How do you know whether you are one of the elect?

[BryanW92]

abacabb3,

Again you fail to deal with the scriptures that I bring up. But insist upon me dealing with scriptures you bring up. OK. I guess that's all I can expect of Calvinists. As for 2Cor 4, Paul spoke confidently of that of which he was confident in his own case. But doesn't speak so for everyone. Later in that same letter he says, "Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you— unless, of course, you fail the test? And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test." 2Cor 13:5,6 Paul, apparently unlike Calvinists, was opened to being scrutinize by others as to whether he was in the faith.

Satisfied?

Did Paul scrutinize the state of people's salvation based on some anonymous writings on a wall as you do with posts in an Internet forum? Paul planted real churches and people knew him and trusted his judgement. Who are you? Who am I? Who is abacabb3? None of us knows enough to judge each other's state of salvation.

 

[bcbsr]

BryanW92,

As for your characterizing my posts as "hate-filled" it seems your view is jaded by your theological allegiance. And it seems my quoting the Bible is to you simply bumper sticker mockery. And while I am the victim of slander you attack me. Such adds further evidence of the attitude Calvinists have towards non-Calvinists.

But as for what John Calvin, your theological forefather, taught with regards to judging others, of the many things I could point out consider his commentary on 1John 2:19 where he himself claims that those who "went out from us" were false believers, unsaved, thus judging their salvation status.

In fact I may start another thread contrasting John Calvin's viewpoint with the viewpoints which have been expressed by alleged "Calvinists" on this forum, such as the misusage of Eph 2:8,9 which alleged "Calvinists" typically have used on this forum to say faith is a gift, whereas Calvin himself did not interpret that verse in that sense. And furthermore in this very thread are those who advocate Free Grace theology in contrast to Calvinism.

 

[abacabb3]

abacabb3,

Again you fail to deal with the scriptures that I bring up. But insist upon me dealing with scriptures you bring up. OK. I guess that's all I can expect of Calvinists. As for 2Cor 4, Paul spoke confidently of that of which he was confident in his own case. But doesn't speak so for everyone. Later in that same letter he says, "Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you— unless, of course, you fail the test? And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test." 2Cor 13:5,6 Paul, apparently unlike Calvinists, was opened to being scrutinize by others as to whether he was in the faith.

Satisfied?

First, I already addressed your texts, I said you added a conclusion not explicit in the texts, you rather inferred it.

Further, I am not satisfied, because you actually did not address the text:

“I believed, therefore I spoke,” we also believe, therefore we also speak, knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you [the Corinthians]” (2 Cor 4:13-14).

Paul is saying that God will raise Him and his fellow apostles from the dead with Jesus Christ, who when raised from the dead will find themselves in the presence of Corinthian believers in heaven.

Doesn't this present not only an assurance of his own salvation, but also his fellow workers and those who were in the church they planted?

 

[abacabb3]

In fact I may start another thread contrasting John Calvin's viewpoint with the viewpoints which have been expressed by alleged "Calvinists" on this forum, such as the misusage of Eph 2:8,9 which alleged "Calvinists" typically have used on this forum to say faith is a gift, whereas Calvin himself did not interpret that verse in that sense. And furthermore in this very thread are those who advocate Free Grace theology in contrast to Calvinism.

While I cannot comment on Calvin, I can assure you Augustine views faith as a gift from God...

 

[BryanW92]

BryanW92,

As for your characterizing my posts as "hate-filled" it seems your view is jaded by your theological allegiance. And it seems my quoting the Bible is to you simply bumper sticker mockery. And while I am the victim of slander you attack me. Such adds further evidence of the attitude Calvinists have towards non-Calvinists.

But as for what John Calvin, your theological forefather, taught with regards to judging others, of the many things I could point out consider his commentary on 1John 2:19 where he himself claims that those who "went out from us" were false believers, unsaved, thus judging their salvation status.

In fact I may start another thread contrasting John Calvin's viewpoint with the viewpoints which have been expressed by alleged "Calvinists" on this forum, such as the misusage of Eph 2:8,9 which alleged "Calvinists" typically have used on this forum to say faith is a gift, whereas Calvin himself did not interpret that verse in that sense. And furthermore in this very thread are those who advocate Free Grace theology in contrast to Calvinism.

If we are not real Calvinists, then what is your point? Do you want us to become better Calvinists? Do you want us to go read your website? What is your mission here? Please start a thread on that.

 

[bcbsr]

abaccab3,

I see you don't interpret the Bible in light of the Bible

 

[bcbsr]

A further example of my point is Gal 2:4 "This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." Here Paul judged certain alleged "Christians" in a church - not even one he was overseeing - as false brethren.

 

[BryanW92]

.

 

[abacabb3]

abaccab3,

I see you don't interpret the Bible in light of the Bible

Well, I do not mean to be insulting, but it is first important to understand what a passage actually says before interpreting it. Can you show that you understand the explicit meanings of "us" and "you" in that passage and who they refer to?

 

[JM]

abaccab3,

I see you don't interpret the Bible in light of the Bible

You are being offensive. Let's get down to the heart of the issue.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-UkRp7UWus

 

[bcbsr]

abacabb3,

You misunderstand the issue. You say, "So, we are either preserved forever if we are faith, or we are not. There is no in between." That's not the issue. Yes, once saved, always saved. But the issue is how do you know whether yourself or someone else is or is not in the faith?

The apostles often spoke confidently of one's salvation. But it was based upon the evidence they provide, as I noted previously. To the Thessalonians Paul says confidently, "we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you". But for the rest of that chapter lists the reason why. It was because of their behavior that he spoke confidently. Likewise with the Corinthians and others. Yet he also made mention of false brethren in churches (2Cor 11:4,13-15; Gal 2:4, etc). Do you think those were included among the "you" he was referring to?

 

[abacabb3]

You misunderstand the issue. You say, "So, we are either preserved forever if we are faith, or we are not. There is no in between." That's not the issue. Yes, once saved, always saved. But the issue is how do you know whether yourself or someone else is or is not in the faith?

I hope I am not getting sick and making no sense, but my position is pretty straight forward. To quote my first post, one knows he is assured salvation when:

"You have faith in Christ and when you examine yourself you find you are in the faith."

So, we don't sound very far apart. However, you have added an additional criteria: one's assurance of salvation is, to quote yourself, "to be proportional to the degree to which a person behaves as a child of God should."

The Scripture speaks nowhere of proportions. This is why it is "we are either preserved forever or we are not." One is either legitimately faithful, whether a lot or a little, and God will maintain that person's faith. It is His explicit promise. Hence, I do not require "degrees" of assurance. My assurance is guaranteed the moment I detect that I have faith in Christ.

 

[BryanW92]

You are being offensive. Let's get down to the heart of the issue.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-UkRp7UWus

That does get down to the heart of the matter! Thanks for making this video. I sent it some of my Methodist friends who can't understand why I became a Calvinist.

 

[gord44]

JM has a sweet accent.

 

[bcbsr]

JM,

The dichotomy the video presents between synergism and monergism contains a logical fallacy. It's non sequitur in that it alleges only two options. Either God initiates salvation, of which man has no part, or man initiates salvation and then God cooperates. One he labels Calvinism and the other Arminianism. But since in fact there is another possibility of which he overlooks, yes there are those who could LOGICALLY based upon that's guy own definitions take a position that is neither "Calvinistic" nor "Arminian" in his terms. I don't believe man initiates his own salvation, therefore by his own definition I'm not Arminian. But since he only believes there are two categories, that would make me "Calvinist" by his definition.

It's typical of Calvinists, such as that author, to claim that if you're Calivinist on all points but one, you're an Arminian. (If you're Arminian on all points but one, does that make one a Calvinist?) The definition of "Arminian" is given by Arminius and reflected in the 5 points of Calvinism written in response to Arminius. As such Arminians don't classify me and many other non-Calvinist Christians as Arminian, in fact many classify me as Calvinist. Thus Calvinists characteristically, prejudially, need I say, mischaracterize non-Calvinists as "Arminian" when in fact they are not Arminian.

Do arminians believe in eternal security? No. Do I believe in eternal security? Yes. Therefore I must not be Arminian. His argument is much like the proposition you either agree with what I say or you're an idiot. Which is it? Do you agree or are you an idiot? It's simply a logical fallacy.

But if we were to categorize people into these two camps how the following person be categorized who said, "If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us."

Since this person I'm quoting speaks of us "bringing faith", that being our part, would the Calvinist not categorize such a person as Arminian. Perhaps so, until they realize the person I'm quoting is John Calvin!

 

[BryanW92]

JM,

The dichotomy the video presents between synergism and monergism contains a logical fallacy. It's non sequitur in that it alleges only two options. Either God initiates salvation, of which man has no part, or man initiates salvation and then God cooperates. One he labels Calvinism and the other Arminianism. But since in fact there is another possibility of which he overlooks, yes there are those who could LOGICALLY based upon that's guy own definitions take a position that is neither "Calvinistic" nor "Arminian" in his terms. I don't believe man initiates his own salvation, therefore by his own definition I'm not Arminian. But since he only believes there are two categories, that would make me "Calvinist" by his definition.

It's typical of Calvinists, such as that author, to claim that if you're Calivinist on all points but one, you're an Arminian. (If you're Arminian on all points but one, does that make one a Calvinist?) The definition of "Arminian" is given by Arminius and reflected in the 5 points of Calvinism written in response to Arminius. As such Arminians don't classify me and many other non-Calvinist Christians as Arminian, in fact many classify me as Calvinist. Thus Calvinists characteristically, prejudially, need I say, mischaracterize non-Calvinists as "Arminian" when in fact they are not Arminian.

Do arminians believe in eternal security? No. Do I believe in eternal security? Yes. Therefore I must not be Arminian. His argument is much like the proposition you either agree with what I say or you're an idiot. Which is it? Do you agree or are you an idiot? It's simply a logical fallacy.

But if we were to categorize people into these two camps how the following person be categorized who said, "If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us."

Since this person I'm quoting speaks of us "bringing faith", that being our part, would the Calvinist not categorize such a person as Arminian. Perhaps so, until they realize the person I'm quoting is John Calvin!

You are an interesting mix of theologies.

http://bcbsr.com/topics/bcbsrth.html

The introduction on that page is confusing. You claim to hold to no post-biblical theologian, yet the author of this page is a post-biblical theologian. All theologians claim to pull their theology from the bible (as JM's video explained in the beginning) so Steve Amato's theology is no different, except that it hasn't stood the test of time and scrutiny that others have faced.

But, all of your positions and arguments are on this site, so instead of asking your pointed questions and ignoring the answers (other than the ones that you are prepared for), why not just point us towards your catechism?

 

[hedrick]

BryanW92,

As for your characterizing my posts as "hate-filled" it seems your view is jaded by your theological allegiance. And it seems my quoting the Bible is to you simply bumper sticker mockery. And while I am the victim of slander you attack me. Such adds further evidence of the attitude Calvinists have towards non-Calvinists.

But as for what John Calvin, your theological forefather, taught with regards to judging others, of the many things I could point out consider his commentary on 1John 2:19 where he himself claims that those who "went out from us" were false believers, unsaved, thus judging their salvation status.

In fact I may start another thread contrasting John Calvin's viewpoint with the viewpoints which have been expressed by alleged "Calvinists" on this forum, such as the misusage of Eph 2:8,9 which alleged "Calvinists" typically have used on this forum to say faith is a gift, whereas Calvin himself did not interpret that verse in that sense. And furthermore in this very thread are those who advocate Free Grace theology in contrast to Calvinism.

There is apparently a whole controversial literature on this verse.

What is clear is that Calvin understood that all of salvation, not just faith as a gift from God. Did he include faith in that? I think so. Here’s what he said: “Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.” Note, he does not deny that faith is a gift. He objects to people who think that it’s just faith that is a gift.

A few paragraphs above this, he says “Hence we see, that the apostle leaves nothing to men in procuring salvation. In these three phrases,—not of yourselves,—it is the gift of God,—not of works,—he embraces the substance of his long argument in the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians, that righteousness comes to us from the mercy of God alone,—is offered to us in Christ by the gospel,—and is received by faith alone, without the merit of works.”

I don’t see how there’s any doubt that he included faith in the gift. Faith is part of procuring salvation. He believes that the author leaves nothing to man in procuring salvation.

 

[JustAsIam77]

There is apparently a whole controversial literature on this verse.

What is clear is that Calvin understood that all of salvation, not just faith as a gift from God. Did he include faith in that? I think so. Here’s what he said: “Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.” Note, he does not deny that faith is a gift. He objects to people who think that it’s just faith that is a gift.

A few paragraphs above this, he says “Hence we see, that the apostle leaves nothing to men in procuring salvation. In these three phrases,—not of yourselves,—it is the gift of God,—not of works,—he embraces the substance of his long argument in the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians, that righteousness comes to us from the mercy of God alone,—is offered to us in Christ by the gospel,—and is received by faith alone, without the merit of works.”

I don’t see how there’s any doubt that he included faith in the gift. Faith is part of procuring salvation. He believes that the author leaves nothing to man in procuring salvation.

Well said brother.

 

[bcbsr]

abacabba3,

You say of yourself, "My assurance is guaranteed the moment I detect that I have faith in Christ."

What does "detect that I have faith" mean?

The word "confidence" is used many times in 2Corinthians. Paul was confident of their salvation status because they obeyed him and repented from sin.

2Cor 7:11 See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done.

2Cor 7:15,16 his affection for you is all the greater when he remembers that you were all obedient, receiving him with fear and trembling. I am glad I can have complete confidence in you.

But let's say there's an alleged "Christian" who refuses to repent of sin. Should such a person be confident of their salvation status? Or what if one at first believes with joy but when trouble comes because of the word they quickly fall away?

 

[BryanW92]

What does "detect that I have faith" mean?

I had a powerful conversion experience so I know what it is like to not have faith and then to have faith. It's one of those "you know it when you feel it" things.