OSAS origins and comparison

[OMC]

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.

Christ’s finished work is indeed the root, and the dead sinner is indeed a lifeless branch, but Scripture never says the branch is grafted before faith;
it says the branch is made alive by the word, and that faith itself is the first evidence of that life (Eph 2:5; 2 Cor 4:6; Rom 10:17).
The quickening is not “salvation already applied,” it is the capacity to believe—the opening of blind eyes, the freeing of the will, the illumination of the heart.
That’s why Peter says the thing obtained is πίστιν (faith), not σωτηρία (salvation).
Christ is objectively Savior because His work is finished; He becomes my Savior in the moment faith unites me to Him.
The title “our Savior” is ecclesial, not chronological; Peter is speaking as a believer to believers, not describing their pre‑conversion state.
Your argument assumes that if Christ is called “our Savior,” then salvation must already be applied before faith—but that reverses the NT pattern, where faith is the instrument by which salvation is applied, not the result of already‑applied salvation.
The cause is Christ’s righteousness; the result is faith; and salvation is the union created by that faith.
That’s why λαχοῦσιν πίστιν cannot mean “we obtained salvation before faith”—the grammar won’t allow it, and the theology of faith as the instrument won’t allow it either.

 

[rogerg]

Christ’s finished work is indeed the root, and the dead sinner is indeed a lifeless branch, but Scripture never says the branch is grafted before faith;
it says the branch is made alive by the word, and that faith itself is the first evidence of that life (Eph 2:5; 2 Cor 4:6; Rom 10:17).
The quickening is not “salvation already applied,” it is the capacity to believe—the opening of blind eyes, the freeing of the will, the illumination of the heart.
That’s why Peter says the thing obtained is πίστιν (faith), not σωτηρία (salvation).
Christ is objectively Savior because His work is finished; He becomes my Savior in the moment faith unites me to Him.
The title “our Savior” is ecclesial, not chronological; Peter is speaking as a believer to believers, not describing their pre‑conversion state.
Your argument assumes that if Christ is called “our Savior,” then salvation must already be applied before faith—but that reverses the NT pattern, where faith is the instrument by which salvation is applied, not the result of already‑applied salvation.
The cause is Christ’s righteousness; the result is faith; and salvation is the union created by that faith.
That’s why λαχοῦσιν πίστιν cannot mean “we obtained salvation before faith”—the grammar won’t allow it, and the theology of faith as the instrument won’t allow it either.

OMC, thank you for clarifying your view on the distinction between the objective and subjective aspects of Christ’s work. Your point about faith being a gift produced by Christ’s righteousness is something we definitely agree on.
My focus is simply on the underlying timeline implied by the titles used in 2 Peter 1:1. When Peter speaks of obtaining this faith through "our Saviour Jesus Christ," the use of the pronoun "our" directly alongside the title "Saviour" demonstrates that His relationship to the elect (Peter and those he was referring to) as Savior is already established. If a person is viewed as still being in a state of spiritual death before they believe, it would be incorrect to apply the personal title "our Savior" to them at that moment.
Even in the grafting analogy, for a branch to receive the capacity to believe or experience the spiritual illumination within the heart, the life-giving work of the root must be active first. If Christ’s accomplished righteousness is the absolute cause that produces faith as a gift, then our legal security and life are grounded in His work prior to our personal exercise of that gift.

 

[OMC]

My focus is simply on the underlying timeline implied by the titles used in 2 Peter 1:1. When Peter speaks of obtaining this faith through "our Saviour Jesus Christ," the use of the pronoun "our" directly alongside the title "Saviour" demonstrates that His relationship to the elect (Peter and those he was referring to) as Savior is already established. If a person is viewed as still being in a state of spiritual death before they believe, it would be incorrect to apply the personal title "our Savior" to them at that moment.
Even in the grafting analogy, for a branch to receive the capacity to believe or experience the spiritual illumination within the heart, the life-giving work of the root must be active first. If Christ’s accomplished righteousness is the absolute cause that produces faith as a gift, then our legal security and life are grounded in His work prior to our personal exercise of that gift.

The titles “God and Savior” in 2 Peter 1:1 describe who Christ is, not when an individual becomes united to Him.
Peter is speaking as a believer to believers, using the confessional pronoun ἡμῶν (“our”) the same way Paul does when he says “Christ died for us” even while describing the time when we were still “dead in sins” (Rom 5:8; Eph 2:5).
The title is objective, grounded in Christ’s finished work; the application of that work is subjective, grounded in the moment faith unites a person to Him.
That’s why Peter says the thing obtained is πίστιν — faith itself — not σωτηρία.
Your argument tries to turn “our Savior” into a chronological marker, but the Greek construction is simply a confessional title, not a timeline.

Your grafting analogy also reverses the biblical order.
A dead branch cannot graft itself — agreed — but Scripture never says the branch is grafted before faith.
It says the branch is made alive by the word (Eph 2:5; 1 Pet 1:23), and the first evidence of that life is faith (Rom 10:17; 2 Cor 4:6).
The quickening is not “salvation already applied”; it is the capacity to believe, the illumination that produces faith as the immediate result.
Salvation is not “secured before faith”;
salvation is secured by Christ, and applied through faith.
Christ’s righteousness is the cause; faith is the effect; union with Christ is the result.

 

[GWH]

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.

My pushback rests on Scripture that I did not bother to repost, and what I "smuggle"/infer logically is the insight that divine justice must be based on consequences (in hell), because obviously people do not have equal opportunity (on earth) to be saved. Our opposite testimonies illustrate this truth, as well as the case of someone living in Siberia 20,000 BC versus we AD who know the NT. Here is where the insight regarding the Parable of the Talents may be relevant as indicating that God judges folks on the basis of the truth they had revealed.

 

[rogerg]

The titles “God and Savior” in 2 Peter 1:1 describe who Christ is, not when an individual becomes united to Him.
Peter is speaking as a believer to believers, using the confessional pronoun ἡμῶν (“our”) the same way Paul does when he says “Christ died for us” even while describing the time when we were still “dead in sins” (Rom 5:8; Eph 2:5).
The title is objective, grounded in Christ’s finished work; the application of that work is subjective, grounded in the moment faith unites a person to Him.
That’s why Peter says the thing obtained is πίστιν — faith itself — not σωτηρία.
Your argument tries to turn “our Savior” into a chronological marker, but the Greek construction is simply a confessional title, not a timeline.

Your grafting analogy also reverses the biblical order.
A dead branch cannot graft itself — agreed — but Scripture never says the branch is grafted before faith.
It says the branch is made alive by the word (Eph 2:5; 1 Pet 1:23), and the first evidence of that life is faith (Rom 10:17; 2 Cor 4:6).
The quickening is not “salvation already applied”; it is the capacity to believe, the illumination that produces faith as the immediate result.
Salvation is not “secured before faith”;
salvation is secured by Christ, and applied through faith.
Christ’s righteousness is the cause; faith is the effect; union with Christ is the result.

OMC, you are trying to switch the legal categories. There is a big difference between Christ historically dying for His elect at the cross, and Peter addressing living people who currently possess a divine gift.
You claim the pronoun "our" in "our Saviour" is just an ecclesial title for the community, not a timestamp for the individual. But you cannot separate the individual from the community. If those specific individuals were not yet given salvation, then Jesus was not legally "their" Savior at that moment. You would be requiring Peter to use a title that is legally false for the individual until they perform a human act of faith.
Further, you claim the quickening is just a "capacity to believe" and not "salvation applied." Not true. If God quickens a dead soul, opens their blind eyes, and changes their heart, that is regeneration—which is the direct result of salvation given to that individual. A soul cannot be quickened by God and still remain unsaved. The plain text of 2 Peter 1:1 says faith is obtained "through" the righteousness of "our Saviour," proving His saving relationship to them is the prior cause of the gift.

 

[OMC]

OMC, you are trying to switch the legal categories. There is a big difference between Christ historically dying for His elect at the cross, and Peter addressing living people who currently possess a divine gift.
You claim the pronoun "our" in "our Saviour" is just an ecclesial title for the community, not a timestamp for the individual. But you cannot separate the individual from the community. If those specific individuals were not yet given salvation, then Jesus was not legally "their" Savior at that moment. You would be requiring Peter to use a title that is legally false for the individual until they perform a human act of faith.
Further, you claim the quickening is just a "capacity to believe" and not "salvation applied." Not true. If God quickens a dead soul, opens their blind eyes, and changes their heart, that is regeneration—which is the direct result of salvation given to that individual. A soul cannot be quickened by God and still remain unsaved. The plain text of 2 Peter 1:1 says faith is obtained "through" the righteousness of "our Saviour," proving His saving relationship to them is the prior cause of the gift.

legal status, regeneration, union—but you’re fusing them into one moment in a way the text and the wider NT don’t actually do.

In 2 Peter 1:1, Peter is not constructing an ordo salutis; he is identifying the source of the faith his readers now possess:

λαχοῦσιν πίστιν… ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ Σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

They obtained faith; the channel is the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. That says: Christ’s righteousness is the ground from which their faith comes. It does not say: “they were already legally saved before faith, and then faith followed as a later fruit.”

On the pronoun “our”: Peter is writing as a member of the believing community to other believers. He is not addressing them as still‑dead, pre‑faith individuals; he is addressing them as people who already have obtained faith. For that group, calling Christ “our Savior” is legally true, because they are already united to Him by that faith.
Your objection only works if Peter were speaking about them before they believed—but the verse itself says he’s speaking to those who have obtained faith.
So the timeline you’re trying to extract (“Savior first, then faith”) is not in the text; what’s in the text is “faith obtained, and its source is Christ’s righteousness.”

On regeneration: yes, when God quickens a soul, that person is no longer in the same state.
But regeneration is one facet of application, not the whole of it.

The NT consistently treats faith as the instrumental means by which a sinner is justified and united to Christ (Rom 3:25–26; 5:1; Gal 2:16).
To say “a soul cannot be quickened and still remain unsaved” is to collapse regeneration, faith, and justification into a single undifferentiated instant and then read that collapse back into 2 Peter 1:1.
Peter doesn’t do that. He simply says:
What was obtained: faith.
Through what: the righteousness of our God and Savior.

That is cause→effect, but the effect is faith, not “already‑applied legal salvation prior to faith.”
Your concern—that Christ’s work must be prior and decisive—is right.
Your conclusion—that this necessarily means each elect person is legally “saved” before faith and that 2 Peter 1:1 teaches that—is more than the text actually says.

 

[rogerg]

legal status, regeneration, union—but you’re fusing them into one moment in a way the text and the wider NT don’t actually do.

In 2 Peter 1:1, Peter is not constructing an ordo salutis; he is identifying the source of the faith his readers now possess:


They obtained faith; the channel is the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. That says: Christ’s righteousness is the ground from which their faith comes. It does not say: “they were already legally saved before faith, and then faith followed as a later fruit.”

On the pronoun “our”: Peter is writing as a member of the believing community to other believers. He is not addressing them as still‑dead, pre‑faith individuals; he is addressing them as people who already have obtained faith. For that group, calling Christ “our Savior” is legally true, because they are already united to Him by that faith.
Your objection only works if Peter were speaking about them before they believed—but the verse itself says he’s speaking to those who have obtained faith.
So the timeline you’re trying to extract (“Savior first, then faith”) is not in the text; what’s in the text is “faith obtained, and its source is Christ’s righteousness.”

On regeneration: yes, when God quickens a soul, that person is no longer in the same state.
But regeneration is one facet of application, not the whole of it.

The NT consistently treats faith as the instrumental means by which a sinner is justified and united to Christ (Rom 3:25–26; 5:1; Gal 2:16).
To say “a soul cannot be quickened and still remain unsaved” is to collapse regeneration, faith, and justification into a single undifferentiated instant and then read that collapse back into 2 Peter 1:1.
Peter doesn’t do that. He simply says:
What was obtained: faith.
Through what: the righteousness of our God and Savior.

That is cause→effect, but the effect is faith, not “already‑applied legal salvation prior to faith.”
Your concern—that Christ’s work must be prior and decisive—is right.
Your conclusion—that this necessarily means each elect person is legally “saved” before faith and that 2 Peter 1:1 teaches that—is more than the text actually says.

OMC, thank you for breaking down your perspective so clearly. I appreciate the focus on how faith operates as an instrument in the New Testament.
Where my view still differs is simply on the logical sequence of the cause and effect. We both agree that Christ's righteousness is the prior cause and faith is the effect. My point is that for Christ’s righteousness to be the active cause that grants faith as a gift, His saving relationship to that individual must already be a settled reality. Therefore, I believe it is not more than the 2 Pet 1:1 teaches, it is exactly what it teaches. It is saying they were first saved because, as the verse text clearly and unambiguously tells us, Peter labels Christ as his Savior.
When we look at the idea of regeneration or being "quickened," if God opens a person's blind eyes and changes their heart to give them belief, that work itself is a direct application of His saving power to that person. It is hard for me to see how a soul can be given life from spiritual death by the power of God and they still considered unsaved. It is scripturally correct to view that quickening as salvation, with faith following as immediate fruit.

 

[OMC]

OMC, thank you for breaking down your perspective so clearly. I appreciate the focus on how faith operates as an instrument in the New Testament.
Where my view still differs is simply on the logical sequence of the cause and effect. We both agree that Christ's righteousness is the prior cause and faith is the effect. My point is that for Christ’s righteousness to be the active cause that grants faith as a gift, His saving relationship to that individual must already be a settled reality. Therefore, I believe it is not more than the 2 Pet 1:1 teaches, it is exactly what it teaches. It is saying they were first saved because, as the verse text clearly and unambiguously tells us, Peter labels Christ as his Savior.
When we look at the idea of regeneration or being "quickened," if God opens a person's blind eyes and changes their heart to give them belief, that work itself is a direct application of His saving power to that person. It is hard for me to see how a soul can be given life from spiritual death by the power of God and they still considered unsaved. It is scripturally correct to view that quickening as salvation, with faith following as immediate fruit.

The mistake is treating cause as possession. Christ’s righteousness is absolutely the cause of faith — but cause does not equal “the individual already has the legal benefits before faith.”
A judge’s authority is the cause of a verdict, but the verdict is not legally applied until the judge actually declares it.
In the same way, Christ’s finished work is the cause of salvation, but Scripture says the legal application of that salvation is through faith (Rom 5:1; Gal 2:16).
That’s the category you keep skipping. When Peter says believers “obtained faith through the righteousness of our God and Savior,” he is describing source, not sequence.
He is writing to people who already possess faith, so calling Christ “our Savior” is legally true for them as believers, not a statement about their pre‑faith condition.
The verse never says “they were saved first, then faith came later”; it says “faith was obtained,” and the channel was Christ’s righteousness.
You keep assuming that regeneration = justification, but the NT never equates those.
Regeneration gives capacity, justification gives legal standing, and justification is consistently said to be through faith, not before it. So your conclusion (“Christ must already be their Savior before faith”) is not what the grammar expresses; it’s an inference built on collapsing categories the NT keeps distinct.

 

[rogerg]

The mistake is treating cause as possession. Christ’s righteousness is absolutely the cause of faith — but cause does not equal “the individual already has the legal benefits before faith.”
A judge’s authority is the cause of a verdict, but the verdict is not legally applied until the judge actually declares it.
In the same way, Christ’s finished work is the cause of salvation, but Scripture says the legal application of that salvation is through faith (Rom 5:1; Gal 2:16).
That’s the category you keep skipping. When Peter says believers “obtained faith through the righteousness of our God and Savior,” he is describing source, not sequence.
He is writing to people who already possess faith, so calling Christ “our Savior” is legally true for them as believers, not a statement about their pre‑faith condition.
The verse never says “they were saved first, then faith came later”; it says “faith was obtained,” and the channel was Christ’s righteousness.
You keep assuming that regeneration = justification, but the NT never equates those.
Regeneration gives capacity, justification gives legal standing, and justification is consistently said to be through faith, not before it. So your conclusion (“Christ must already be their Savior before faith”) is not what the grammar expresses; it’s an inference built on collapsing categories the NT keeps distinct.

OMC, thank you for providing the courtroom illustration, as it actually clarifies the exact point I am making. In a legal setting, a judge must completely possess the official authority and title of "Judge" before he can ever issue a verdict. The verdict does not create his title; his established title is what gives him the legal right to declare the verdict.
When Peter writes that we have obtained faith through "our Saviour Jesus Christ," the title and relationship are already fixed in the verse as the prior cause of the gift. If Jesus does not already hold that relationship to the individual, the legal authority to issue the gift of faith is completely missing.
Further, trying to separate a "quickened" person from a "justified" person to protect the sequence, creates a major scriptural contradiction. If a person has been quickened out of spiritual death, given a changed heart, and had its blind eyes opened by the power of God, that person has been saved. A person cannot be actively quickened by God and still remain under the legal condemnation of death. The plain words of the verse lock Christ's identity as Savior first, and the gift of faith as the immediate result.

 

[OMC]

OMC, thank you for providing the courtroom illustration, as it actually clarifies the exact point I am making. In a legal setting, a judge must completely possess the official authority and title of "Judge" before he can ever issue a verdict. The verdict does not create his title; his established title is what gives him the legal right to declare the verdict.
When Peter writes that we have obtained faith through "our Saviour Jesus Christ," the title and relationship are already fixed in the verse as the prior cause of the gift. If Jesus does not already hold that relationship to the individual, the legal authority to issue the gift of faith is completely missing.
Further, trying to separate a "quickened" person from a "justified" person to protect the sequence, creates a major scriptural contradiction. If a person has been quickened out of spiritual death, given a changed heart, and had its blind eyes opened by the power of God, that person has been saved. A person cannot be actively quickened by God and still remain under the legal condemnation of death. The plain words of the verse lock Christ's identity as Savior first, and the gift of faith as the immediate result.

You’re treating Christ’s title (“Savior”) as if it automatically implies an already‑applied verdict for each individual the moment the title is mentioned. But titles in Scripture are office‑titles, not application‑titles.
A judge’s authority is indeed prior to the verdict — but the judge’s title does not mean every person standing before him already has a verdict.
His title gives him the right to issue verdicts; it does not mean the verdict is already applied to each defendant.
That’s the category mistake you’re making with 2 Peter 1:1. Christ is “our Savior” because His office and work are complete; the application of that saving work is not automatic, not universal, and not pre‑faith.
Peter is speaking as a believer to believers, people who already possess faith.
He is not describing their pre‑faith condition, so your argument about “legal accuracy before faith” simply doesn’t apply to the audience Peter is addressing.

Your second move — “a quickened person must already be justified” — is where your system breaks. Regeneration is not the legal act of justification; it is the creative act that produces faith. If regeneration were justification, then the NT’s repeated statements that justification is through faith (Rom 5:1; Gal 2:16) would be meaningless.
You’re collapsing two different divine acts into one moment because you assume that spiritual life and legal standing must be identical.
But Scripture never says that. Regeneration removes blindness; justification removes guilt. Regeneration gives capacity; justification gives verdict. Regeneration is the cause of faith; justification is the result of faith. If you merge them, you erase the entire NT structure of salvation.

And this is the key point you keep missing: 2 Peter 1:1 does not say “salvation was obtained.” It says “faith was obtained.”
The grammar identifies the gift, not the verdict.
The channel is Christ’s righteousness, but the thing received is faith — the instrument by which salvation is applied.
You’re trying to make the verse say “salvation was obtained through our Savior,” but Peter doesn’t say that.
He says faith was obtained.
You’re importing a timeline the text never expresses and then building a legal argument on a premise the Greek does not support.

 

[rogerg]

You’re treating Christ’s title (“Savior”) as if it automatically implies an already‑applied verdict for each individual the moment the title is mentioned. But titles in Scripture are office‑titles, not application‑titles.
A judge’s authority is indeed prior to the verdict — but the judge’s title does not mean every person standing before him already has a verdict.
His title gives him the right to issue verdicts; it does not mean the verdict is already applied to each defendant.
That’s the category mistake you’re making with 2 Peter 1:1. Christ is “our Savior” because His office and work are complete; the application of that saving work is not automatic, not universal, and not pre‑faith.
Peter is speaking as a believer to believers, people who already possess faith.
He is not describing their pre‑faith condition, so your argument about “legal accuracy before faith” simply doesn’t apply to the audience Peter is addressing.

Your second move — “a quickened person must already be justified” — is where your system breaks. Regeneration is not the legal act of justification; it is the creative act that produces faith. If regeneration were justification, then the NT’s repeated statements that justification is through faith (Rom 5:1; Gal 2:16) would be meaningless.
You’re collapsing two different divine acts into one moment because you assume that spiritual life and legal standing must be identical.
But Scripture never says that. Regeneration removes blindness; justification removes guilt. Regeneration gives capacity; justification gives verdict. Regeneration is the cause of faith; justification is the result of faith. If you merge them, you erase the entire NT structure of salvation.

And this is the key point you keep missing: 2 Peter 1:1 does not say “salvation was obtained.” It says “faith was obtained.”
The grammar identifies the gift, not the verdict.
The channel is Christ’s righteousness, but the thing received is faith — the instrument by which salvation is applied.
You’re trying to make the verse say “salvation was obtained through our Savior,” but Peter doesn’t say that.
He says faith was obtained.
You’re importing a timeline the text never expresses and then building a legal argument on a premise the Greek does not support.

OMC, you are still connecting the title "our Saviour" to the moment Peter wrote his letter, rather than the moment the readers actually obtained their faith - the two are different. The text states they obtained faith "through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." The title is tied directly to the preposition "through," and it includes the personal pronoun "our." For Him to be already acting as "our" Savior at the specific moment the faith was obtained, that saving relationship had to be true for those individuals during that transaction. If they were still unsaved and under the condemnation of death at that exact moment, the personal pronoun "our" would not be accurate.
Regarding your courtroom illustration, a judge does not issue verdicts to people who are outside his jurisdiction. He is only the judge to those specific defendants because a legal relationship to that court has already been established.
Furthermore, saying that regeneration removes blindness but leaves the person under legal guilt and condemnation separates what God has joined together. If God has sovereignly quickened a person, opened their blind eyes, and illuminated their heart, that person is no longer under the legal status of an unregenerate, condemned sinner. The life-giving work of the Savior is already applied, and faith is the immediate fruit of that new life. The plain text locks His relationship to them prior to the gift.

 

[Dave123]

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:

I agree up to this point. But we must understand that in the NT, that drawing from that Light is universal. But in the OT that Light was limited, only because God presence was limited, and His presence only began to taken to the world by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.. Plus His Word too. That Pentecostal indwelling allowed the drawing "Light" to be within all believers and take that Light to the world with the Gospel (John 12:32, John 16:7-11). But this drawing from the Light, is the option that is ignored by most who are reformed these days. So thankyou for acknowledging the "Light" and it's power to draw. It's very hard to communicate this to Calvinists, because in their minds, if it's not from the indwelling, it's not the life, it's got to be the flesh. They call the "Light" a third option that doesn't exist.

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.”

Also keep in mind that these were all true OT believers who were owed the promise of the Father. Everyone is Acts. The Gentiles, Lydia, Cornelius, even the disciples, the three thousand. They were actually predestined to make this next step in their faith and believe the Gospel. These are the sheep, the ones that the Father gave the Son. I believe that Romans 8:28-30 speaks specifically of 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.

Bingo! In short, that drawing power, the Light, is in Every believer in the NT, because now all NT believers are indwelt.

 

[Dave123]

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

Read post #372, my reply to OMC. just above this one.

 

[Dave123]

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:

​

Keep in mind that many times in Scripture "faith" and " spiritual life" are synonymous. Like in Hebrews 12:2, 'faith' is used as a metaphor for 'life'. If you look at the immediate context, Peter expounds on what that faith/life entails. 'Through the resurrection' tells us this faith/life is after conversion. If you reads 1 Peter chapter 1 that way, it makes it easier to follow Peters point.

vs 1-7 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith [spiritual life] with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith [spiritual life] virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love.


I know you're not going to like this, but making the distinction between the initial faith and the life that ensues as a result of the indwelling Spirit, also called faith, is necessary to put a proper context on statements like these.

 

[OMC]

I agree up to this point. But we must understand that in the NT, that drawing from that Light is universal. But in the OT that Light was limited, only because God presence was limited, and His presence only began to taken to the world by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.. Plus His Word too. That Pentecostal indwelling allowed the drawing "Light" to be within all believers and take that Light to the world with the Gospel (John 12:32, John 16:7-11). But this drawing from the Light, is the option that is ignored by most who are reformed these days. So thankyou for acknowledging the "Light" and it's power to draw. It's very hard to communicate this to Calvinists, because in their minds, if it's not from the indwelling, it's not the life, it's got to be the flesh. They call the "Light" a third option that doesn't exist.

You’re right that the NT universalizes the drawing Light in a way the OT never did — John 12:32 and John 16:7–11 make that unavoidable — but that universality is an expansion of presence, not a change in the nature of drawing.

Also keep in mind that these were all true OT believers who were owed the promise of the Father. Everyone is Acts. The Gentiles, Lydia, Cornelius, even the disciples, the three thousand. They were actually predestined to make this next step in their faith and believe the Gospel. These are the sheep, the ones that the Father gave the Son. I believe that Romans 8:28-30 speaks specifically of them

You’re trying to make “the sheep” a fixed historical group who were already alive before the Gospel, but Jesus defines His sheep as those who hear His voice (John 10:27), not those who possessed prior covenant life.

Keep in mind that many times in Scripture "faith" and " spiritual life" are synonymous. Like in Hebrews 12:2, 'faith' is used as a metaphor for 'life'. If you look at the immediate context, Peter expounds on what that faith/life entails. 'Through the resurrection' tells us this faith/life is after conversion. If you reads 1 Peter chapter 1 that way, it makes it easier to follow Peters point.

vs 1-7 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith [spiritual life] with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith [spiritual life] virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love.


I know you're not going to like this, but making the distinction between the initial faith and the life that ensues as a result of the indwelling Spirit, also called faith, is necessary to put a proper context on statements like these.

Roger, your entire argument depends on turning πίστιν (faith) in 2 Peter 1:1 into “spiritual life,” but Peter never does that; he explicitly says the thing obtained is faith, and then immediately commands believers to add to your faith virtue, knowledge, self‑control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love — which is impossible if faith is the spiritual life itself. You’re trying to make “our Savior” mean “He was already legally their Savior before they obtained faith,” but the possessive pronoun is covenantal, not chronological; Peter is writing as a believer to believers, not describing their pre‑faith legal status. Your Hebrews 12:2 move is a category mistake: the author uses faith as the path Christ pioneers, not as a metaphor for regeneration, and Peter’s own context distinguishes life and godliness (v.3) from faith (v.1). When you say “salvation happens first as a sovereign act of God, and faith is the immediate result,” you’re reversing the NT order: justification is through faith (Rom 5:1; Gal 2:16), not before it, and regeneration is the cause of faith, not the verdict of salvation. Your “initial faith vs. later faith” distinction is an invented patch to preserve your system, not something Peter ever articulates; he treats faith as the instrument by which believers enter the life he describes, not the life itself. The grammar is fatal to your reading: Peter says faith was obtained, not life was obtained, and your argument only works if you rewrite the text to say the opposite.

 

[Roger316]

Read post #372, my reply to OMC. just above this one.

I didn't see how your response to me followed from what I said.

 

[OMC]

You’re right that the NT universalizes the drawing Light in a way the OT never did — John 12:32 and John 16:7–11 make that unavoidable — but that universality is an expansion of presence, not a change in the nature of drawing.

You’re trying to make “the sheep” a fixed historical group who were already alive before the Gospel, but Jesus defines His sheep as those who hear His voice (John 10:27), not those who possessed prior covenant life.

Roger, your entire argument depends on turning πίστιν (faith) in 2 Peter 1:1 into “spiritual life,” but Peter never does that; he explicitly says the thing obtained is faith, and then immediately commands believers to add to your faith virtue, knowledge, self‑control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love — which is impossible if faith is the spiritual life itself. You’re trying to make “our Savior” mean “He was already legally their Savior before they obtained faith,” but the possessive pronoun is covenantal, not chronological; Peter is writing as a believer to believers, not describing their pre‑faith legal status. Your Hebrews 12:2 move is a category mistake: the author uses faith as the path Christ pioneers, not as a metaphor for regeneration, and Peter’s own context distinguishes life and godliness (v.3) from faith (v.1). When you say “salvation happens first as a sovereign act of God, and faith is the immediate result,” you’re reversing the NT order: justification is through faith (Rom 5:1; Gal 2:16), not before it, and regeneration is the cause of faith, not the verdict of salvation. Your “initial faith vs. later faith” distinction is an invented patch to preserve your system, not something Peter ever articulates; he treats faith as the instrument by which believers enter the life he describes, not the life itself. The grammar is fatal to your reading: Peter says faith was obtained, not life was obtained, and your argument only works if you rewrite the text to say the opposite.

sorry this was to dave, my bad

 

[rogerg]

Roger, your entire argument depends on turning πίστιν (faith) in 2 Peter 1:1 into “spiritual life,” but Peter never does that; he explicitly says the thing obtained is faith, and then immediately commands believers to add to your faith virtue, knowledge, self‑control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love — which is impossible if faith is the spiritual life itself. You’re trying to make “our Savior” mean “He was already legally their Savior before they obtained faith,” but the possessive pronoun is covenantal, not chronological; Peter is writing as a believer to believers, not describing their pre‑faith legal status. Your Hebrews 12:2 move is a category mistake: the author uses faith as the path Christ pioneers, not as a metaphor for regeneration, and Peter’s own context distinguishes life and godliness (v.3) from faith (v.1). When you say “salvation happens first as a sovereign act of God, and faith is the immediate result,” you’re reversing the NT order: justification is through faith (Rom 5:1; Gal 2:16), not before it, and regeneration is the cause of faith, not the verdict of salvation. Your “initial faith vs. later faith” distinction is an invented patch to preserve your system, not something Peter ever articulates; he treats faith as the instrument by which believers enter the life he describes, not the life itself. The grammar is fatal to your reading: Peter says faith was obtained, not life was obtained, and your argument only works if you rewrite the text to say the opposite.

OMC, while you addressed "Roger" in your post to Dave, did you actually mean that for me or for him? You mentioned a Hebrews 12:2 reference that I never used in our discussion, so I just want to clarify before responding. Thanks!

---

 

[OMC]

OMC, while you addressed "Roger" in your post to Dave, did you actually mean that for me or for him? You mentioned a Hebrews 12:2 reference that I never used in our discussion, so I just want to clarify before responding. Thanks!

---

yes sir that was for dave, I was reading your responses too and got you guys mixed up.

 

[Dave123]

You’re trying to make “the sheep” a fixed historical group who were already alive before the Gospel, but Jesus defines His sheep as those who hear His voice (John 10:27), not those who possessed prior covenant life.

Actually, He defines it by more than just that. Consider some more context that I believe is very relevant in defining what is being spoken about here in John. Those who are known by Jesus and the Father are those who already love Him (1 Corinthians 8:3).

John 10: 14-16 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold (Gentiles); them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock (The body of Christ, the baptism with the Holy Spirit) and one shepherd.

John 10:26-29 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand.

Romans 8:28-30 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

1 Corinthians 8:3 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.

The sheep are those whom He knows, and know Him, and that's who hears His voice.

Those who hear His voice are those that the Father gave Him. Not only from Israel, the Jews that were His audience at that time, but also those OT believers from other nations. Like the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19, who already loved God and were declared righteous in promise by faith. They were known by God because they already loved Him. These were given to the Son, but had not yet heard the Gospel and received the promises, mainly eternal life. These were not atheists, these were OT believers baptized in John baptism, publicly identifying with his teaching of the coming Messiah. They loved God and were know by Him already. Predestined to hear the Gospel (His sheep), and believe, and receive the life, the indwelling Holy Spirit that places a believer in Christ, where all the ingredients that save them are now available in Christ. Like Cornelius, a man who feared God, thus he loved God and was known by Him. An OT believer, predestined to be in Christ and have the life that conforms him to Christlikeness. Lydia too, she worshipped God, God already knew her because she loved Him, but did not yet know Jesus and the Gospel. All they had was only in promise until God opened her heart to believe, why? Because she was predestined as an OT believer who loved God. These are the ones that the Father gave to the Son, the Sheep, who hear Jesus. (BTW, the OT Jews who Jesus said were of the devil and would not believe in John 10, they were not His sheep, meaning they were not genuine OT believers given to him by the Father. If they were, they would have heard and believed.) like the OT believers at Pentecost, the three thousand. All those countries listed, represented by OT believers, mostly proselyte Jews, true OT believers that came to celebrate Pentecost, and hearing the Gospel they believed the Gospel as Jesus said they would, and taking that indwelling back to all those other nations, the presence of God, fulfill Jesus' prophesy that when He is lifted up glorified, He will draw all nation to Himself (John 12:32). Thew whole book of Acts is OT believes, already declared righteous by faith, already owed the promise of salvation, they just needed it to be realized, thus Christ needed to be lifted up, ascend, glorified, sitting at the right hand of the Father, then all those who this promise was owed to, obtaining that only in Christ, the Holy Spirit is given, placing them in Christ so that they can receive all those saving ingredients.

Dave, your entire argument depends on turning πίστιν (faith) in 2 Peter 1:1 into “spiritual life,” but Peter never does that; he explicitly says the thing obtained is faith, and then immediately commands believers to add to your faith virtue, knowledge, self‑control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love — which is impossible if faith is the spiritual life itself. You’re trying to make “our Savior” mean “He was already legally their Savior before they obtained faith,” but the possessive pronoun is covenantal, not chronological; Peter is writing as a believer to believers, not describing their pre‑faith legal status. Your Hebrews 12:2 move is a category mistake: the author uses faith as the path Christ pioneers, not as a metaphor for regeneration, and Peter’s own context distinguishes life and godliness (v.3) from faith (v.1). When you say “salvation happens first as a sovereign act of God, and faith is the immediate result,” you’re reversing the NT order: justification is through faith (Rom 5:1; Gal 2:16), not before it, and regeneration is the cause of faith, not the verdict of salvation. Your “initial faith vs. later faith” distinction is an invented patch to preserve your system, not something Peter ever articulates; he treats faith as the instrument by which believers enter the life he describes, not the life itself. The grammar is fatal to your reading: Peter says faith was obtained, not life was obtained, and your argument only works if you rewrite the text to say the opposite.

I fixed your quote, you addressed Roger, not me.

Peter is speaking to believers, I agree, and that was my point. These believers would have already obtained the life from first believing. Peter is admonishing them to build that faith/life, not just sit idly and do nothing. Just like James, a faith should be active, growing, not idol. They had the life from believing, now they needed to grow in it. He's speaking of the life, called faith, just like Scripture often does. This must be distinguished from the initial believing, which does not have the life, but is the reason that we receive that life. The distinction is made here...

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; (This happens in Christ, Romans 6:3-11) it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

And separates the initial believing with that life/faith.

John 20:31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Isn't that what the Gospel message is, believe and be saved?

To apply the initial believing to what Peter was saying goes beyond the text. Peter was speaking of the life, called faith. Todays reformed believers always use passages speaking of one or the other specifically, and use those passages to apply to both, but that's why their theology is a mess. A distinction needs to be made between our initially believing to obtain the life, and the life, called faith, that we receive as a result of believing, to accurately define Scripture.

As I stated already, we have access to the grace/life/faith by faith (Romans 5:1-2).

I believe that Peter is speaking of the life, that comes as a result of believing. Look at it again...

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

It's just another example of which there are many, where people are trained to read things into a verse, assuming that the same thing is taught everywhere in the Bible. But "everywhere" is a whole bunch of verses that people are reading things into. When we look for the clear passages that aren't read into, we cannot find them. That's Calvinism in a nut shell, the TULIP system has become the context that the Bible is interpreted from. Like with the sheep, it's there, the definition, but what is read into that passage from TULIP takes the defining seat, not the actual Biblical context.

I consider myself reformed, but not Catholic light reformed. I'm going to invent a new theological camp. I call it 'more reformed than you'. lol

Compare Hebrews 12:2 with Acts 3:15