Protestants: Do You Believe in Free Will or the Monergism of Sola Gratia (by grace alone)?

[Anna_Scott]

It would have taken you less than 10 seconds to get the general idea by looking at it. Here’s a relevant quote.

 

[RevDrNorth]

The overwhelming scriptural support is for Monergism (ie Reformed theology or Calvinism). That is why they sometimes get accused of arrogance as they refer to scripture to explain away objections, etc. The problem for many is that scriptural or not they (Arminians, Open Theists, etc) object to it on philosophical grounds.

I will see if I can find a link to a good explanation I saw that also addressed objections from scripture.

Christianity Today has written a couple of articles about the resurgence of Calvinism among the young theologians etc.

(MacArthur, Sproul, Piper are excellent but of course are from another generation). There is a whole crop of new intellectuals embracing it. Of course Al Mohler is as someone mentioned the head of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and an ardent Calvinist influenced by Carl Henry among others.

 

[Anna_Scott]

The overwhelming scriptural support is for Monergism (ie Reformed theology or Calvinism). That is why they sometimes get accused of arrogance as they refer to scripture to explain away objections, etc. The problem for many is that scriptural or not they (Arminians, Open Theists, etc) object to it on philosophical grounds.

I will see if I can find a link to a good explanation I saw that also addressed objections from scripture.

Christianity Today has written a couple of articles about the resurgence of Calvinism among the young theologians etc.

(MacArthur, Sproul, Piper are excellent but of course are from another generation). There is a whole crop of new intellectuals embracing it. Of course Al Mohler is as someone mentioned the head of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and an ardent Calvinist influenced by Carl Henry among others.

RevDrNorth:

Very interesting comments.
If you don’t mind my asking, do you base your beliefs, about Monergism, solely upon Scripture; or do you rely upon Scripture in light of tradition?

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

The overwhelming scriptural support is for Monergism (ie Reformed theology or Calvinism). That is why they sometimes get accused of arrogance as they refer to scripture to explain away objections, etc. The problem for many is that scriptural or not they (Arminians, Open Theists, etc) object to it on philosophical grounds.

I will see if I can find a link to a good explanation I saw that also addressed objections from scripture.

Christianity Today has written a couple of articles about the resurgence of Calvinism among the young theologians etc.

(MacArthur, Sproul, Piper are excellent but of course are from another generation). There is a whole crop of new intellectuals embracing it. Of course Al Mohler is as someone mentioned the head of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and an ardent Calvinist influenced by Carl Henry among others.

RevDrNorth:

Very interesting comments.
If you don’t mind my asking, do you base your beliefs, about Monergism, solely upon Scripture; or do you rely upon Scripture in light of tradition?

If you believe in the “irresistible grace” of Monergism:
*That would mean God/Christ calls with “irresistible grace;”
If Christ draws all people to Himself;
Wouldn’t the assertions of Monergism necessarily lead to the idea of salvation for all mankind = universal salvation?
*

John 12:31-33 (ESV): 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." 33 He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.

I’m not taking a position on universal salvation; I’m just posing the question.

I welcome your comments.
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .Here’s a relevant quote.

“Lordship salvation is the position that receiving Christ involves a turning in the heart from sin and, as a part of faith, a submissive commitment to obey Jesus Christ as Lord. It also maintains that progressive sanctification and perseverance must necessarily follow conversion. Those who hold to the doctrine of perseverance of the saints see this not only as a requirement, but an assured certainty according to the sustaining grace of Christ.”

**Are you using this quote to support “once saved, always saved”? **

There are, indeed, many passages in the Bible that refer to Predestination.

Does the reference to predestination mean that God knows who will, and who will not answer His call? Or, does the reference to predestination mean that God chooses who he will enable or “regenerate” to answer His call, removing man’s “free will” in salvation?

Romans 11:32: does say, “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.”

It does appear that God is affecting “free will” by “consigning all to disobedience.”

Do you believe this means our “free will,” in the salvation process, has been removed for all time?

God does know who will or will not answer His call. There is a reason behind who does and does not answer His call. Ultimately, that reason is God. The position of compatibilism is that this does not remove man’s free will in salvation. Incompatibilists exist on both sides of this issue. I don’t think incompatibilism is a good choice.

If the reason behind who does and does not answer God’s call, is God, as you said; does that mean we have no free will?

God has consigned all to disobedience. That means we are dead in our sins. As an illustration, let me present to you an example of a dead person: Lazarus. We, like Lazarus, all start off dead in our sins. This spiritual death is every bit as real as physical death. The only difference is that one kind of death is spiritual and the other is physical. Lazarus obviously had free will, just like everyone else. However, when he was dead, he was unable to cooperate with Jesus’ act of raising him to life. He was, after all, dead. And so were we all, once.

**I agree that apart from salvation, we will suffer both physical and spiritual death.

Lazarus was physically dead.

You stated, “He was, after all, dead. And so were we all, once.”**

As far as I know, I have not been “physically” dead, as Lazarus was. So, I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say.

The statement, “Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe,” seems to directly contradict Monergism’s assertion that God’s “pretemporal choice was not based on the fact that God knew which persons would believe of their own free will”

I don’t think there’s a contradiction. God did know- from the beginning- who would and would not believe. But His pretemporal choice was, at best, indirectly based on us. God’s choice was based on God’s will.

**Are you saying God’s choice is based solely on His will, without regard to His foreknowledge of who will and who will not answer His call?
**

If the call of God is “irresistible” (as Monergism asserts,) and Christ promises He will draw all people to Himself, wouldn’t it follow that all men will be saved due to the "irresistible call of Christ?

Christ’s call to “all men” refers to the inclusion of Gentiles. The immediate cause of this “call” is His death on the Cross. Your argument fails because it equates this “calling of all men” with the Spirit’s work of regeneration. This call “to all men” is the work of Jesus. Irresistible grace is the work of the Holy Spirit.

**Indeed, the call was extended to Gentiles as well as Jews. “All men” means “all men,” both Jews and non-Jews. “All men” is all-inclusive.

You are saying God’s call was “caused” by the death of Christ on the Cross. Not sure what you are trying to say. Please clarify.
**

Is man incapable of cooperating with God in Salvation?

Is a dead man capable of cooperating with God in raising him to life?

**The question: Is man incapable of cooperating with God in Salvation? **

Monergism espouses a hard determinism. You are welcome to state how you believe these other ideas or theologies pertain to our topic.

If you want to do monergism and hard determinism, it’s doable. But it’s certainly not a necessity, nor do I believe it’s the right choice.

**I actually disagree with the “irresistible grace” of Monergism, as stated in earlier Posts. I believe we do have free will; and that God knows who will, and who will not answer His call.

Are you saying you do** believe in Monergism, or are you saying you do not believe in Monergism. It is difficult to tell from one statement to the next.

Does man’s “free will” always choose to reject God, apart from God’s intervention to “regenerate” man and prepare him for His “irresistible” call to salvation?

Let me answer your question with a question. Would you pray this prayer?

“God, I give you glory for everything else, but not my faith … This is the one thing that is my very own that I produced of my fallen natural capacities. For this little bit the glory is mine. So I thank you Lord that I am not like other men who do not have faith. When you extended your grace to all men some did not make use of it, BUT I DID.While You deserve glory for all I have Lord, my faith was the one part that I contributed to the price of my redemption, apart from and independent of the effectual work of Your Holy Spirit.”

The Question: Does man’s “free will” always choose to reject God, apart from God’s intervention to “regenerate” man and prepare him for His “irresistible” call to salvation?

Is our acceptance of Christ not a joint venture between us and God, but a unilateral move on God’s part?

Man has free will, and God is still as sovereign as He ever was. I don’t dispute your decision to lock the horns of God’s foreknowledge and our free will, but I do dispute the way in which you’ve done it.

**What do you dispute?

Anna**

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The overwhelming scriptural support is for Monergism (ie Reformed theology or Calvinism). That is why they sometimes get accused of arrogance as they refer to scripture to explain away objections, etc. The problem for many is that scriptural or not they (Arminians, Open Theists, etc) object to it on philosophical grounds.

I .

This is just not the case. You must ignore most of the new testament to hold the views of Calvin.

You cling to a small number of verses which appear to support your position.

 

[RickHolland]

Free will does not mean we can do anything we chose to do. Choices are restricted to our inherited nature. For example, a person might choose to swim from one side of the pool to the other, but a person cannot chose to fly from one side to the other because his inherited nature prevents this. Likewise, a person cannot decide to make himself righteous because one’s inherited sin nature prevents him from making himself righteous. Therefore, man’s freewill is limited by his inherited nature in both the physical and spiritual sense.

Romans 8:23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”
Romans 3:9-11 "For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.”

This is God’s assessment of our sin nature. So what is man to do if by his very nature cannot make himself righteous according to the perfect standard of God? We need a substitute and a change of nature, which is only accomplished by God.

Romans 4:5-8 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”

God speaks through Paul not only about David, but also of Abraham being made righteous by imputation.

Summary: We have free will to make choices, but we are limited as to the choices by both our physical nature and our spiritual nature. All have fallen short and no one would choose God without God changing the spiritual nature first. Once God does move, then we can and will choose God. God’s will is sovereign over man’s will because God does not have the limits on His nature that we do on ours.

 

[RickHolland]

This is just not the case. You must ignore most of the new testament to hold the views of Calvin.

You cling to a small number of verses which appear to support your position.

Can you give support to that claim? Can you find support that also refutes that claim?

 

[ChosenAndCalled]

Irresistable grace applies to salvation - that singular event that happens when God transforms us from Dead in Sins to Alive in Christ. At that moment, when He works in us a regeneration of our hearts, we see our sin and know we need a savior. We are unable to resist His call of grace, not because we want to resist, but the very nature of the call answers our most fervent plea: save me. Having made us alive, we are aware of our sin for the first time and desperate for a savior.

Irresistable grace does not apply to the unregenerate. Obviously they are able to resist, or - more accurately - unable to hear the call. Their hearts are dead and not open to the message.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Can you give support to that claim? Can you find support that also refutes that claim?

I’ll provide a few verses that contradict Calvinism:

1. Unconditional Election

Matt 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Gal 6
7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

1. Limited Atonement:

Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.
John 12:31-32

Since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
1Cor. 15:21-22

Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. Rom. 5:18

1. Irresistible grace

1 Timothy 1:19 “Keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and their faith has been shipwrecked”.

2 Timothy 2:12 “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us”.

1. Perseverence of the Saints

Hebrews 3:12-14 “Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ **if **we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end.”

Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

1 Corinthians 10:12 “Therefore let him who thinks he is standing, beware, that he does not fall”.

2 Peter 2:20-21 “They were made free from the evil in the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But if they return to evil things and those things control them, then it is worse for them than it was before. Yes, it would be better for them to have never known the right way than to know it and to turn away from the holy teaching that was given to them.”

 

[Contarini]

I’ll provide a few verses that contradict Calvinism:

1. Unconditional Election

Matt 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Gal 6
7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

These do not contradict unconditional election. The elect are chosen to do good works, and these good works are rewarded with eternal life (in the Catholic version; in the most common Protestant version they flow from faith, but that’s a separate question).

1. Irresistible grace

1 Timothy 1:19 “Keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and their faith has been shipwrecked”.

2 Timothy 2:12 “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us”.

These contradict perseverance of the saints, not “irresistible grace.”

I agree that limited atonement and perseverance of the regenerate go against a reasonable interpretation of many Scriptural passages. But election and “irresistible grace” are much harder to refute. And it’s no accident that these are the ideas that you find Catholic theologians historically maintaining. They are disturbing ideas, but they can’t simply be rejected out of hand.

Edwin

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

These do not contradict unconditional election. The elect are chosen to do good works, and these good works are rewarded with eternal life (in the Catholic version; in the most common Protestant version they flow from faith, but that’s a separate question).

 

[2nd_Adam]

I’m going to breakout the soda and popcorn on this thread.

 

[twiggymoo]

Luther was a slave to sin and he built an entire theology around it like a misbehaved child who expects to be saved by Big Daddy without having to do anything about his bondage with sin. Hence his famous “pecca fortiter…” – a formula that one can be a slave to sin and be saved. I once began to read his “Bondage of the Will” but got only part-way through it - I saw a side of Luther that Protestants don’t like to talk about-his anger and irrational behavior. This work was his “response” to Erasmus’ treatise on free will. Every page was filled with venomous and angry words.

 

[Contarini]

A man reaps what he sows. That is a condition. Only those who do the will of the Father will be saved. That is a condition.

But not a condition for election. It’s a condition for *salvation. *No one denies that there are conditions for that. What the proponents of unconditional election would claim is that divine election ensures that the elect will fulfill the conditions. You can quote conditions for salvation for weeks on end and you won’t touch the question of election.

If you reject the faith, then you have resisted it. You cannot shipwreck a faith that you don’t already have.

The question under discussion is irresistible grace, not irresistible faith.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say that election and irresistible grace are much harder to refute.

I mean that both Scripture and tradition provide considerable support for these ideas, although I have problems with both of them (by “election” I meant “unconditional” or “ante praevisa merita” election).

The bible is explicit in stating that God wants all men to be saved and Jesus explicitly states that he will draw all men to himself.

So, unless you believe in universal salvation, you must concede that grace is resistible.

Hence the “Thomist” distinction between sufficient and efficient grace. Clearly there is a form of grace that is resistible. Your argument is a very strong one–it’s the main reason I am not a thoroughgoing Augustinian on this issue (using “Augustinian” to cover Thomists, Calvinists, etc.–all who believe in election ante praevisa merita and the irresistibility of that grace which is given to the elect). But it’s not as simple as you are claiming. John 6:37-44, much beloved of Calvinists, says that all whom the Father has given to Jesus will come to him, and that only those “drawn” by the Father come to Jesus.

You are presenting Scripture as monolithic on this issue when it clearly isn’t. The Thomist and classic Molinist positions are perhaps overly complex and seem rather cold-blooded, but they are serious attempts to deal with the complexity of the Biblical evidence. You just skate over this complexity.

Edwin

 

[2nd_Adam]

But not a condition for election. It’s a condition for *salvation. *No one denies that there are conditions for that. What the proponents of unconditional election would claim is that divine election ensures that the elect will fulfill the conditions. You can quote conditions for salvation for weeks on end and you won’t touch the question of election.

The question under discussion is irresistible grace, not irresistible faith.

I mean that both Scripture and tradition provide considerable support for these ideas, although I have problems with both of them (by “election” I meant “unconditional” or “ante praevisa merita” election).

Hence the “Thomist” distinction between sufficient and efficient grace. Clearly there is a form of grace that is resistible. Your argument is a very strong one–it’s the main reason I am not a thoroughgoing Augustinian on this issue (using “Augustinian” to cover Thomists, Calvinists, etc.–all who believe in election ante praevisa merita and the irresistibility of that grace which is given to the elect). But it’s not as simple as you are claiming. John 6:37-44, much beloved of Calvinists, says that all whom the Father has given to Jesus will come to him, and that only those “drawn” by the Father come to Jesus.

You are presenting Scripture as monolithic on this issue when it clearly isn’t. The Thomist and classic Molinist positions are perhaps overly complex and seem rather cold-blooded, but they are serious attempts to deal with the complexity of the Biblical evidence. You just skate over this complexity.

Edwin

Edwin may just be the most valuable poster on this Catholic Forum site. He is fair and balanced, and very informed on the issues. I’m going to refill my tub of butter popcorn and kick back and watch the posts come in. Calinvinsts rule, and Arminians don’t.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . Likewise, a person cannot decide to make himself righteous because one’s inherited sin nature prevents him from making himself righteous. Therefore, man’s freewill is limited by his inherited nature in both the physical and spiritual sense.

. .So what is man to do if by his very nature cannot make himself righteous according to the perfect standard of God? We need a substitute and a change of nature, which is only accomplished by God.

. .God speaks through Paul not only about David, but also of Abraham being made righteous by imputation.

. .We have free will to make choices, but we are limited as to the choices by both our physical nature and our spiritual nature. All have fallen short and no one would choose God without God changing the spiritual nature first. Once God does move, then we can and will choose God. God’s will is sovereign over man’s will because God does not have the limits on His nature that we do on ours.

Irresistable grace applies to salvation - that singular event that happens when God transforms us from Dead in Sins to Alive in Christ. At that moment, when He works in us a regeneration of our hearts, we see our sin and know we need a savior. We are unable to resist His call of grace, not because we want to resist, but the very nature of the call answers our most fervent plea: save me. Having made us alive, we are aware of our sin for the first time and desperate for a savior.

Irresistable grace does not apply to the unregenerate. Obviously they are able to resist, or - more accurately - unable to hear the call. Their hearts are dead and not open to the message.

I’ll provide a few verses that contradict Calvinism:

1. Unconditional Election

Matt 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Gal 6
7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

These do not contradict unconditional election. The elect are chosen to do good works, and these good works are rewarded with eternal life (in the Catholic version; in the most common Protestant version they flow from faith, but that’s a separate question).

1. Irresistible grace

1 Timothy 1:19 “Keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and their faith has been shipwrecked”.

2 Timothy 2:12 “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us”.

These contradict perseverance of the saints, not “irresistible grace.”

I agree that limited atonement and perseverance of the regenerate go against a reasonable interpretation of many Scriptural passages. But election and “irresistible grace” are much harder to refute. And it’s no accident that these are the ideas that you find Catholic theologians historically maintaining. They are disturbing ideas, but they can’t simply be rejected out of hand. Edwin

A man reaps what he sows. That is a condition. Only those who do the will of the Father will be saved. That is a condition.

But not a condition for election. It’s a condition for *salvation. *No one denies that there are conditions for that. What the proponents of unconditional election would claim is that divine election ensures that the elect will fulfill the conditions. You can quote conditions for salvation for weeks on end and you won’t touch the question of election.

If you reject the faith, then you have resisted it. You cannot shipwreck a faith that you don’t already have.

The question under discussion is irresistible grace, not irresistible faith.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say that election and irresistible grace are much harder to refute.

I mean that both Scripture and tradition provide considerable support for these ideas, although I have problems with both of them (by “election” I meant “unconditional” or “ante praevisa merita” election).

The bible is explicit in stating that God wants all men to be saved and Jesus explicitly states that he will draw all men to himself.

So, unless you believe in universal salvation, you must concede that grace is resistible.

Hence the “Thomist” distinction between sufficient and efficient grace. Clearly there is a form of grace that is resistible. Your argument is a very strong one–it’s the main reason I am not a thoroughgoing Augustinian on this issue (using “Augustinian” to cover Thomists, Calvinists, etc.–all who believe in election ante praevisa merita and the irresistibility of that grace which is given to the elect). But it’s not as simple as you are claiming. John 6:37-44, much beloved of Calvinists, says that all whom the Father has given to Jesus will come to him, and that only those “drawn” by the Father come to Jesus.

You are presenting Scripture as monolithic on this issue when it clearly isn’t. The Thomist and classic Molinist positions are perhaps overly complex and seem rather cold-blooded, but they are serious attempts to deal with the complexity of the Biblical evidence. You just skate over this complexity. Edwin

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

But not a condition for election.

 

[RevDrNorth]

RevDrNorth:

Very interesting comments.
If you don’t mind my asking, do you base your beliefs, about Monergism, solely upon Scripture; or do you rely upon Scripture in light of tradition?

If you believe in the “irresistible grace” of Monergism:
*That would mean God/Christ calls with “irresistible grace;”
If Christ draws all people to Himself;
Wouldn’t the assertions of Monergism necessarily lead to the idea of salvation for all mankind = universal salvation?
*

John 12:31-33 (ESV): 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." 33 He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.

I’m not taking a position on universal salvation; I’m just posing the question.

I welcome your comments.
Anna

I smile because Calvinists do not believe in universal salvation. Actually, the all in the verse you refer to does not mean all. Passages in the bible where the term all is used do not always mean all but a subset (in this case Christians). All cannot mean all because other passages CLEARLY state that there is no other name under heaven by which men must be saved AND no one comes to the father but through Jesus.

You may want to look here (many resources): carm.org/
also monergism.com/ (think there are even a couple of Dr. John Piper’s books you can download for free.

 

[RickHolland]

I’ll provide a few verses that contradict Calvinism:

1. Unconditional Election

Matt 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

This speaking to nonbelievers and therefore is not relevant to the question.

Gal 6
7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

How does this equate to election; this is the concept that a sin nature will follow that nature and do evil works in His sight and the righteous mans (believer) new nature will sow righteousness and also receive eternal life.

1. Limited Atonement:

Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw **all **people to myself.
John 12:31-32

Since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
1Cor. 15:21-22

Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. Rom. 5:18

Guess no one ought to be concerned about his religion based on how you are applying “all” as referring to every person ever created. All is “pas” in the Greek and rearely means each and every single person ever created; such are the cases above. When you see a phrase like “Jesus knows the heart of all men”; then the all would be all inclusive.

Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words “world” and “all” are used in some 7 or 8 senses in the Bible, and it is rarely the “all” means all persons created, taken individually. Generally “pas” is used to signify that Christ has/will redeem from of all sorts od tribes, tongues, nations, gender, rich, poor et al.

1. Irresistible grace

1 Timothy 1:19 “Keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and their faith has been shipwrecked”.

2 Timothy 2:12 “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us”.

You are digressing further here. You are suggesting one can loose their salvation in the first verse; if that were true then God lies. Rom 8:29-end

The second passage above should fall more in the category below (perseverance of the saints) Nothing to do with irresistable grace.

1. Perseverence of the Saints

Hebrews 3:12-14 “Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ **if **we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end.”

Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

1 Corinthians 10:12 “Therefore let him who thinks he is standing, beware, that he does not fall”.

2 Peter 2:20-21 “They were made free from the evil in the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But if they return to evil things and those things control them, then it is worse for them than it was before. Yes, it would be better for them to have never known the right way than to know it and to turn away from the holy teaching that was given to them.”

Who does the work of perseverance? Notice the one that fall away in “unbelief” or “thinks he is standing”; (name removed by moderator)liying he is not but rather self deceived. Peter is speakign of intellectual knowledge; the king all religious people have, but only a few are known by Him; that is why He will say “depart from Me I never knew you” Very scary thought; be sure it does not happen to you friend.

I don’t know if I touched on “limited atonement”, but it is the reality that God choses, Paul, John, Peter, Luke, Matthew and Jesus all said it in one way or another; the same with the OT when speaking of Abraham’s true desendants and the phrase a “remnant” found. It always has been and always will be just a remnant. Matt 7:13-14. Total faith based on His all sufficient grace in Christ is the only way anyone gets to heaven. No amount of merited grace or cooperative grace will save anyone. No God saved people strictly by total faith in the OT and the same in the NT. To believe otherwise is a total lack of trust in the cross as I see it.

Forgot to add this:
Ro 15:5 Now may ***the God who gives perseverance ***and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus,

Even perseverance is a gift of God; we persevere, but only because God is working in and through us otherwise we could not persevere. This is another example that the ones that don’t persevere and “fall away” are the very ones that don’t have God dwelling with them.