>>599296
>Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
And yet He still went with him, gave him power over demons, and other things. One could even suggest that he could have repented of His wickedness later on as St Peter and the other apostles did, but instead he chose to kill himself in his despair rather than trust in his former faith and ask for forgiveness.
>>599297
>Probably because he hated Jesus was most likely a fag
What on earth?
>he lost being being an apostle and again that would then contradict John 6
No, it doesn't. It means he lost, but failed to repent, like Peter did.
>And you ignored the part about the thief on the cross
>“[T]here is the circumstance, which is not incredibly reported, that the thief who then believed as he hung by the side of the crucified Lord was sprinkled, as in a most sacred baptism, with the water which issued from the wound of the Saviour’s side. I say nothing of the fact that nobody can prove, since none of us knows, that he had not been baptized previous to his condemnation. However, let every man take this in the sense he may prefer; only let no rule about baptism affecting the Saviour’s own precept be taken from this example of the thief… what if he had been baptized in prison, as in after times some under persecution were enabled privately to obtain? Or what if he had been baptized previous to his imprisonment? If, indeed, he had been, the remission of his sins which he would have received in that case from God would not have protected him from the sentence of public law, so far as appertained to the death of the body. What if, being already baptized, he had committed the crime and incurred the punishment of robbery and lawlessness, but yet received, by virtue of repentance added to his baptism, forgiveness of the sins which, though baptized, he had committed? For beyond doubt his faith and piety appeared to the Lord clearly in his heart, as they do to us in his words. If, indeed, we were to conclude that all those who have quitted life without a record of their baptism died unbaptized, we should calumniate the very apostles themselves; for we are ignorant when they were, any of them, baptized, except the Apostle Paul (cf. Acts 9:18). If, however, we could regard as an evidence that they were really baptized the circumstance of the Lord’s saying to St. Peter, ‘He that is washed needs not save to wash his feet’ (John 13:10), what are we to think of the others, of whom we do not read even so much as this—Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Philemon, the very evangelists Mark and Luke, and innumerable others, about whose baptism God forbid that we should entertain any doubt, although we read no record of it?
Either way, the thief made an explicit act of faith and repentance in the Lord, recanting of his past sins.
>and you complete ly changed the subject from being about if you can know that you're saved
You can't. Presumption is a sin.