) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Heb 10:14 "For by one offering He has perfected (for how long?) for all time those who are sanctified."And for this reason Paul addresses the believers as: "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their {Lord} and ours:1 Cor 6:11 "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified (by works? No!) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."All this, Pax, “He brought about in Christ when He raised Him from the dead.” It’s “His power toward us who believe.” The key word there is “believe.”

It would be wise to use the language of scripture and not doctrinally driven language such as positional versus practical sanctification. That is a very important thing to do because when you stick with the language of scripture you will not fall into the trap of making it say something that is not there.

You cannot establish your view by looking at the grammatical “tense” associated with word sanctification. We all know that we are sanctified at the moment we are brought into a state of justification. It is for this reason that scripture says this about baptism. “You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified.” This past tense usage is a true description of what happens to us at baptism, but it is not a statement of once and for all. We find other statements in the NT showing justification and sanctification expressed in the present and future tenses as well. Likewise, we find expressions of falling away and even statements of some that “have wandered from the truth” and then returning and thus being saved from death.

You have to understand scripture in its totality and you must integrate all of the statements of the NT into one logical and consistent set of understandings. Catholic teaching does this, but your teaching contradicts much of scripture.

 

[guanophore]

No, not semantics, doctrinal:Gen 15:6 "Then he (Abraham) believed in the LORD; and He (the Lord) reckoned it (his belief, his faith in what He said) to him as righteousness.When one believes what God has said (the definition of faith) God reckons “it” (his belief in His Word) to him as righteousness (cf. Rom. 4:4-5; Eph. 2:8-9).

I guess I cannot see any difference between the definition you are giving here for faith, and this one:

James 2:19
Even the demons believe - and shudder.

The demons recognized Christ, and believed what he said…

Then by definition it is neither gifted, unmerited or undeserved. The last two, btw, define “grace,” as in "For by grace (unmerited, unrecompensed, undeserved favor) you have been saved through faith…the gift of God; not as a result of works…"But it’s not through the the works that God saves, but “through FAITH:” Eph. 2:8-9.

I don’t see how any of these things has to happen once in time, for all time. In fact, they seem to me to happen daily.
How is an experience of grace through faith that happens daily any less gifted, unmerited, or undeserved?

The “good works” in verse ten are prepared for those who are “created in Christ Jesus” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17), those in verses 8 and 9 who “have been saved by grace through faith…” not as a result of works.Acts 16:30-31 "…and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Indeed! And then, what did the obedience of faith lead them to do immediately?

Titus 3:5 “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness (IOW, what you would call, “sacred works,” since such works could not be considered “works of the flesh”), but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,”

I am glad that you are at least willing to distinguish between works done in righteousness, and works of the flesh!

Righteous works are not the “basis”, but the result of saving faith. That is why I suggested that we may only be having a semantics problem. The basis of works done in righteousness is grace, through faith. Anything that is based elsewhere is a work of the flesh.

 

[guanophore]

This is the baptism of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13). No “cradle Catholic” ever chose to be water baptized.

The baptism of the HS is not separated from water baptism. When Jesus entered the water, the Spirit was joined to the baptismal waters.

I agree that infants do not choose baptism, but it is still a choice of faith. The parents and godparents, by faith, make vows to raise that child according to the way of life commanded by Christ. They are baptized on the basis if faith.

As for the parable, guanophore, it was customary for the host of the wedding to provide the wedding garments for the guests. And being a King he could well afford it. The issue in the parable is not who put them on them, but who refused to wear them. The man wilfully refused to wear what was graciously provided for him. Now take this same analogy and apply it to faith/grace vs. works. Those who refuse to wear what is graciously provided for them (Rom. 9:30-33;Phil. 3:9) will also be escorted out and barred from the kingdom. Remember, the parable begins with: “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to…”

Well, I don’t see much distinction between “who put them on” and “who refused to wear them”. It is clear there is an expectation that each person who accepted the invitation should be wearing the appropriate garment. One that was invited came in, then chose not to avail himself of the garment provided. It is an example of the grace offered to all unto salvation, and how an individual can accept the invitation, respond to the call, show up for the wedding, yet through disobedience/rebellion, fail to remain.

 

[ryanoneil]

Judas was not elect by the Father for salvation, but was chosen by the Son for service.

In the NT, election to salvation is uniformly ascribed to the Father, while the electing work of the Son is to service.

I agree Judas was not elect for salvation but I don’t understand your other point. Is “chosen by the Son” for sevice being predestined for grace but not glory?

Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, (John 6:37) Judas was drawn to Jesus by God’s grace, but it does not say that the people who are drawn will remain with Jesus until “the last day.”

And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day. (John 6:39) This is true. But this only deals with the Father’s will, not human will, which could ultimately reject Jesus. Same with verse 40.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. (John 6:44) This is true; it is speaking of the fact that we cannot come to Christ except by God’s grace. But again, it says nothing about remaining with Jesus or being eternally secure with Jesus. (there are many scriptural examples of losing salvation)

So, this Scripture describes God’s divine action (the predestination side), but doesn’t exclude human response (the free will side)

Therefore, I bear with everything for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, together with eternal glory. This saying is trustworthy: If we have died with him we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us. If we are unfaithful he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. (2 Tim 2:10-13)

even the “elect” can “deny” Jesus. In Catholic theology, there is always a balance between two principles that seem to be inapposite, here God’s will and human free will. Again this is predestined to grace but not glory.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[Pax]

moondweller,

I recommend that you carefully read all of Matthew Chapter 5. It pretty much smashes all theories concerning salvation by faith alone. Of course this can be said of virtually all of scripture.

Nevertheless, please spend a few minutes reading the entire chapter, and then tell me that Jesus is wrong about the works and the righteousness that he requires for salvation.

 

[Pax]

This is referring to His prophetic word.This is His creative word. He did not say, “Let there be children of God,” and the earth sprouted them up. But instead it is revealed:Gal 3:26 “For you are all sons of God (How? Through God speaking it forth? NO!) through faith in Christ Jesus.”

You should either stop quoting scripture or stop trying to analyze it. God’s creative word goes out in power at our justification. We are born again. We are “created in Christ Jesus for good works.”

 

[Pax]

John says nothing about “righteousness.” But could you show me where any of the writers of the N.T. teach about this “infused righteousness?” Please be specific.

I have already discussed this at length in a response to Sandusky. Please read my prior post #485.

Your claim about John not discussing “righteousness” is incorrect. The following should help:

1 John 1:9
** If **we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Obviously, we are righteous when we are cleansed from all unrighteousness when we are forgiven upon the confession of our sins.

1 John 3:7
Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous.

1 John 3:11-12
For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, and not be like Cain who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous.

Twisted logic, indeed. John says nothing about losing their salvation. To the contrary, he points out that the testimony of God is the they HAVE eternal life.Verses those who don’t know Him. That’s the whole point of his Epistle, Pax. Identifying those who are not his (the Gnostics). It has nothing to do with losing salvation but identifying false brethren.

This is simply not true. John is certainly warning his Christian brethren about the Gnostics, but he is warning them because the deceptions of the Gnostics could lead them astray. John makes it quite clear that some people can lose their salvation and his testimony concerning how we must remain in Christ is overwhelming proof to that effect.

John even goes on in his second epistle to speak of this in even more explicit terms. In 2 John 1:9-10 he says:

“Any one who goes ahead and does not abide**[remain]** in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work.”

Twisted logic?..not a chance.

 

[sandusky]

ryanoneil:

I agree Judas was not elect for salvation but I don’t understand your other point. Is “chosen by the Son” for sevice being predestined for grace but not glory?

Judas was the Son of Perdition—his election—not a son of adoption—the election of the
other 11.

Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, (John 6:37) Judas was drawn to Jesus by God’s grace, but it does not say that the people who are drawn will remain with Jesus until “the last day.”

Verse 39 says that, **And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it up on the last day. (John 6:39)

The will of the Father is that Jesus should lose none of those given to Him, and that He should raise up on the last day each of those given to Him by the Father.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. (John 6:44) This is true; it is speaking of the fact that we cannot come to Christ except by God’s grace. But again, it says nothing about remaining with Jesus or being eternally secure with Jesus. (there are many scriptural examples of losing salvation)

It does say the ones given to the Son by the Father are secure because it’s the Father’s will that Son should raise up on the last day each of those given to Him by the Father—that’s the Father’s will for the Son: that the Son raise up the ones the Father gives to Him to be raised up.

You’re saying that Jesus will not do the will of the Father, because He will not raise up those given to Him by the Father when it’s the Father’s will that He do so.

Also, give me one verse that states someone lost salvation. I do not consider “falling,” “stumbling,” “shipwrecking faith,” or “severing” as stating a loss of salvation.

Therefore, I bear with everything for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, together with eternal glory. This saying is trustworthy: If we have died with him we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us. If we are unfaithful he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. (2 Tim 2:10-13)

even the “elect” can “deny” Jesus. In Catholic theology, there is always a balance between two principles that seem to be inapposite, here God’s will and human free will. Again this is predestined to grace but not glory.

You continue to assert a group of people “predestined to grace but not glory” while offering no proof for them.

I’ve shown that scripture knows two groups—those elect to glory, and those not elect to glory.

I’m certain the emotional words for you in the 2 Tim passage are deny, and faithless.

If we deny Him, He also will deny us. Speaks of a final, permanent denial, such as that of an apostate (cf 1 Tim 2:19, note, a shipwreck of faith, not a loss of salvation that they did not possess), not the temporary failure of a true believer like Peter (Matt. 26:69–75). Those who so deny Christ give evidence that they never truly belonged to Him (1 John 2:19) and face the fearful reality of one day being denied by Him (Matt. 10:33).

2:13 faithless. This refers to a lack of saving faith, not to weak or struggling faith. Unbelievers will ultimately deny Christ because their faith was not genuine (cf. James 2:14–26). He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself. As faithful as Jesus is to save those who believe in Him (John 3:16), He is equally faithful to judge those who do not (John 3:18). To act any other way would be inconsistent with His holy, unchangeable nature (cf. Heb 10:23).

 

[Philthy]

That’s the whole point of his Epistle, Pax. Identifying those who are not his (the Gnostics). It has nothing to do with losing salvation but identifying false brethren.

Hi Moondweller -

Not looking for a long explanation from you, but your contention that the purpose of the epistle is in “identifying false brethren” seems to simply beg the question. What, exactly, is the purpose of identifying false brethren? Why waste even a page of Scripture on it? Do they in any way threaten the Gospel? Do they in any way threaten the salvation of anyone? Can they lead any of God’s children astray?
I mean if the saved are predestined in the manner you have suggested, then such warnings seem to distort the message that salvation can not be lost, no?

 

[Philthy]

Verse 39 says that, ***And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it up on the last day. ***

 

[Sean_Boyle]

No, not semantics, doctrinal:Gen 15:6 "Then he (Abraham) believed in the LORD; and He (the Lord) reckoned it (his belief, his faith in what He said) to him as righteousness.When one believes what God has said (the definition of faith) God reckons “it” (his belief in His Word) to him as righteousness (cf. Rom. 4:4-5; Eph. 2:8-9).Then by definition it is neither gifted, unmerited or undeserved. The last two, btw, define “grace,” as in "For by grace (unmerited, unrecompensed, undeserved favor) you have been saved through faith…the gift of God; not as a result of works…"But it’s not through the the works that God saves, but “through FAITH:” Eph. 2:8-9. The “good works” in verse ten are prepared for those who are “created in Christ Jesus” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17), those in verses 8 and 9 who “have been saved by grace through faith…” not as a result of works.Acts 16:30-31 "…and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Titus 3:5 “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness (IOW, what you would call, “sacred works,” since such works could not be considered “works of the flesh”), but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,”

Did you used to post here under a different user name? I see a pattern forming in your responses.

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

Hi Sandusky from Sandusky-

Does the Greek here actually mean “should” as in it is a preferred outcome, but not a guaranteed outcome? If not, why would you translate “should lose none” rather than translate as “will not lose any”? Which is the correct translation:
Will not lose any…or…should not lose any?

That’s Ryan’s quote from Ryan’s bible. I prefer the NASB**John 6:39

“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.**You’re question concerning “should” being the preferred outcome is telling. What you call the “preferred outcome” is, in fact, the will of the Father.

Christ reiterates again in the next verse:**John 6:40

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”**That’s very clear and straightforward language, Phil; the difficulty is not in what is being said with respect to the security of the believer, the difficulty lies somewhere else. The difficulty is that at every clear statement of the Lord and the apostles concerning eternal life, and the security of the believer, you are told by your teachers that what the writers are saying, is not what they mean, IMO—pity.

The verb in question in v39 is apollumee. It’s basic meaning is “destroy.” Therefore, the Son is not to destroy those given to Him by the Father. We remember, in the previous chapter of John’s Gospel, v27, that Son is given the authority to “execute judgment,” or to order the destruction of those who do not believe.

The form of the verb used in 6:39 can be translated either as “future, active, indicative” or as an “aorist, active, subjunctive.” Given that it’s preceded by ”hina,” a purpose clause: “in order that,” or, “so that,” it is best stated “I will not lose any,” or in the wooden sense, “I will not destroy those given me.”

Likewise, in 17:2, the Son again states that He has “authority over all flesh,” and that the authority extends to His giving eternal life to all that the Father gives Him.

Moreover, Jesus claims to be ”the Good Shepherd,” if he were destroying, or losing the sheep that the Father gives Him, He wouldn’t be a very good shepherd, would He?

Philthy:

Well, we are in the process of determining why your translation says “should” rather than “will without fail” and the distinction is critical.

Again, that wasn’t my translation; it was Ryan’s.

Philthy:

If it is the Father’s will that Christ SHOULD raise them but He CHOSES not to obviate their will to reject His offer, then your point seems off the mark.

Well Phil, Christ says that those given to Him by the Father “will come to Me,” and He says nothing about their doing so against their will.

Men are not robots; they act according to the desires of their heart which direct their will.

Those given to the Son by the Father come willingly in His time. I know I did.

Philthy:

We are secure that God loves and has provided the means through Christ, but we must accept that offer and embrace all that it entails - empowered by God’s grace at every step.

God has provided…but we must…

The requirement is much simpler than “embracing all the gospel entails;” I don’t think anyone has the capacity for the full understanding of the Gospel, nor do I believe that a full understanding of the Gospel is necessary for salvation, but grace.

We are simple and forgiven for past, present, and future failings (Col 2:14), therefore, salvation is not about perfection; it is about mercy, grace, believing, bearing fruit, persevering in Christ; and, all that, as you say, “empowered by God’s grace at every step.”

 

[Pax]

…
…therefore, salvation is not about perfection; it is about mercy, grace, believing, bearing fruit, persevering in Christ; and, all that, as you say, “empowered by God’s grace at every step.”

I like the sound of this…are we beginning to see it the same way?

 

[Ignatius]

All my Evangelical eyes read . . . .

Actually that is the problem. Let’s just take what the Bible says. The bible says that we are saved by “grace alone”, not “faith alone”. The bible also says “Faith without works is dead”. The bible also tells us that faith is greater than love, so we can’t be saved by “faith alone”.

 

[banjo]

Actually that is the problem. Let’s just take what the Bible says. The bible says that we are saved by “grace alone”, not “faith alone”. The bible also says “Faith without works is dead”. The bible also tells us that faith is greater than love, so we can’t be saved by “faith alone”.

I think you meant to say “love is greater than faith.”

 

[Philthy]

sandusky;3745409]That’s Ryan’s quote from Ryan’s bible. I prefer the NASB

Thanks Sandusky for the info - I knew “should” didnt belong in your argument. At least I understand that much.
There still seems to be some ambiguity as to who the “all He has given Me” verse refers to. The same ambiguity remains in “all who behold the Son”. There are also verse John 5:24 which says “whoever hears my voice and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation” And I tend to relate such verses to the people who met Christ during his earthly lifetime, but I could be wrong. The thief on the cross would be a great example of someone who “beheld” Christ and “heard his voice” and “believed” and was saved. How, exactly those verses apply to the rest of us is not as clear IMHO.
It doesnt seem to matter though, **if **Im understanding your position correctly: either I have been given to Christ by the Father or I have not - and nothing I do will change that reality. After all, if anything I did altered that reality then your puzzlement over…

"God has provided…but we must…

would make no sense at all. But then you go on to make this statement…

… salvation is not about perfection; it is about mercy, grace, believing, bearing fruit, persevering in Christ; and, all that, as you say, “empowered by God’s grace at every step.”

and Im confused yet again. I have yet to understand your concept of free will and the point of making this comment. I wouldnt have expected you to make such claims regarding salvation. Its baffling to me - either we are predestined and we dont need to discuss it, or we arent predestined and doing things like discussing the nature of faith, avoiding pitfalls, etc has an impact on it. In fact, if you believe you are predestined to glory why would you waste time here? It seems pointless. I must not understand you fully, I guess. The concept of certain actions only bearing on our rewards in Heaven doesnt really seem to help either. I know from experience that’s where the discussion is headed next…

 

[Philthy]

Sandusky:

Christ says that those given to Him by the Father “will come to Me,” and He says nothing about their doing so against their will. Men are not robots; they act according to the desires of their heart which direct their will.

I need a one word answer from you on the following question:
Does God direct the desires of men’s hearts which direct their wills? Yes or No, please.

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

There still seems to be some ambiguity as to who the “all He has given Me” verse refers to. The same ambiguity remains in “all who behold the Son”.

There are also verse John 5:24 which says “whoever hears my voice and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation” And I tend to relate such verses to the people who met Christ during his earthly lifetime, but I could be wrong.

Then Jn 6:53ff doesn’t apply you to either because you didn’t hear Him say it.

With that hermeneutic, you may as well throw the book out, because it’s of no use.

Philthy:

It doesnt seem to matter though, if Im understanding your position correctly: either I have been given to Christ by the Father or I have not - and nothing I do will change that reality.

That’s true of RC predestination as well—you’re either elect to glory, or, you’re not.

Philthy:

I need a one word answer from you on the following question:
Does God direct the desires of men’s hearts which direct their wills? Yes or No, please.

I can’t comply with your request as restricted.

 

[ryanoneil]

Also, give me one verse that states someone lost salvation. I do not consider “falling,” “stumbling,” “shipwrecking faith,” or “severing” as stating a loss of salvation.

Should I even bother? Do you consider any term as a loss of salvation. Give me one term, so I’m not wasting my time.

You continue to assert a group of people “predestined to grace but not glory” while offering no proof for them.

I’ve offered plenty of proof. You don’t accept it.

This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
(1 Pet 3:21)

Whoever is (water) baptized is saved. So, are they eternally secure then?

Peace,

Ryan

 

[guanophore]

***And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it up on the last day. ***(John 6:39)

The will of the Father is that Jesus should lose none of those given to Him, and that He should raise up on the last day each of those given to Him by the Father.

Indeed. Yet we know that the will of the Father that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth is not fulfilled:

“…the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves…” Luke 7:30

It does say the ones given to the Son by the Father are secure because it’s the Father’s will that Son should raise up on the last day each of those given to Him by the Father—that’s the Father’s will for the Son: that the Son raise up the ones the Father gives to Him to be raised up.

“…if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live…” Rom 8:13

You’re saying that Jesus will not do the will of the Father, because He will not raise up those given to Him by the Father when it’s the Father’s will that He do so.

Not at all! Jesus will keep all those who hear His voice, and follow Him. Those that decide to reject His purpose for themselves, he will allow to walk away, just as He allowed the disciples to walk away in Jn. 6

Also, give me one verse that states someone lost salvation. I do not consider “falling,” “stumbling,” “shipwrecking faith,” or “severing” as stating a loss of salvation.

It is amazing that one can read these words, and still think that a person severed from Christ can be saved. Personally, however, I think it is not useful to focus on “loss” of salvation so much as it is a failure to attain it. Apostolic teaching does not present salvation as one event that happens at one time, for all time. On the contrary, the Apostles indicate that we should wait for it with patience, and that a mature attitude is one which does not consider that we have already attained.

“And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, 12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” Heb 6:11-12

You continue to assert a group of people “predestined to grace but not glory” while offering no proof for them.

I’ve shown that scripture knows two groups—those elect to glory, and those not elect to glory.

God desires that all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. He calls all. Yet, not all are saved, are they?

If we deny Him, He also will deny us. Speaks of a final, permanent denial, such as that of an apostate (cf 1 Tim 2:19, note, a shipwreck of faith, not a loss of salvation that they did not possess), not the temporary failure of a true believer like Peter (Matt. 26:69–75). Those who so deny Christ give evidence that they never truly belonged to Him (1 John 2:19) and face the fearful reality of one day being denied by Him (Matt. 10:33).

This is certainly a valid calvanist view. But we can see from the scriptures that Peter knew he had cut himself off from Christ. He went back to fishing, becuase he knew he was no longer worthy to be a fisher of men.

2:13 faithless. This refers to a lack of saving faith, not to weak or struggling faith. Unbelievers will ultimately deny Christ because their faith was not genuine (cf. James 2:14–26). He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself. As faithful as Jesus is to save those who believe in Him (John 3:16), He is equally faithful to judge those who do not (John 3:18). To act any other way would be inconsistent with His holy, unchangeable nature (cf. Heb 10:23).

Jesus will save those that choose to remain in HIm. He allows those that choose not to remain to leave. Do you believe there is such a thing as weak or struggling faith? Do you consider that such faith can save?