OSAS origins and comparison

[OMC]

I did not call you schizo; I asked whether you were, and I explained why I asked, which you merely noted without acknowledging that my reasons were valid, thereby causing our discussion to bog. However, you are correct that I am frustrated by that ambivalence aka talking out of both sides of one's mouth.

Although some prooftexts may seem to portray God as forcing only some folks to "believe"/be elect, thereby being unfair and unloving,
those passages per the NT context/frame reveal God to be omniloving and to not show favoritism. IOW, grammar can take you only part way to understanding God's Word. Harmonization is also needed to complete the revelation.

You didn’t “ask whether I was schizophrenic,” you used the label to explain why you think I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth, but the problem isn’t my consistency — it’s that you’re trying to harmonize Scripture by overriding the grammar of the very passages you cite; you say “grammar can take you only part way,” but that’s exactly how systems get smuggled in, because the NT never teaches an “omniloving, non‑favoritist God who enables all equally and waits to see who cooperates,” it teaches a God who commands all (Acts 17:30), invites all (Isa 55:1), loves the world (John 3:16), but whose grace actually saves those He draws (John 6:44), grants repentance (Acts 11:18), opens hearts (Acts 16:14), and appoints to eternal life (Acts 13:48). Your harmonization works only by redefining these texts so they don’t contradict your claim that souls possess a God‑given MFW capable of either cooperating or not cooperating with grace, but Scripture never describes faith as something the flesh can produce (Rom 8:7–8), never describes repentance as a natural human power (2 Tim 2:25), and never describes belief as an autonomous act independent of divine enablement (John 6:65). The tension you feel isn’t ambivalence in me — it’s the NT refusing to fit the system you’re trying to harmonize it into.

 

[GWH]

The Bible also teaches that it is the power of God who sustains faith.

Scripture teaches that God sustains persevering faith the same way He elicited repenting faith:
without coercion/forcing or favoring-hating anyone. God loves a cheerful/willing believer.

 

[GWH]

You didn’t “ask whether I was schizophrenic,” you used the label to explain why you think I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth, but the problem isn’t my consistency — it’s that you’re trying to harmonize Scripture by overriding the grammar of the very passages you cite; you say “grammar can take you only part way,” but that’s exactly how systems get smuggled in, because the NT never teaches an “omniloving, non‑favoritist God who enables all equally and waits to see who cooperates,” it teaches a God who commands all (Acts 17:30), invites all (Isa 55:1), loves the world (John 3:16), but whose grace actually saves those He draws (John 6:44), grants repentance (Acts 11:18), opens hearts (Acts 16:14), and appoints to eternal life (Acts 13:48). Your harmonization works only by redefining these texts so they don’t contradict your claim that souls possess a God‑given MFW capable of either cooperating or not cooperating with grace, but Scripture never describes faith as something the flesh can produce (Rom 8:7–8), never describes repentance as a natural human power (2 Tim 2:25), and never describes belief as an autonomous act independent of divine enablement (John 6:65). The tension you feel isn’t ambivalence in me — it’s the NT refusing to fit the system you’re trying to harmonize it into.

"I must ask--are you schizophrenic?!"

Now I must ask: Are you myopic?

Yes, context of Scripture overrides grammar of prooftexts.

The NT does indeed teach an omniloving (John 3:16, 1Tim. 2:3-4), non‑favoritist (Rom. 2:11) God.

My harmonization is guided by two NT teachings that may be deemed key points from which to triangulate or use to guide an interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements, including prooftexts cited by tulipists.

First, God loves and wants to save everyone. Scriptures teaching divine omnilove include: John 3:16, 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2 and 1Tim. 2:3-4. Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (Rom. 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ, heretics).

Second, God is just (2Thes. 1:6a, cf. Rom. 3:25-26 & 9:14, Deut. 32:4, Psa. 36:6, Luke 11:42, Rev. 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (Joel 2:13, John 3:16). This parameter is affirmed in the OT (Psa. 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice.

Your objection only works by interpreting prooftexts so they don't contradict your tulip system.
Why do you kick against the goad of God's omnilove?! (Matt. 23:37)

 

[Roger316]

Scripture teaches that God sustains persevering faith the same way He elicited repenting faith:
without coercion/forcing or favoring-hating anyone. God loves a cheerful/willing believer.

Scripture teaches that God does more than that. Salvation is not subtraction; it's addition. First of all, whatever God does is not force, it is a creative act. When he needs a person to be a man of faith who survives into the next age: he speaks that man into existence: Let there be a man of faith who survives into the next age. Second, Scripture strongly supports the perseverance of the saints.

I know that TULIP gives you hives but take your allergy pills and study scriptures like Roman chapter 5, where Paul argues that we can glory in our tribulations because they lead to a hope that will not disappoint us. Peter argues that we will find eternal life by the power of God. James argues that we should rejoice in our tribulations because they will lead to salvation. Paul argues in Ephesians that the saints will have eternal life due to the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul argues that God will defeat our mortality by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[OMC]

"I must ask--are you schizophrenic?!"

Now I must ask: Are you myopic?

Yes, context of Scripture overrides grammar of prooftexts.

The NT does indeed teach an omniloving (John 3:16, 1Tim. 2:3-4), non‑favoritist (Rom. 2:11) God.

My harmonization is guided by two NT teachings that may be deemed key points from which to triangulate or use to guide an interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements, including prooftexts cited by tulipists.

First, God loves and wants to save everyone. Scriptures teaching divine omnilove include: John 3:16, 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2 and 1Tim. 2:3-4. Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (Rom. 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ, heretics).

Second, God is just (2Thes. 1:6a, cf. Rom. 3:25-26 & 9:14, Deut. 32:4, Psa. 36:6, Luke 11:42, Rev. 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (Joel 2:13, John 3:16). This parameter is affirmed in the OT (Psa. 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice.

Your objection only works by interpreting prooftexts so they don't contradict your tulip system.
Why do you kick against the goad of God's omnilove?! (Matt. 23:37)

Brother — your entire reply hinges on a presupposition you never prove: that “omnilove” and “non‑favoritism” must mean equalized enablement, but Scripture never makes that move, and the very texts you cite actually reinforce the distinction you’re trying to erase. John 3:16 and 1 Tim 2:3–4 reveal God’s saving desire, not His saving action, and Rom 2:11 teaches God shows no partiality in judgment, not that He gives identical grace to all; when you elevate these into controlling axioms, you end up forcing every passage to fit them, which is why you must reinterpret John 6:44, Acts 11:18, Acts 16:14, and Acts 13:48 so they don’t contradict your claim that MFW can autonomously cooperate with grace.
But the NT never describes faith as something the flesh can produce (Rom 8:7–8), never describes repentance as a natural human power (2 Tim 2:25), and never describes belief as an act independent of divine enablement (John 6:65); your “harmonization” works only by subordinating grammar to a theological grid, whereas the apostolic pattern is that God commands all (Acts 17:30), invites all (Isa 55:1), and loves the world (John 3:16), yet actually saves those He effectually draws, grants repentance, opens hearts, and appoints to life. The tension you feel is not my “myopia”; it’s the NT refusing to fit a system built on omnilove as equalized grace rather than on grace as effective divine action.

 

[GWH]

Brother — your entire reply hinges on a presupposition you never prove: that “omnilove” and “non‑favoritism” must mean equalized enablement, but Scripture never makes that move, and the very texts you cite actually reinforce the distinction you’re trying to erase. John 3:16 and 1 Tim 2:3–4 reveal God’s saving desire, not His saving action, and Rom 2:11 teaches God shows no partiality in judgment, not that He gives identical grace to all; when you elevate these into controlling axioms, you end up forcing every passage to fit them, which is why you must reinterpret John 6:44, Acts 11:18, Acts 16:14, and Acts 13:48 so they don’t contradict your claim that MFW can autonomously cooperate with grace.
But the NT never describes faith as something the flesh can produce (Rom 8:7–8), never describes repentance as a natural human power (2 Tim 2:25), and never describes belief as an act independent of divine enablement (John 6:65); your “harmonization” works only by subordinating grammar to a theological grid, whereas the apostolic pattern is that God commands all (Acts 17:30), invites all (Isa 55:1), and loves the world (John 3:16), yet actually saves those He effectually draws, grants repentance, opens hearts, and appoints to life. The tension you feel is not my “myopia”; it’s the NT refusing to fit a system built on omnilove as equalized grace rather than on grace as effective divine action.

Actually, equalized/identical enablement is not necessary, but only just consequences for the opportunities one had to repent but refused to cooperate with God's will/love.

 

[OMC]

Actually, equalized/identical enablement is not necessary, but only just consequences for the opportunities one had to repent but refused to cooperate with God's will/love.

I appreciate that you’re trying to protect the idea of fairness in judgment.
But the point I’m making isn’t “humans have no MFW.”
It’s that Scripture never treats MFW as an independent power that can produce saving faith on its own.
When you say “equalized enablement isn’t necessary, only just consequences for the opportunities one had,” you’re still assuming that humans, in their natural state, have the ability to cooperate with grace when they choose.
But the passages I cited show the opposite:
Jesus says no one comes unless the Father draws;
Paul says the flesh cannot submit;
Acts says people believed because God enabled them.
That means the “opportunity” isn’t something the flesh can use unless grace first opens the heart.
So yes, God judges fairly — He judges people for resisting the grace they actually received — but the Bible never describes repentance or faith as something the natural person can generate.
Human response is real, but divine enablement is prior, and that’s why MFW in Scripture is the arena where grace works, not a self‑powered ability that can cooperate with God whenever it wants.

 

[Dave123]

Scripture teaches that God does more than that. Salvation is not subtraction; it's addition. First of all, whatever God does is not force, it is a creative act. When he needs a person to be a man of faith who survives into the next age: he speaks that man into existence: Let there be a man of faith who survives into the next age. Second, Scripture strongly supports the perseverance of the saints.

I know that TULIP gives you hives but take your allergy pills and study scriptures like Roman chapter 5, where Paul argues that we can glory in our tribulations because they lead to a hope that will not disappoint us. Peter argues that we will find eternal life by the power of God. James argues that we should rejoice in our tribulations because they will lead to salvation. Paul argues in Ephesians that the saints will have eternal life due to the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul argues that God will defeat our mortality by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

Romans 5:1-2 We enter into that grace (life and justification) by faith. No meds needed.

I'm afraid that some here are making the classic Calvinist mistake of sssstretching the definition of that life into the faith that brings it. But Scripture disagrees. And I believe the Bible teaches eternal security, .....once we have the life. The life is the indwelling Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9-11). We receive that indwelling as a result of faith (Ephesians 1:13-14, Galatians 3:2-3). The life is what we receive with that indwelling. That's the grace part, the gift, all from the Spirit of God. God drawing us does not equate to life already received.

Romans 5:1-2 can just as easily say that 'it is by faith that we enter into that life', same thing. Something like, 'faith to faith', in Romans 1:17. Jesus is the Author and finisher of that life (Hebrews 12:2, Acts 3:15). He sustains it promises to finish it, but all that is the result of our first beliving to recieve that life, the indwelling Holy Spirit.

D

Thread 'Initial faith and ongoing faith, is a distinction needed between the two to interpret Scripture accurately?'

Jun 20, 2026

The faith that is called "not from the flesh", and "a gift from God", where Jesus is the "Author and Finisher" always seems to be speaking of the ongoing faith, the life, the indwelling Spirit empowered, and not the initial faith.

Romans 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."

The first faith always seems to be about the initial act, like believe, trust in, repent (change of mind), and then the second seems to be about the ongoing faith, as in Jesus is the Author and Perfector of, a gift from God...

• Dave123
• Replies: 58
• Forum: Bible Discussion Forum

• 

 

[Dave123]

But the NT never describes faith as something the flesh can produce (Rom 8:7–8),

It actually does, with the light drawing them.

These were not indwelt with the life yet (Romans 8:9-11), and they believed.

John 7:38-39 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Same with Ephesians 1:13-14, not indwelt with the life yet, but they believed.

Same with Galatians 3:2-3, they were not indwelt with the life yet, but they believed.

The life is always the result of believing.

Back to Romans 5:1-2, we enter into that life by believing.

Remember, with the Holy Spirit indwelling, life, without the Holy Spirit indwellingt, no life.

That's what it says, I know you agree with Romans 8:9-11, as all Calvinists do, just connect the dots.

Romans 8:9-11 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Believe, and be delivered/saved both positionally/legally, and practically/the life.

 

[OMC]

It actually does, with the light drawing them.

These were not indwelt with the life yet (Romans 8:9-11), and they believed.

John 7:38-39 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Same with Ephesians 1:13-14, not indwelt with the life yet, but they believed.

Same with Galatians 3:2-3, they were not indwelt with the life yet, but they believed.

The life is always the result of believing.

Back to Romans 5:1-2, we enter into that life by believing.

Remember, with the Holy Spirit indwelling, life, without the Holy Spirit indwellingt, no life.

That's what it says, I know you agree with Romans 8:9-11, as all Calvinists do, just connect the dots.

Romans 8:9-11 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Believe, and be delivered/saved both positionally/legally, and practically/the life.

I see what you’re trying to show: people believed before the Spirit was given, so you’re saying their faith must have come from “the flesh.”
But the New Testament never describes pre‑Pentecost faith as something people produced on their own.
It always ties their believing to God’s drawing, God’s revealing, and God’s enabling, even before the Spirit was given in the New Covenant way.
In John 7:38–39, Jesus is saying the Spirit had not yet been given as indwelling life, but He never says people believed without God’s help.
In fact, earlier in the same Gospel Jesus says, “No one comes to Me unless the Father draws him.”
That was spoken before Pentecost.
The same pattern shows up everywhere:
Lydia believed because “the Lord opened her heart”;
the Gentiles in Acts believed because “God granted repentance”;
the disciples believed because “it was given to them.”
So yes, people believed before they were indwelt — that part is true — but the Bible never calls that belief a product of the flesh.
It calls it a result of God’s work before the Spirit’s indwelling.
And you’re right that life comes after believing;
Romans 8 makes that clear.
But Romans 8 also says the flesh cannot submit to God, which means the believing that leads to life is still something God enables. The order is: God draws → we believe → God gives life. The human response is real, but the ability to respond comes from God.

 

[Roger316]

Romans 5:1-2 We enter into that grace (life and justification) by faith. No meds needed.

I'm afraid that some here are making the classic Calvinist mistake of sssstretching the definition of that life into the faith that brings it. But Scripture disagrees. And I believe the Bible teaches eternal security, .....once we have the life. The life is the indwelling Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9-11). We receive that indwelling as a result of faith (Ephesians 1:13-14, Galatians 3:2-3). The life is what we receive with that indwelling. That's the grace part, the gift, all from the Spirit of God. God drawing us does not equate to life already received.

Romans 5:1-2 can just as easily say that 'it is by faith that we enter into that life', same thing. Something like, 'faith to faith', in Romans 1:17. Jesus is the Author and finisher of that life (Hebrews 12:2, Acts 3:15). He sustains it promises to finish it, but all that is the result of our first beliving to recieve that life, the indwelling Holy Spirit.

D

Thread 'Initial faith and ongoing faith, is a distinction needed between the two to interpret Scripture accurately?'

Jun 20, 2026

The faith that is called "not from the flesh", and "a gift from God", where Jesus is the "Author and Finisher" always seems to be speaking of the ongoing faith, the life, the indwelling Spirit empowered, and not the initial faith.

Romans 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."

The first faith always seems to be about the initial act, like believe, trust in, repent (change of mind), and then the second seems to be about the ongoing faith, as in Jesus is the Author and Perfector of, a gift from God...

• Dave123
• Replies: 58
• Forum: Bible Discussion Forum

• 

I'm not following you. I mean, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

[rogerg]

I appreciate that you’re trying to protect the idea of fairness in judgment.
But the point I’m making isn’t “humans have no MFW.”
It’s that Scripture never treats MFW as an independent power that can produce saving faith on its own.
When you say “equalized enablement isn’t necessary, only just consequences for the opportunities one had,” you’re still assuming that humans, in their natural state, have the ability to cooperate with grace when they choose.
But the passages I cited show the opposite:
Jesus says no one comes unless the Father draws;
Paul says the flesh cannot submit;
Acts says people believed because God enabled them.
That means the “opportunity” isn’t something the flesh can use unless grace first opens the heart.
So yes, God judges fairly — He judges people for resisting the grace they actually received — but the Bible never describes repentance or faith as something the natural person can generate.
Human response is real, but divine enablement is prior, and that’s why MFW in Scripture is the arena where grace works, not a self‑powered ability that can cooperate with God whenever it wants.

OMC, your order of salvation (God draws → we believe → God gives life) still puts the cart before the horse. Have you considered 2 Peter 1:1? The text says we have "obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Faith is a gift that is obtained only through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. The text does not say we believe to make Him our Savior; we are informed in the verse that Jesus was already their Savior, meaning they had already become saved. Salvation happens first as a sovereign act of God, and faith is the immediate result of that salvation. Turning faith into a condition that causes spiritual life invalidates the intent of the text.

[2Pe 1:1 KJV] 1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

​

 

[GWH]

I appreciate that you’re trying to protect the idea of fairness in judgment.
But the point I’m making isn’t “humans have no MFW.”
It’s that Scripture never treats MFW as an independent power that can produce saving faith on its own.
When you say “equalized enablement isn’t necessary, only just consequences for the opportunities one had,” you’re still assuming that humans, in their natural state, have the ability to cooperate with grace when they choose.
But the passages I cited show the opposite:
Jesus says no one comes unless the Father draws;
Paul says the flesh cannot submit;
Acts says people believed because God enabled them.
That means the “opportunity” isn’t something the flesh can use unless grace first opens the heart.
So yes, God judges fairly — He judges people for resisting the grace they actually received — but the Bible never describes repentance or faith as something the natural person can generate.
Human response is real, but divine enablement is prior, and that’s why MFW in Scripture is the arena where grace works, not a self‑powered ability that can cooperate with God whenever it wants.

Why would anyone NOT want to believe Scripture when it says God is just/does not show favoritism?
If souls cannot choose to have saving faith, then there is no MFW and the responsibility for not repenting is God's.
I believe everyone has at least one opportunity to repent during their life on earth, and justice for not doing so occurs in hell.
God draws all, but not irresistibly; Paul encouraged all natural persons not to be carnal/resist God's leading.
God enables MFW, which souls may exercise to believe Jesus or Satan. God initiates; souls may cooperate--or not.
Isaiah blamed God for closed hearts, but Jesus amended it to assign blame to humans.
Divine enablement/grace does not nullify divine permission/MFW.

 

[OMC]

Why would anyone NOT want to believe Scripture when it says God is just/does not show favoritism?
If souls cannot choose to have saving faith, then there is no MFW and the responsibility for not repenting is God's.
I believe everyone has at least one opportunity to repent during their life on earth, and justice for not doing so occurs in hell.
God draws all, but not irresistibly; Paul encouraged all natural persons not to be carnal/resist God's leading.
God enables MFW, which souls may exercise to believe Jesus or Satan. God initiates; souls may cooperate--or not.
Isaiah blamed God for closed hearts, but Jesus amended it to assign blame to humans.
Divine enablement/grace does not nullify divine permission/MFW.

Your pushback rests on a moral intuition Scripture affirms (God is just, God shows no favoritism), but you’re smuggling in a definition of justice Scripture never uses: justice = equalized ability to produce saving faith.

 

[OMC]

OMC, your order of salvation (God draws → we believe → God gives life) still puts the cart before the horse. Have you considered 2 Peter 1:1? The text says we have "obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Faith is a gift that is obtained only through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. The text does not say we believe to make Him our Savior; we are informed in the verse that Jesus was already their Savior, meaning they had already become saved. Salvation happens first as a sovereign act of God, and faith is the immediate result of that salvation. Turning faith into a condition that causes spiritual life invalidates the intent of the text.

[2Pe 1:1 KJV] 1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

​

Your reading of 2 Peter 1:1 is sharp, but the conclusion you draw from it doesn’t actually follow from the grammar: Peter says believers have “obtained” (lagchanō, aorist active) faith as a gift, but he does not say they “obtained salvation first and then faith followed”; he says faith itself is the thing obtained, and the means of obtaining it is “through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ,” meaning faith is grounded in Christ’s saving work, not generated by human autonomy.

 

[rogerg]

Your reading of 2 Peter 1:1 is sharp, but the conclusion you draw from it doesn’t actually follow from the grammar: Peter says believers have “obtained” (lagchanō, aorist active) faith as a gift, but he does not say they “obtained salvation first and then faith followed”; he says faith itself is the thing obtained, and the means of obtaining it is “through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ,” meaning faith is grounded in Christ’s saving work, not generated by human autonomy.

OMC, I think you may have missed the subtly within the verse, which is very easy to do. The text explicitly states that this faith was obtained through "our Saviour Jesus Christ." By using the personal pronoun "our" right next to the title "Saviour," Peter is informing us that Jesus was already their Savior before they obtained the faith. If Jesus was not already their Savior, calling Him "our Saviour" at that point would be completely incorrect. You cannot have a Savior until you are saved. For it to have been stated that way, salvation to happen first.

 

[OMC]

OMC, I think you may have missed the subtly within the verse, which is very easy to do. The text explicitly states that this faith was obtained through "our Saviour Jesus Christ." By using the personal pronoun "our" right next to the title "Saviour," Peter is informing us that Jesus was already their Savior before they obtained the faith. If Jesus was not already their Savior, calling Him "our Saviour" at that point would be completely incorrect. You cannot have a Savior until you are saved. For it to have been stated that way, salvation to happen first.

Here’s the Greek for 2 Peter 1:1, with the key terms highlighted so you can see exactly what the grammar is doing:
Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦτοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστινἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ Σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

λαχοῦσιν πίστιν — having obtained faith (aorist active participle of λαγχάνω, meaning “to receive by allotment, to obtain as a gift”). This is the thing obtained, not salvation.
ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ — through / by means of the righteousness This is the means by which faith is obtained.
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ Σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ — of our God and Savior Jesus Christ This is a title, not a timestamp.
The pronoun ἡμῶν (“our”) is confessional, not chronological.

Your argument tries to turn ἡμῶν (“our”) into a temporal marker, as if Peter were saying: “Jesus was already your Savior before you obtained faith.” But Greek doesn’t work that way.
Titles like ὁ Σωτήρ (“the Savior”) describe who Christ is by virtue of His accomplished work, not when an individual believer came to share in that salvation.

The grammar is simple:
Faith is what was obtained.
It was obtained through Christ’s righteousness.
Christ is called our Savior because that is His identity for the church, not because Peter is describing a sequence where salvation precedes faith.

 

[rogerg]

Here’s the Greek for 2 Peter 1:1, with the key terms highlighted so you can see exactly what the grammar is doing:
Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦτοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστινἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ Σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

λαχοῦσιν πίστιν — having obtained faith (aorist active participle of λαγχάνω, meaning “to receive by allotment, to obtain as a gift”). This is the thing obtained, not salvation.
ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ — through / by means of the righteousness This is the means by which faith is obtained.
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ Σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ — of our God and Savior Jesus Christ This is a title, not a timestamp.
The pronoun ἡμῶν (“our”) is confessional, not chronological.

Your argument tries to turn ἡμῶν (“our”) into a temporal marker, as if Peter were saying: “Jesus was already your Savior before you obtained faith.” But Greek doesn’t work that way.
Titles like ὁ Σωτήρ (“the Savior”) describe who Christ is by virtue of His accomplished work, not when an individual believer came to share in that salvation.

The grammar is simple:
Faith is what was obtained.
It was obtained through Christ’s righteousness.
Christ is called our Savior because that is His identity for the church, not because Peter is describing a sequence where salvation precedes faith.

OMC, I disagree. You admit that faith is a gift received "through Christ's accomplished work." If faith is a gift produced entirely by Christ's accomplished work, then that work had to be completely done before the gift was ever given to the believer.
You claim the title "our Savior" isn't chronological, but a title can't be used if the reality isn't true yet. If a person is still an unsaved, spiritually dead sinner who hasn't believed, then Jesus is not "their" Savior at that moment. You require Peter to use a title that means nothing until the human being performs an act of faith.
By defining faith as a gift that comes from His completed righteousness, the text locks Christ's work as the cause and our faith as the result. In effect, you are arguing that the fruit must exist before the root has life. The "church" is not mentioned nor implied in the verse. It directly pertains specifically to the to "them that have obtained"

 

[OMC]

OMC, I disagree. You admit that faith is a gift received "through Christ's accomplished work." If faith is a gift produced entirely by Christ's accomplished work, then that work had to be completely done before the gift was ever given to the believer.
You claim the title "our Savior" isn't chronological, but a title can't be used if the reality isn't true yet. If a person is still an unsaved, spiritually dead sinner who hasn't believed, then Jesus is not "their" Savior at that moment. You require Peter to use a title that means nothing until the human being performs an act of faith.
By defining faith as a gift that comes from His completed righteousness, the text locks Christ's work as the cause and our faith as the result. In effect, you are arguing that the fruit must exist before the root has life.

You’re pressing a real concern—cause and effect—but you’re flipping the categories.

Christ’s work and Christ’s title are objective; my participation in that work is subjective.
The cross and resurrection are historically finished; that’s why He is Savior in the full, objective sense before I ever exist.
But my being saved is not identical to His being Savior; it’s my sharing in what He already is and has done.
Peter can call Him “our God and Savior” because he’s speaking as a member of the believing community, not as a narrator of the pre‑conversion state of each individual.
The pronoun ἡμῶν is ecclesial—“the One we confess as Savior”—not a claim that every person he ever addresses was already saved before faith.

On the cause/effect point: yes, Christ’s righteousness is the cause, and faith is the result, but the result is not “salvation without faith”; the result is faith itself as the God‑given instrument by which salvation is applied.
You’re treating faith as if it were the fruit of already‑applied salvation; Peter treats faith as the fruit of Christ’s accomplished righteousness—the means by which that righteousness is then received.
Root: Christ’s finished work.
Fruit: God‑given faith.
Salvation, in personal terms, is the union of the believer with that root through that faith.
So no, I’m not saying “fruit before root”; I’m saying “root before branch, and faith is the grafting point.”

If you want to push this further, the real exegetical hinge is whether λαχοῦσιν πίστιν names “faith as the obtained gift” (which the Greek plainly does) or “salvation already possessed before faith” (which the text never says).

 

[rogerg]

You’re pressing a real concern—cause and effect—but you’re flipping the categories.

Christ’s work and Christ’s title are objective; my participation in that work is subjective.
The cross and resurrection are historically finished; that’s why He is Savior in the full, objective sense before I ever exist.
But my being saved is not identical to His being Savior; it’s my sharing in what He already is and has done.
Peter can call Him “our God and Savior” because he’s speaking as a member of the believing community, not as a narrator of the pre‑conversion state of each individual.
The pronoun ἡμῶν is ecclesial—“the One we confess as Savior”—not a claim that every person he ever addresses was already saved before faith.

On the cause/effect point: yes, Christ’s righteousness is the cause, and faith is the result, but the result is not “salvation without faith”; the result is faith itself as the God‑given instrument by which salvation is applied.
You’re treating faith as if it were the fruit of already‑applied salvation; Peter treats faith as the fruit of Christ’s accomplished righteousness—the means by which that righteousness is then received.
Root: Christ’s finished work.
Fruit: God‑given faith.
Salvation, in personal terms, is the union of the believer with that root through that faith.
So no, I’m not saying “fruit before root”; I’m saying “root before branch, and faith is the grafting point.”

If you want to push this further, the real exegetical hinge is whether λαχοῦσιν πίστιν names “faith as the obtained gift” (which the Greek plainly does) or “salvation already possessed before faith” (which the text never says).

OMC, your grafting analogy invalidates your timeline. You claim that Christ's finished work is the root, and faith is the grafting point that leads to life. But a dead, withered branch cannot graft itself or perform an act of faith to get moisture from the root. The vine must sovereignly quicken and graft the branch first, and faith is the immediate result of that new life flowing through it.
You admit that Christ's righteousness is the cause and faith is the result. Because His accomplished work is absolute cause, then our salvation was fully secured by Him before we ever drew a breath of faith. You are trying to insert a human condition between Christ's finished work and the quickening of a dead soul. The plain words of 2 Peter 1:1 state that faith is an asset obtained through "our Saviour," not through any actions of man thus locking His relationship to us prior to the obtaining of the gift.