Unashamed of Grace

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Why do you think?

by Antonio da Rosa

Luke 22:31-32
And the Lord said, "Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren."
NKJV

Why would Jesus pray for Peter's faith not to fail if a true Christian cannot lose their faith?

What does this have to say about perseverance of the saints?

51 Comments:

To demonstrate to us that we are dependant on God and not on ourselves?

By Matthew Celestine, at Monday, April 16, 2007 12:08:00 AM
Wow - I agree with Matthew! ;)

My first thought was that there is a difference between failing and losing. I don't think this verse speaks to losing one's salvation. But we do fail and we do stumble.

By Anonymous, at Monday, April 16, 2007 7:27:00 AM
To get somewhat personal, but not too personal, this verse was one that became very near and dear to my heart after a 'season' of sin in my life. And it came in the form of studying, When Godly People Do Ungodly Things (Beth Moore). There's not a lot I remember about that study, but I do remember this verse, b/c God pierced my heart with it, and made this truth come alive in my life.

I'll say this: I understand my sin - how & why it occurred. Don't misunderstand that I'm saying I excuse it, b/c I do not. But I do know that I was sifted like wheat, and I do know that God brought to the surface some things about myself that needed healing. I also know that He healed me. And I have been able to testify to others about the power of God in my life, and that He can do the same thing in theirs.

A very real-life example of God seeing to it that one of His children perseveres.

By Anonymous, at Monday, April 16, 2007 7:44:00 AM
Sorry, Gayla, that was not necessarilly my personal view.

You could not use the verse as a deductive refutation of the Calvinist position.

However, the verse implies the possibility of falling away and thus can form part of an inductive argument for the possiblity of falling away.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at Monday, April 16, 2007 8:03:00 AM
Shoot, Matthew, I thought we were gonna agree on something!

I fail to see (no pun intended) how the verse implies that we can fall away.

"but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers"

Two things that I see: First, it is Jesus who did the praying that Peter's faith not fail. Jesus. Self-explanatory, I think. And two, Jesus says, when once you have turned again. Not if, but when.

By Anonymous, at Monday, April 16, 2007 8:19:00 AM
So if Jesus had not prayed, would Peter, a regenerate man have fallen away?

Does our perserverance depend upon the prayers of our Lord and is therefore not an automatic result of our being justified?

By Matthew Celestine, at Monday, April 16, 2007 8:25:00 AM
Let's not forget that we were reconciled to the Father through Christ's sacrifice. In that relationship Christ serves as Intercessor, along with the Holy Spirit, by design of the Trinity before creation. Our relationship, brought about by The Father's electing, The Spirit's sanctifying and Christ's sacrifice, consists of a new nature, with new affections, but also includes the intercession of both Christ and The Holy Spirit.

We nondispys look at the whole of the salvation experience without using these cute little man-made tools to divide the Word, and the whole of the salvation experience.

Yes Matthew, Christ's intercession is THAT vital to the perseverance of the saints.

By mark pierson, at Monday, April 16, 2007 8:40:00 AM
Romans 8:26, 27 and Romans 8:34 speak to the fact the Christ/the Holy Spirit intercedes for us.

vs 26-27: In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

vs 33 - 35:

Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

And Heb 7:25:

Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

It seems that, yes, it is God who causes us to persevere. Justification and sanctification begin and end with God. He is faithful to complete the work He began in us.

By Anonymous, at Monday, April 16, 2007 8:45:00 AM
We must remember the nation of Israel. Why didn't it go the way of Edom? Because of God's preservation of that nation as a whole.

You must remember, posts and responses like the ones from Matthew is why so much the larger part of christendom is turned very off by this brand of Dispensationism. Sorry, but that is true.

By mark pierson, at Monday, April 16, 2007 8:56:00 AM
Mark, I am not quite sure what you are objecting to.

By Matthew Celestine, at Monday, April 16, 2007 10:42:00 AM
Gayla, so God's initial ministry in Peter of giving him a new nature was not sufficent to ensure his perserverance? You are saying a second work of grace (Christ's intercession) was necessary to effect his perserverance?

By Matthew Celestine, at Monday, April 16, 2007 10:45:00 AM
I'm not quite sure what dispyism has to do with this conversation--that would be engaging in "guilt by association", which is a fallacy. I prefer to see biblical theology setting the interpretive questions and not dogmatic theology as Bluecollar is driven by.

By Anonymous, at Monday, April 16, 2007 2:40:00 PM
"Does our perserverance depend upon the prayers of our Lord and is therefore not an automatic result of our being justified? " said Matthew

By this do you imply this to be an either / or scenario?

My response would be, at first thought, that... Yes, most definitely my perserverance depends on the prayers of Christ, who is seated at the right hand of the Father continually making intercession for me. That is exactly why IT IS a direct and necessary result of my justification. Christ has committed Himself to make intercession for the saints (that's me ... a sinful saint). (Heb 7.25)

It is by His prayers directing the work of the Spirit to strengthen me to godliness... something I cannot do on my own. I WILL fall away without the strengthening and enablement of the Holy Spirit. (Rom 7.18) But alas, Praise be to God, he will give me the victory. (Rom 7.24-25)

So I cannot fall away. I am secure in My Father's hand (John 10.28-30 "never perish") because the Spirit enables my faith to remain.(John 16.13 "guide" is take by the hand and lead)

This does not divorce me from responsibility. (Phil 2.12) I simply need to remember that my ability is a direct result of the will and work of God. (Phil 2.13)

Thanks for this good question. I need to be reminded that I am at the mercy of the Spirit, which is why I cannot be a godly man without prayer. I cannot be a godly man without the work of God Himself. My total deparvity is not removed when I become a saint (Rom 7 - the whol chapter).

By Anonymous, at Monday, April 16, 2007 4:25:00 PM
What is this faith that should not fail after Jesus prays for Peter?

This faith of Peter's is that Jesus is really the Christ who has come into the world. Remember Peter already made this statement when Jesus said that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him but the Father who is in heaven revealed it him.

Why was it in danger of failing? Satan would sift Peter after he denied the Lord three times. Christ would die and Peter would make a decsion to go back to his occupation of fishing. But Jesus in His grace had them throw the net out and it filled with fish just like it did in Luke 5 when Peter after seeing the miracle catch fell down at the feet of Jesus and said go away from me for I am a sinful man.

Peter knew Jesus had still accepted him after this second miracle of catching fish and Jesus questioned Peter three times on his love and commanded him to feed His sheep.

Bottom line is our faith can fail but Jesus faithfulness will never fail because He cannot deny Himself.

By Kris, at Monday, April 16, 2007 7:21:00 PM
Jesus revealed in Mt. 16:17 that Peter’s faith was not from flesh and blood, but came from God. Here in this passage (Luke 22:31-32) Jesus revealed that eternal security (perseverance) also depends on God’s grace. It also makes it clear that the prayers of Jesus are answered perfectly since Jesus leaves no doubt that his prayer makes Peter’s eternal security a done deal. You see Antonio, as you have been told many times, perseverance does not depend on man’s effort, but on God’s grace. Grace saves sinners and grace completes the job of sanctification with the sinner’s willing cooperation. Jesus prayed in the high priestly prayer for believers to be sanctified in John 17:17. Therefore, Luke 22:31-32, Romans 8, and other verses teach that perseverance depends on God’s grace and not on the effort of sinners.

Since Jesus prayed for sinners to be sanctified, it will happen to some degree in all believers. There is simply no wiggle room for the teaching that sanctification may be absent in believers who are blessed with time and opportunity. (The thief on the cross being an example of a believer not having the time or opportunity). This is why the teaching of Zane Hodges totally misses the mark.
Wayne

By jazzycat, at Monday, April 16, 2007 8:02:00 PM
"I prefer to see biblical theology setting the interpretive questions and not dogmatic theology as Bluecollar is driven by."

I make a point to show that Christ's intercession, and the Spirit's intercession are a necessary part of God's plan for our salvation, and point to God's preserving of the Nation of Israel as an example of how He preserves the Christian, and bobby grow says nothing about those things. No. Instead he fixes his gaze on my swipe at that peculiar brand of dispyism that prompts posts like these, and those comments by Matthew.

Well, Mr. Grow, what you consider "Biblical Theology" I call emotional theology, and what you call "dogmatic theology" I call Biblical Theology.

See, two can play that game.

By mark pierson, at Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:37:00 AM
See, Matthew, you operate on a different paradigm than I do. Yours is driven by the concept that Justification can be severed from the rest of the components of God's plan for the Christian's salvation, thanks to a misuse of dispensationalism.

I was wondering: would Darby approve of how you use Dispensationalism to try to refute Calvinism? What about the Progressives, many of them are Calvinistic (MacArthur, Pulpit Magazine group, etc.). So you guys are popes unto yourselves. Your predecessor's in Dispyism would frown on how you use the tools they have presented Christianity, and so would many of your dispy successors.

Hmmm. Looks like you guys get to set the parameters. You don't have to answer to the early dispy's nor the latter.

By mark pierson, at Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:10:00 AM
Mark, I am not sure how to reply to you. Your comments cover so much ground that I am quite at a loss as to how to reply.

By Matthew Celestine, at Tuesday, April 17, 2007 5:31:00 AM
So presumably you guys who think faith is a gift think that it is a gift that may fail without Christ's intercession?

By Matthew Celestine, at Tuesday, April 17, 2007 5:33:00 AM
Matthew,
Everything in salvation would fail without God's grace. Intercession is part of that grace. Fortunately God's grace and his decrees never fail.

Your coming from a human decision, man selecting, God responding view. We are coming from a divine decision, God selecting, man responding view. I am not sure you understand the "you guys" view at all.

By jazzycat, at Tuesday, April 17, 2007 5:58:00 AM
Matthew, I am sincerely interested in your interpretation of the passages that I mentioned above. I am not particularly interested in your logical formulas. I understand it is your blog and you can do whatever you want. But i would be interested in your explanation / interpretation of the passages that I mentioned above. Did I error? Is this a biblical discussion or a logical one. Not the two are automatically in opposition -- let's not attack that straw man. But let's interact with the text. What say ye?

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 17, 2007 6:35:00 AM
Hi Matthew. Sorry I didn't get back in here yesterday for your question. It appears, though, that Mark, Wayne and Pilgrim answered sufficiently, and I would whole heartedly agree with them.

I would just add one thought regarding your question, "...so God's initial ministry in Peter of giving him a new nature was not sufficent to ensure his perserverance?"

By virtue of the fact that God is the Sovereign, whatever He does is sufficient. As we know from Scripture, God has ordained sanctification to be 'a certain way.' As Wayne said, part of that IS the intercession of Christ on our behalf.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:04:00 AM
Gayla, we surely have two distinct transactions here. The imparting of a new nature and the intercession.

It could be argued that Peter's faith would not fail even if Christ had not prayed, as he had been given a new nature at his conversion.

However, I am not sure that is the position you are taking.

Is the faith impartedat conversion a faith that is potentially fallible? Is it fallible because it is deficent in itself?

By Matthew Celestine, at Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:46:00 AM
Pilgrim, I do not have anything to say about the passages you mentioned.

From what you said, it sounds limke you are taking the position I mentioned to Gayla in my last comment.

By Matthew Celestine, at Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:49:00 AM
I do not have the intellectual and logical abilities to discuss the logic you bring. I am sorry. If there is no desire to interact with the text of Scripture -- I will graciously bow out of the conversation. Thank you.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 17, 2007 8:30:00 AM
Mark said (btw I love it when you call me "Mr. Grow" ;):

Well, Mr. Grow, what you consider "Biblical Theology" I call emotional theology, and what you call "dogmatic theology" I call Biblical Theology.

Thank you for conceding to my point. You are unable or unwilling to make a distinction between dogmatic theology (ordered by primarily by speculative categories), and biblical theology.

The only reason I singled that out, Mark (the part on dispy), is because you go around the blogosphere, now and then, making these anecdotal charges against dispensationalism--that are clearly unfounded. You engage in fallacy after non-sequiter such as guilt by association, caricature, post hoc, argument of the beard, genetic, poisoning the well, special pleading, etc.; all in the attempt to undercut your perception of dispensationalism.

As you noted over at the Moorhead, you have a "disdain" for dispensationalism--which explains, for me, your "reactionism" towards it. Instead of "reacting" why not try "responding", and present your case against it at your blog--thus far I haven't even observed if you actually understand what dispensationalism is.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:59:00 AM
Nice try, Mr. Grow. You just hold on to your pet system. Must be nice living in an ivory tower telling us what's wrong with our systems while holding so tenaciously to yours.

Aren't you just trying to get revenge against me here? You don't even hold to Antonio's and Matthew's brand of Dispyism, so how do you come in here and take a swipe at me when I question their brand of Dispyism? I'm affraid your motivation is rather transparent here, sir.

By mark pierson, at Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:41:00 AM
I know this off topic, sort of, but I would really, really appreciate it if you would go
here and tell me if this is an accurate definition of dispensationalism, and is what you adhere to. Matthew? Antonio? (Although I don't know if you are a dispensationalist, Antonio)

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, April 18, 2007 7:44:00 AM
Gayla, the article simplifies things a little bit.

By Matthew Celestine, at Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:01:00 AM
Mark, actually my brand of Dispensationalism is not the same as Antonio's.

While I agree with the Free Grace theology of Antonio, I take a far more Chafer/ Darby approach to things. Antonio, while not being Progressive Dispensationalist is somewhat modified in his approach.

By Matthew Celestine, at Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:04:00 AM
Pilgrim, if you are lacking confidence in your ability to analyse logical premises, how can you be confident in your ability to correctly interpret the Scriptures?

Do you really think Bible interpretation requires only a minimum of intellectual engagement?

By Matthew Celestine, at Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:05:00 AM
Mark,

you are a pro at anecdotalism . . . I think it's unfair to mis-represent anyone's position in order to establish yours. That's why I chimed in about your general disdain for any brand of dispensationalism.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:18:00 AM
Bobby,
After reviewing this thread, I see no reason for your remarks to Mark. It seems to me that Mark was responding to some extremely weak anti-Calvinistic remarks by Matthew when you chose to interject your criticism of Mark.

Mark, Gayla, and I have shown that Matthew's arguments are without any merit whatsoever. He (Matthew) hasn't even bothered to defend either of my two comments. One was directed to him by name.

Why you bothered to attack and criticize Mark without even engaging in the subject of this post puzzles me. You say you chimed in to defend dispensationalism, but it looked more like an offensive attack to me.

Consider this comment chiming in to defend Calvinism against those who have a disdain for it.
Wayne

By jazzycat, at Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:38:00 PM
Hey Antonio,

I hope you see this. Please check your email. I had to shoot a question over to you about Zane Hodges and Robbie.

By Gojira, at Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:47:00 PM
Hey Matthew,

Just curious, Matthew -- don't you hold to postTrib? That is not a challange to anything, by the way. I am just curious.

By Gojira, at Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:52:00 PM
Jazzy,

Mark attributed Matthew's interp. to his dispensationalism--I don't see any relationship whatsoever, plus Mark seems to have negative things to say quite a bit about disp. in general, which gets old when all that he is doing is cariacturing it, and not providing some "positive" critique. Since Mark's playing in left field with his connecting of dispensationalism to this interpretive question . . . I thought I would go out to left field and play a bit too, this probably all boils down to the fact that I was really bored when originally made the comment to Mark :).

One of the interesting dynamics about the blogosphere, is that we can all "chime" in/out whenever we want--right now I'm chiming out ;).

Shalom

By Anonymous, at Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:50:00 AM
Gojirah, yes, but I am embarassed about it.

By Matthew Celestine, at Thursday, April 19, 2007 3:16:00 AM
Mr. Grow, you always speak of "trajectories". Be consistant here. You say Calvinism is the result of one being placed on a trajectory. Well, what I maintain is that FGT is the result of being placed on a trajectory, one set by a form of early Classic Dispensationism. MacArthur is carefull to point that out in TGATJ.

By mark pierson, at Thursday, April 19, 2007 9:44:00 AM
I do not believe anybody can arrive at FGT coming from other systems. The severing of Justification from the rest of the components of the New Covenant is just not on the table when coming from other systems. The book of Hebrews is a great resource for lessons on the New Cov. There Christ is presented TO ALL as Mediator of The New Cov.12:24. There also He is presented as intercessor, 7:25.

Let's look at the whole package here, folks.

By mark pierson, at Thursday, April 19, 2007 9:51:00 AM
Mark, could you explain the connection between Free Grace and Dispensationalism?

I actually agree that the connection is very important.

But I would really like to read how you understand it. I am sure other readers would appreciate it too.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:50:00 AM
"Gojirah, yes, but I am embarassed about it."

You shouldn't be.

Anyway, I hope that you have been fine.

By Gojira, at Thursday, April 19, 2007 6:05:00 PM
Matthew - From what I have observed, when visiting Free Grace blogs, in their blogroll is mention of Dispensationalism, that they hold it.

Secondly, I also notice that in their argumentation FGT proponents focus on the Justification aspect of the salvation experience and never seem to want to consider that the saint is set free from slavery to sin, Romans 6; Acts 3:26; or that he is a New Creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal.5:16.

Those of us outside Dispensationism are not tempted to divide the components of salvation up. We see all the lesons taught on the New Covenant in Hebrews and 2 Cor. 3 as parts of a whole, not to be divided up and considered separately. They are inseparable, and brought to the elect one by the Holy Spirit as a result of the purchass of Christ.

MacArthur is clear in TGATJ that Dispensationism's core is rooted in the Israel/Church distinction. Many of the later Dispy's are content to leave it at that, while others use that hermeneutic on other parts of the word as well, drawing, IMHO, radical divides into the word. That drawing of radical divides results in differing views of how one perceives just what it is to be saved; or what is saving faith. Is saving faith a pasive persuasion, or is it volitional? That is the heart of our differences.

You see the Gospel of John as THE Gospel. You see the woman at the well as the true definition and example of saving faith - radical devides, IMHO.

I see all four gospels as THE gospel, my presentaion to an unsaved person derived from all four gospels.

By mark pierson, at Friday, April 20, 2007 8:29:00 AM
Hi Antonio,
This verse reminds me of Job. Satan asked to test Job ... and I think perhaps this was similar with Peter. Peter's eternal destiny was not up for grabs.

As to your question, faith can fail, but the life of God cannot ... which is what we receive from Him when we are born again (or saved) by grace through faith (no other combination works).

(I like that saying - "no other combination works" - per tjp)

By Rose~, at Friday, April 20, 2007 10:47:00 AM
Mark, thanks for your answer.

Do you mind if I ask you a further question?

Mark 16
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Supposing I were to argue that this text proves that those who believe must show these wonderful signs listed here to prove their salvation; how would you reply?

By Matthew Celestine, at Friday, April 20, 2007 10:58:00 AM
Thank you all for your answers. I have to say that I am in agreement with Matthew.

It seems rather superfluous for Christ to intercede for something that is inevitable due to one being born again with its corrollaries.

The most basic conclusion is that Christ prayed for Peter because it was possible for Peter to lose his faith. The simple and plain meaning is best. We know that Calvinism can't go for this, though. It would falsify the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Secondary assumptions are introduced into the text by Calvinist apolosists as with all texts that contradict perseverance.

My thoughts, and I thank you for yours!

Antonio

By Antonio, at Friday, April 20, 2007 6:07:00 PM
"16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;"

Matthew, that seals it for me. As you know verses 17-18 are of questionable origin. I would much rather consider the fruit of the Spirit in the person's life.

My position is that when a person even begins to desire to bring glory to Christ, that being the Christ Who is the Son of God, Who died the substitionary death for the sins of the world, thereby satisfying the Father's justice, and rose three days later for our justification, that that is the beginning of the Fruit of the Spirit. I see the fruit of the Spirit in Gal.5 as service to Christ and reaching out to the world in His name.

If we subtract the Holy Spirit's presence from Gal.5 then there is nothing but the works of the flesh. That person who exhibits desire to bring glory to Christ is that one who demonstrates that God is at work in his life.

By mark pierson, at Friday, April 20, 2007 10:04:00 PM
Mark, you have not really answered my question.

If you want to categorically reject that text as inauthentic, that would be an answer to my question.

But if this text is genuine (I believe it is), could it not be argued that it implies that the signs of a true Christian are taking up serpents, drinking poisons and speaking in other languages?

By Matthew Celestine, at Saturday, April 21, 2007 1:36:00 AM
"If you want to categorically reject that text as inauthentic, that would be an answer to my question."

I categorically reject that text.

By mark pierson, at Saturday, April 21, 2007 5:03:00 PM
Okay. As an answer that is fair enough.

Nevertheless, it does seem peculiar that the Lord would leave us with a Gospel of Mark that lacks the Resurrection. Especially given that the critcs claim that Mark is the earliest Gospel.

By Matthew Celestine, at Sunday, April 22, 2007 4:38:00 AM
Matthew, I would love it if those verses weren't so questionable. im am a Continuationist. That verse would serve me well in my defense of that position.

However, there is yet another verse that I wish were not also of questionable origin, 1 John 5:7. Being Trinitarian that verse would come in so very handy. But, alas! the anti-trinitarian forces would just throw that verse right back in my face, knowing full well its questionable origin.

Honestly, I, like Grudem, and Spurgeon before him, hold that faith and repentance go hand in hand; that the call to discipleship and call to salvation are one and the same. I see the people rejoicing in Rev. 1:6 and 5:10 for not just Justification and the washing away of sins, but also for being made a kingdom and priests unto God.

Going from service and salvery to sin to Service to God is what salvation is all about. That is the reason for Romans, chapters 6-8. I also think 1 Peter 2:9-10 shows the true picture of God's intention for the saved person, and it goes beyond Justification. It is the life of service, prompted, energized and led about by The Holy Spirit.

By mark pierson, at Sunday, April 22, 2007 3:51:00 PM
I know that textual issues are beyond the scope of this blog, but I will say that I attended a Reformed Baptist church for a year. I was really impressed by those folks.

They used the KJV and the Received Text.

They believed in the sovereignty of God displayed in preserving the true text of Scripture. They believed that God had shown His glory in ensuring an uncorrupted word in the majority of manuscripts. They had no faith in a couple of conflicting manuscripts, one in the Vatican library and the offer in the waste bin of an Orthodox monastery.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at Monday, April 23, 2007 12:44:00 AM