How does a Calvinist KNOW they are elect?

[Cajun Huguenot]

From The Synod of Dort:



The Fifth Main Point of Doctrine

The Perseverance of the Saints

Article 1: The Regenerate Not Entirely Free from Sin
​

• Those people whom God according to his purpose calls into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord and regenerates by the Holy Spirit, he also sets free from the reign and slavery of sin, though in this life not entirely from the flesh and from the body of sin.
  

Article 2: The Believer's Reaction to Sins of Weakness

• Hence daily sins of weakness arise, and blemishes cling to even the best works of God's people, giving them continual cause to humble themselves before God, to flee for refuge to Christ crucified, to put the flesh to death more and more by the Spirit of supplication and by holy exercises of godliness, and to strain toward the goal of perfection, until they are freed from this body of death and reign with the Lamb of God in heaven.
  

Article 3: God's Preservation of the Converted

• Because of these remnants of sin dwelling in them and also because of the temptations of the world and Satan, those who have been converted could not remain standing in this grace if left to their own resources. But God is faithful, mercifully strengthening them in the grace once conferred on them and powerfully preserving them in it to the end.
  

Article 4: The Danger of True Believers' Falling into Serious Sins

• Although that power of God strengthening and preserving true believers in grace is more than a match for the flesh, yet those converted are not always so activated and motivated by God that in certain specific actions they cannot by their own fault depart from the leading of grace, be led astray by the desires of the flesh, and give in to them. For this reason they must constantly watch and pray that they may not be led into temptations. When they fail to do this, not onlycan they be carried away by the flesh, the world, and Satan into sins, even serious and outrageous ones, but also by God's just permission they sometimesare so carried away--witness the sad cases, described in Scripture, of David, Peter, and other saints falling into sins.
  

Article 5: The Effects of Such Serious Sins

• By such monstrous sins, however, they greatly offend God, deserve the sentence of death, grieve the Holy Spirit, suspend the exercise of faith, severely wound the conscience, and sometimes lose the awareness of grace for a time--until, after they have returned to the way by genuine repentance, God's fatherly face again shines upon them.
  

Article 6: God's Saving Intervention

• For God, who is rich in mercy, according to his unchangeable purpose of election does not take his Holy Spirit from his own completely, even when they fall grievously. Neither does he let them fall down so far that they forfeit the grace of adoption and the state of justification, or commit the sin which leads to death (the sin against the Holy Spirit), and plunge themselves, entirely forsaken by him, into eternal ruin.
  

Article 7: Renewal to Repentance

• For, in the first place, God preserves in those saints when they fall his imperishable seed from which they have been born again, lest it perish or be dislodged. Secondly, by his Word and Spirit he certainly and effectively renews them to repentance so that they have a heartfelt and godly sorrow for the sins they have committed; seek and obtain, through faith and with a contrite heart, forgiveness in the blood of the Mediator; experience again the grace of a reconciled God; through faith adore his mercies; and from then on more eagerly work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.
  

Article 8: The Certainty of This Preservation

• So it is not by their own merits or strength but by God's undeserved mercy that they neither forfeit faith and grace totally nor remain in their downfalls to the end and are lost. With respect to themselves this not only easily could happen, but also undoubtedly would happen; but with respect to God it cannot possibly happen, since his plan cannot be changed, his promise cannot fail, the calling according to his purpose cannot be revoked, the merit of Christ as well as his interceding and preserving cannot be nullified, and the sealing of the Holy Spirit can neither be invalidated nor wiped out.
  

Article 9: The Assurance of This Preservation

• Concerning this preservation of those chosen to salvation and concerning the perseverance of true believers in faith, believers themselves can and do become assured in accordance with the measure of their faith, by which they firmly believe that they are and always will remain true and living members of the church, and that they have the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
  

Article 10: The Ground of This Assurance

• Accordingly, this assurance does not derive from some private revelation beyond or outside the Word, but from faith in the promises of God which he has very plentifully revealed in his Word for our comfort, from the testimony of the Holy Spirit testifying with our spirit that we are God's children and heirs (Rom. 8:16-17), and finally from a serious and holy pursuit of a clear conscience and of good works. And if God's chosen ones in this world did not have this well-founded comfort that the victory will be theirs and this reliable guarantee of eternal glory, they would be of all people most miserable.
  

Article 11: Doubts Concerning This Assurance

• Meanwhile, Scripture testifies that believers have to contend in this life with various doubts of the flesh and that under severe temptation they do not always experience this full assurance of faith and certainty of perseverance. But God, the Father of all comfort, does not let them be tempted beyond what they can bear, but with the temptation he also provides a way out (1 Cor. 10:13), and by the Holy Spirit revives in them the assurance of their perseverance.
  

Article 12: This Assurance as an Incentive to Godliness

• This assurance of perseverance, however, so far from making true believers proud and carnally self-assured, is rather the true root of humility, of childlike respect, of genuine godliness, of endurance in every conflict, of fervent prayers, of steadfastness in crossbearing and in confessing the truth, and of well-founded joy in God. Reflecting on this benefit provides an incentive to a serious and continual practice of thanksgiving and good works, as is evident from the testimonies of Scripture and the examples of the saints.
  

Article 13: Assurance No Inducement to Carelessness

• Neither does the renewed confidence of perseverance produce immorality or lack of concern for godliness in those put back on their feet after a fall, but it produces a much greater concern to observe carefully the ways of the Lord which he prepared in advance. They observe these ways in order that by walking in them they may maintain the assurance of their perseverance, lest, by their abuse of his fatherly goodness, the face of the gracious God (for the godly, looking upon his face is sweeter than life, but its withdrawal is more bitter than death) turn away from them again, with the result that they fall into greater anguish of spirit.
  

Article 14: God's Use of Means in Perseverance

• And, just as it has pleased God to begin this work of grace in us by the proclamation of the gospel, so he preserves, continues, and completes his work by the hearing and reading of the gospel, by meditation on it, by its exhortations, threats, and promises, and also by the use of the sacraments.
  

Article 15: Contrasting Reactions to the Teaching of Perseverance

• This teaching about the perseverance of true believers and saints, and about their assurance of it--a teaching which God has very richly revealed in his Word for the glory of his name and for the comfort of the godly and which he impresses on the hearts of believers--is something which the flesh does not understand, Satan hates, the world ridicules, the ignorant and the hypocrites abuse, and the spirits of error attack. The bride of Christ, on the other hand, has always loved this teaching very tenderly and defended it steadfastly as a priceless treasure; and God, against whom no plan can avail and no strength can prevail, will ensure that she will continue to do this. To this God alone, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be honor and glory forever. Amen.
  

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Here are some, slightly edited, responses I gave to Catholic Dude on his General Theology posting of this thread.
''''''''''''''''''
Hello CD,

Let me see if I can answer your question.

I became a Calvinist after a couple of years of studying and discussing the subject of predestination. I already considered myself “born-again” then. The term “elect,” though I had read it in Scripture, was not one I had given much thought to.

If when you die you find yourself in heaven (since you are an RC I will say not in hell) than you were elect whether or not you knew or understood the term. The elect are all people who go to heaven.

How do I know I am elect? There is certainly a subjective element to it. I know that I know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. My life experience tells me that is so (according to my understanding of Scripture).

I am a Presbyterian (which makes me different from Baptist Calvinists on a number of points). As a Presbyterian I understand Baptism to be a Sacrament that has objectively placed me into the Church of Jesus Christ. I “remember” my baptism and make my salvation sure, through repentance, faith and obedience to Jesus Christ.

Baptism (in my case as an infant in the Roman Catholic Church) is an objective fact that places me in a true relationship with Jesus Christ. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way “Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.”

We believe baptism to be effectual. Again the Confession says: The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.


Baptism doesn’t guarantee that all who baptised will persevere in the faith, some obviously do not, but it does unite us to Christ (covenantally speaking). We must respond by faith in Jesus Christ.

When I trust Christ It is not a one moment event that then allows me to live a worldly life. Saving faith produces a godly lifestyle, because God’s Spirit is working in me to will and to do his good pleasure.

I have objective and subjective knowledge of my salvation. The objective knowledge about our Spiritual state is found all over the Scriptures, but it is most succinctly stated in 1 John.

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (1 John 2:3)

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. (1 John 5:2)

Now the 5th point in the five points of Calvinism is – Perseverance of the Saints. Some folk today mistakenly see this as no different than what is known as “Once save always saved” (OSAS). The two ideas are not the same. We believe that the elect must persevere in the faith. We do believe that all those who are predestined by god before the foundation of the world to eternal salvation will persevere. [because God works in us, He preserves us]

I hope that helps. There are some important nuances in the doctrine of election that require a little thought to understand, but that is true of most biblical doctrines.

Dominus vobiscum,
Kenith
''''''''''''''''''''''''''
...We can have assurance in our baptism, faith and a life that desirers to serve God, but we must persevere. As long as I am living in this manner than I should have assurance (put I must also avoid presumption).

I believe the Scriptures gives many reasons for assurance, which are to be a comfort to the believer. It also gives many warnings so that we avoid presumption and false assurance (which can come from the OSAS position). We have to hold a balance between the two extremes of no assurance and presumption.

In Christ,
Kenith
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
If you read John Calvin (and other Reformed Theologians) you will find that he took the warnings in Scripture against apostasy very seriously.

I believe I am saved (objective reality as mentioned above and subjective experiance), I am being saved and I will be saved on the last day.

In many Calvinists circles today you find that they have in fact (though not in word) replaced "perseverence" with "OSAS" there is an important difference that some/many fail to recognise today. Many Calvinst have Baptists ideas that have replaced the Calvin/Augustine understanding of these things.

We should have assurance of our salvation because of the objective proofs in Scripture -- but if we allow that assurance to become presumption then we are in grave danger.

I think it is wrong to [both] cut off all assurance to the believer and [also] to give a presumptive assurance. There are always two ditches and we need to try and avoid both.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[Catholic Dude]

Cajun Huguenot-

​

Article 1: The Regenerate Not Entirely Free from Sin
​

• Those people whom God according to his purpose calls into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord and regenerates by the Holy Spirit, he also sets free from the reign and slavery of sin, though in this life not entirely from the flesh and from the body of sin.

I would agree with this, the word that Catholics (and even the KJV) use is "concupiscence" which means the inclination to sin which remains after being regenerated.

Article 2: The Believer's Reaction to Sins of Weakness
...

I agree.

Article 3: God's Preservation of the Converted

Because of these remnants of sin dwelling in them and also because of the temptations of the world and Satan, those who have been converted could not remain standing in this grace if left to their own resources. But God is faithful, mercifully strengthening them in the grace once conferred on them and powerfully preserving them in it to the end.​

Here is the place where I have issues, it looks like its not up to the person at all here, Im not saying thats bad, but what I dont understand is how from this definition a serial killer could even murder AND basically get off because God's grace is so powerfully preserving him. From what I understand about Luther (im not sure about Calvin) is that the temptation and inclination to sin are sin in itself, which the CC doesnt believe.

Article 4: The Danger of True Believers' Falling into Serious Sins

Although that power of God strengthening and preserving true believers in grace is more than a match for the flesh, yet those converted are not always so activated and motivated by God that in certain specific actions they cannot by their own fault depart from the leading of grace, be led astray by the desires of the flesh, and give in to them. For this reason they must constantly watch and pray that they may not be led into temptations. When they fail to do this, not onlycan they be carried away by the flesh, the world, and Satan into sins, even serious and outrageous ones, but also by God's just permission they sometimesare so carried away--witness the sad cases, described in Scripture, of David, Peter, and other saints falling into sins.
​

Here is the talk I dont understand at all. Especially the "by God's just permission"? Is He giving them the grace to avoid that sin or not? If grace frowing to the is like a garden hose delivering water then what does God do turn off the water? I dont see how this even happens, let alone how the person basically is forgiven and gets away with it.

Article 5: The Effects of Such Serious Sins

By such monstrous sins, however, they greatly offend God, deserve the sentence of death, grieve the Holy Spirit, suspend the exercise of faith, severely wound the conscience, and sometimes lose the awareness of grace for a time--until, after they have returned to the way by genuine repentance, God's fatherly face again shines upon them.​

​

In my opinion this looks like a big pity party, the sinner is in no danger at all, what is this "greatly offended" and "grieve the HS" talk if God intends to save them anyway? Its like bumps in the road.

Article 6: God's Saving Intervention

For God, who is rich in mercy, according to his unchangeable purpose of election does not take his Holy Spirit from his own completely, even when they fall grievously. Neither does he let them fall down so far that they forfeit the grace of adoption and the state of justification, or commit the sin which leads to death (the sin against the Holy Spirit), and plunge themselves, entirely forsaken by him, into eternal ruin.​

​

So basically all sins are allowed to those who are elect. I cant read this any other way.

Article 7: Renewal to Repentance

For, in the first place, God preserves in those saints when they fall his imperishable seed from which they have been born again, lest it perish or be dislodged. Secondly, by his Word and Spirit he certainly and effectively renews them to repentance so that they have a heartfelt and godly sorrow for the sins they have committed; seek and obtain, through faith and with a contrite heart, forgiveness in the blood of the Mediator; experience again the grace of a reconciled God; through faith adore his mercies; and from then on more eagerly work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.​

​

Again I dont see how even the forgivness part is not entirely attributed to God, basically a man somehow commits grave sin, then God infuses in them the power to repent. And the last part, wow, I dont even see how they can use that passage, what are they themself really "working out"? what is there to fear?

Article 8: The Certainty of This Preservation

So it is not by their own merits or strength but by God's undeserved mercy that they neither forfeit faith and grace totally nor remain in their downfalls to the end and are lost. With respect to themselves this not only easily could happen, but also undoubtedly would happen; but with respect to God it cannot possibly happen, since his plan cannot be changed, his promise cannot fail, the calling according to his purpose cannot be revoked, the merit of Christ as well as his interceding and preserving cannot be nullified, and the sealing of the Holy Spirit can neither be invalidated nor wiped out.​

​

Talk like this I dont understand how it differs from OSAS. If a person is elect it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to not be saved, in OSAS once a person is elect it is impossible for them not to be saved. Im sitting here shaking my head, I dont get this stuff.

Article 9: The Assurance of This Preservation

Concerning this preservation of those chosen to salvation and concerning the perseverance of true believers in faith, believers themselves can and do become assured in accordance with the measure of their faith, by which they firmly believe that they are and always will remain true and living members of the church, and that they have the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.​

​

Again, back to the Calvinist Pastor example, does he not spend every waking hour believing, praying and teaching that he "firmly believes that he is and always will remain true"? Again this is a subjective measurement, who isnt going to believe they are not elect? Its the same mentality with people who buy lottery tickets, do they buy them knowing they are going to lose or with high hopes they win? I still havnt seen any way around my original assertions, a person who decides to become calvinist assumes (call it firmly believes if you want) that they are elect.

Article 10: The Ground of This Assurance

Accordingly, this assurance does not derive from some private revelation beyond or outside the Word, but from faith in the promises of God which he has very plentifully revealed in his Word for our comfort, from the testimony of the Holy Spirit testifying with our spirit that we are God's children and heirs (Rom. 8:16-17), and finally from a serious and holy pursuit of a clear conscience and of good works. And if God's chosen ones in this world did not have this well-founded comfort that the victory will be theirs and this reliable guarantee of eternal glory, they would be of all people most miserable.​

Again, totally subjective. It says "not some private revelation beyond" and then goes on to say "from the testimony of the HS with our spirit". Who is going to regularly attend church and not believe that the HS is with them testifying?

Article 11: Doubts Concerning This Assurance

Meanwhile, Scripture testifies that believers have to contend in this life with various doubts of the flesh and that under severe temptation they do not always experience this full assurance of faith and certainty of perseverance. But God, the Father of all comfort, does not let them be tempted beyond what they can bear, but with the temptation he also provides a way out (1 Cor. 10:13), and by the Holy Spirit revives in them the assurance of their perseverance.​

​

Can you understand my position here? Read that passage in red. I dont know about you but that bothers me. In otherwords there is ZERO peace and assurance because you could then be bombarded by "severe temptation".

Article 12: This Assurance as an Incentive to Godliness

• This assurance of perseverance, however, so far from making true believers proud and carnally self-assured, is rather the true root of humility, of childlike respect, of genuine godliness, of endurance in every conflict, of fervent prayers, of steadfastness in crossbearing and in confessing the truth, and of well-founded joy in God. Reflecting on this benefit provides an incentive to a serious and continual practice of thanksgiving and good works, as is evident from the testimonies of Scripture and the examples of the saints.

There is ZERO ASSURANCE. I get on these forums, I invest hours, I try to get people to believe what I think is true Gospel, call me a religious nut but when I read articles like this, especially authoritative doctrines I see huge gaps in them and its like people dont care and believe it anyway.

Article 13: Assurance No Inducement to Carelessness

• Neither does the renewed confidence of perseverance produce immorality or lack of concern for godliness in those put back on their feet after a fall, but it produces a much greater concern to observe carefully the ways of the Lord which he prepared in advance. They observe these ways in order that by walking in them they may maintain the assurance of their perseverance, lest, by their abuse of his fatherly goodness, the face of the gracious God (for the godly, looking upon his face is sweeter than life, but its withdrawal is more bitter than death) turn away from them again, with the result that they fall into greater anguish of spirit.

Talk like this means nothing, if a person is not elect then they were deceived the whole time striving to "please" God, living very moral lives, etc, all in vain.

Article 14: God's Use of Means in Perseverance

And, just as it has pleased God to begin this work of grace in us by the proclamation of the gospel, so he preserves, continues, and completes his work by the hearing and reading of the gospel, by meditation on it, by its exhortations, threats, and promises, and also by the use of the sacraments.​

​

This is interesting, I want to see how this is defined. The Gospel is not ink on a page, it is a way of living, hearing and reading the Bible mean nothing if a person is not putting them into practice. I also want to understand what the definition of sacraments is. If a person is Baptized are they assured they are elect? I dont think so, so really is there any assuance in someone getting Baptized?

 

[Monergism]

Whats an example of "service"? Is it good or bad deeds they do?

Before I give an example, I want to say that we must realize that man is sinful, and he will always sin, but God doesn't make the man sin. An example of service would be that of Joseph and his brothers. Joseph had a prophecy that he would be above his brothers, even his father and mother. Joseph's brothers, selling him away, was by them, sought as a sin. But what they didn't realize was that God used this for a good purpose, thus, when his brothers said to him, "We are your slaves," he replied to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended harm for me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives" (see Genesis 50:15-21). But I am positive that Joseph and his brothers are in heaven as the Twelve Tribes of Israel.

So you would agree that outward works dont really mean anything to us, and even if we saw or did those things ourself we could still be elect. About "willfully sinnning" are you saying that God does the other sins for us? There is no amount of sins an elect can do to make their election void.

An outward work can be deceiving. The Pharisees, for example, were formalists, which means that they were people who took the form of holiness and devotion to God, but in reality, their inwardness wasn't really changed. They only had an outward appearance. Examining one's self should be taken carefully.

And God doesn't make other sins for us, nor does He make us sin. It would be like asking if God tempts us. But the Word of God clearly says that God doesn't tempt us, rather, it comes from within us.

Im not sure everyone mentioned was elect, Acts Ch4-5:

31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness. 32 Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common.33 And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35 and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. 36 Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, 37 sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet. (Ch5) 1 But a man named Anani'as with his wife Sapphi'ra sold a piece of property, 2 and with his wife's knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, "Anani'as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." 5 When Anani'as heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it.​

Now the question is why did he sell that stuff in the first place unless he thought he was elect? Was it not a good deed selling the things and giving at least some of it to the apostles? Well as we see the man was under the control of satan and all the while he thought he was doing good, he was tricked, God had predestened him to hell.

I know not everyone in the Bible is of the elect. I was being a bit sarcastic by saying that I suppose everyone in the Bible is of the elect.

I agree its impossbile without faith, but how can regeneration come first? Unless it doesnt matter what order it comes. Why couldnt God give the gift of faith before regeneation? The way I see it faith opens the door to regeneration and they you go through that door to a new life. The way I see you describing it you find yourself in that room and then you have faith, but I dont see why.

Can a deaf person appreciate fine music? Can a dead man, by himself, willfully resurrect himself? To be regenerated is to be born again, and Christ said, "You must be born again." Before we are regenerated, we are God-haters, rebellions, dead in our trespasses. How can we obtain faith, if we are not born again? First, God gives us life, then we put our trust in him. The Scriptures clearly says, "By grace you have been saved, through faith." It never says, "By faith you have been saved, through grace." If God gives us faith, but no regeneration, then what's the point of faith, if we don't even trust in the Almighty to begin with? It's pointless.

Yes, and you cant abandon a faith you never had. Faith is God's gift, that means if he didnt give you that gift you cant abandon it.

Exactly! Faith is God's gift. But the Arminianist believes differently, and furthermore, the Arminianist believes that you can lose your salvation. So, as cygnusx1 said before to an Arminianist, "You're only putting faith in yourself."

You said its unfounded to conclude they were Baptized in water, well I dont know of any passages where Baptism is not done in water. And as I said before, it nowhere says they were not Baptized, but if you look at even the order of events in Pauls life you will see he was Baptized first before he went out to preach.

While Paul does baptize many as it is written in the Bible, he doesn't do so at Corinth. He baptizes some, but not all, and so this is what I mean.

Thats right there are no passages, so to believe in your heart that you will obey God even if He decides to send you to hell is unBiblical.

However, I see God's sovereignty is just and holy, and if I am sent to heaven, so be it, and if I am sent to hell, then that is the place where all men deserve to be thrown in


​

That is not the attitude anyone in the NT displays. Hell is depicted as where evil doers go and Jesus makes sure all who hear about it are scared and try to avoid it, yet why be scared if a person is preselected to be sent there?

If one believes only because he is afraid he'll be thrown in hell, then his heart isn't a heart of contrition, but a heart of attrition. David says, "The sacrifices of God are a broken heart; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise" (Psalm 51:17). I know of no verse where it says that God accepts a heart of attrition. It's pretty much the Pascal's wager, which is nothing. If one chooses to be a Christian, simply because they're afraid of what'll happen hereafter, then they truly have no love for God. They only have fear, and not the same fear that God demands, which is respect. Also, what I am doing, it isn't contrary to the Bible. Where did I say that if I obey God, yet He throws me in hell, that He is just in doing so?

I dont remembe if I already asked this, but if one becomes a Christian does that also mean they are elect? Or does God give the grace for a person to be a nonelect Christian?

Professing to be a Christian, yet not following, that doesn't make one the elect. Anyone can say, "I am a Christian," but it doesn't mean that they really are, unless first they are regenerated. Like I said before, even unbelievers can enter a church. And there's no such thing as a non-elect Christian. They're just plain reprobate. Sure, they can have all the talk, but it doesn't make them one.

What are you saying you have had a different experience? The ratio he listed was 100 to millions, are you sure your you fall into such a small percentage?

By experience, as I've said before, I saw it as ritualistic. I'm sure there are other former Catholics who had some kind of experience and switched over to paganism. I've seen that by some at a different place. But, I may be a small percentage, whatever that means.

As we have already established fruit doesnt always mean what we think, in the case of Paul he started off torturing Christians and even had a few murdered, but later he had a private revelation and was converted. The same could be with hitler, he could have had a private revelation at the end or even been elect the whole time. I do know that Paul speaks to people as if they are elect, but in other places he yells at them and condemns their actions, and for some reason he warns them. Even in 1 John the very last verse of the whole book says "my Children stay away from idols", is that how you end a book if your sure the people you are talking to are elect?

The difference between Paul and Hitler is that we have the Scriptures to show us that Paul was converted, plus, he wrote most of the letters in New Testament. We have nothing on Hitler, except that he may have called himself a Christian. And of course, Paul condemns their actions. Some were dividing the church, saying that some where of Paul, others of Apollos, and others of Christ. Paul was a busy and probably one of the greatest Christians in the church history (or so I believe). And what's wrong with John warning his children? The Word of God gives us warnings. Just because some are of the elect, doesn't mean that they should not be warned anyway.

So do you believe God would make us so uncertain of our salvation, yet expect us to praise Him day and night? As a rational being, I dont like calvinism for the very reason that I cant know if Im elect, I try to pray, read the Bible, do good to others, but the very fact that in calvinism it could turn out I was tricked the whole time makes me wonder if its really correct Gospel.

Why do you pray? Why do you read the Bible? Why do you do good things to others? I think you're confusing Calvinism with Arminianism. The Calvinist believes that once God has chosen you, you cannot be "snatched" from His hand. But, the Arminianist believes that you can lose your salvation. The Arminianist would be the one who was doing the trickery all this time.

Catholic Dude, we are saved by God's grace alone, by faith alone, because of Christ alone. While our good deeds are the evidence of us being one of the elect, they do not save us. Our doing good was prepared in advance for us (Ephesians 2:10). I am in fact glad for you though, that you pray, read the Word, and do good to others. I don't know of any other thing that could make you not of the elect.

Still what about those who gathered up the 27 books, they had to have been guided by the Holy Spirit. Also I dont know what your trying to prove wit Rm3:4, I agree it takes one lie to be a liar, but that doesnt mean people lie with every word they say the rest of their life. Are you lying when you say your a monergist? Im not convinced that passage is being interpreted properly, because as we see with the writers of Scripture they were telling the truth

Though those who gathered the New Testament were fallible, I do believe that they were being guided by God. They didn't say, "We'll just take this and that. But this, I hate." They took special care and time to see which of the letters were truly God-inspired.

And I know that people don't lie with every word they say, but we can always truly trust God, because He is immutable, and so He does what He says He'll do. As it is written: "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should change his mind. Does he speak and not act, promise and not fulfill?" (Numbers 23:19).

So you cant judge hitler nor can you assume he was not elect.

To each his own.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Here is the place where I have issues, it looks like its not up to the person at all here, Im not saying thats bad, but what I dont understand is how from this definition a serial killer could even murder AND basically get off because God's grace is so powerfully preserving him. From what I understand about Luther (im not sure about Calvin) is that the temptation and inclination to sin are sin in itself, which the CC doesnt believe.

Temptation to sin is not sin. But sin can be in thought, word and/or deed. Thoughts can and are at times sinful. Yielding to temptation in thought, word and/or deed is sin, but temptation is not necessarily sin. It is how we deal with temptation that is potentially sinful.

You are trying to understand these things from a Roman Catholic paradigm and they concepts don’t quite fit. From that perspective.

As you know King David committed adultery, lied, murdered and was engaged in a cover up and God’s grace was certainly sufficient and from a human perspective King David did “basically get off.” But, while none would deny the immensity and abundance of God’s grace, the situation that you mention, while possible (because all things are possible with God – and I don’t think Thomists would deny that) is not the norm. It is like the Westminster Confessions says about Salvation. It says , “The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” Rome too, at Vatican II seems to agree with this (does it not). So like salvation, which is “ordinarily” the only place where salvation is to be obtained, God can and does work extraordinarily (outside His normal means) if and when he chooses.

I don’t know of any system of theology, Catholic or Protestant, that would deny that God “can save a serial killer, but I don’t think any of them would thing that to be an ordinary happening.

Here is the talk I dont understand at all. Especially the "by God's just permission"? Is He giving them the grace to avoid that sin or not? If grace frowing to the is like a garden hose delivering water then what does God do turn off the water? I dont see how this even happens, let alone how the person basically is forgiven and gets away with it.

Did David and Peter know God when they sinned so terribly? Yes of course they did, yet they fell into sin. God allowed them to yield to temptation. He did not cause them to sin, his Spirit could have restrained them from sinning, but he allowed David and Peter to sin and He used that sin for His glory.

In my opinion this looks like a big pity party, the sinner is in no danger at all, what is this "greatly offended" and "grieve the HS" talk if God intends to save them anyway? Its like bumps in the road.

Haven’t you known Catholicsto leave the faith for a season because of sin) and then repent and return to the faith? This is all that they are saying. God allows, at times, for His elect, such as King David, to fall into sin, but God’s spirit did not leave him there, but brought him to repentance. The same is true of Peter. He denied the Lord; he apostatised, but was not allowed to remain an apostate. He, unlike Judas, who also apostatised, repented.

So basically all sins are allowed to those who are elect. I cant read this any other way.

See above what I’ve already said about the sins of David and Peter. We are all capable of grievous sin. I see it when I look into my own heart. I could do evil. The potential is there. God’s spirit restrains me. But if I do fall into sin and later repent it would be because God’s spirit works repentance in my heart. If there is no repentance and I apostatised then there would be no salvation.

You are reading way to much into this statement and ripping it out of its context. Certainly you believe a person can fall into terrible sin, repent and return to a godly life. This is the thrust of what they are saying.

Again I dont see how even the forgivness part is not entirely attributed to God, basically a man somehow commits grave sin, then God infuses in them the power to repent. And the last part, wow, I dont even see how they can use that passage, what are they themself really "working out"? what is there to fear?

I think part of the problem is you don’t understand the Reformed teaching on the extent of the corruption that is in natural man because of the fall. We believe in total depravity of natural man.

But even then the men at the Synod of Dort were only quoting Paul’s letter to the Church at Philippi. “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil.2:12

Talk like this I dont understand how it differs from OSAS. If a person is elect it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to not be saved, in OSAS once a person is elect it is impossible for them not to be saved. Im sitting here shaking my head, I dont get this stuff.

In Reformed circles where Covenant concepts have been lost OSAS has in many cases replaced perseverance.

It does stand to reason that if someone is predestined to eternal life by a sovereign God than he must in the end be saved. That is from God’s vantage point. From a human perspective we MUST persevere in the faith. IF we do not persevere, than we were not predestined to persevere.

The Scriptures give us two angles from which to look at this doctrine and both are true. One is God’s He has predestined a people to eternal live. The other is mans. From mans vantage point we must persevere. OSAS ignores the need for men to persevere in the faith, it has a natural tendency to antinomianism, which is much of what you have been attempting to equate above to the Canons of Dort.

Again, back to the Calvinist Pastor example, does he not spend every waking hour believing, praying and teaching that he "firmly believes that he is and always will remain true"? Again this is a subjective measurement, who isnt going to believe they are not elect? Its the same mentality with people who buy lottery tickets, do they buy them knowing they are going to lose or with high hopes they win? I still havnt seen any way around my original assertions, a person who decides to become calvinist assumes (call it firmly believes if you want) that they are elect.

Of course I assume I am elect. Do you not assume that you will be saved by following the teachings of the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church teaches that you have to believe and repentm and take part in the sacraments to be saved. Don’t you believe you will be saved, if you continue in these things? Of course you do are you would not practice the Catholic Faith.

I was “born again” long before I became a Calvinist. I studied the Bible and looked for ways in it to escape the Doctrines of Predestination and Election. I found that the Bible teaches this from Gen. to Rev. I was compelled to believe it against my will to do so, because it rubbed me the wrong way.

Again, totally subjective. It says "not some private revelation beyond" and then goes on to say "from the testimony of the HS with our spirit". Who is going to regularly attend church and not believe that the HS is with them testifying?

As I mention there is a subjective and objective grounds for our assurance

Can you understand my position here? Read that passage in red. I dont know about you but that bothers me. In otherwords there is ZERO peace and assurance because you could then be bombarded by "severe temptation".

Some people struggle with assurance. I have to. If we fall into sin we should lack assurance. But as I’ve grown in my understanding, and as I’ve overcome some of my sinful tendencies, and can look back on my life and see how the Lord has matured me in the faith the my assurance too grows, but never to the point where I become complacent and flippant in my assurance.

There is ZERO ASSURANCE. I get on these forums, I invest hours, I try to get people to believe what I think is true Gospel, call me a religious nut but when I read articles like this, especially authoritative doctrines I see huge gaps in them and its like people dont care and believe it anyway.

I would be more than happy to work with you on these things. I struggled with them for a number of years and invested countless hours in, first working to refute them and then in trying to understand and be able to explain them.

Talk like this means nothing, if a person is not elect then they were deceived the whole time striving to "please" God, living very moral lives, etc, all in vain.

I don’t think you understand the context of these writings. They were written in response to the Remonstrance written by the followers of James Arminius. I think you need to understand the context better. That may help you to understand.

This is interesting, I want to see how this is defined. The Gospel is not ink on a page, it is a way of living, hearing and reading the Bible mean nothing if a person is not putting them into practice. I also want to understand what the definition of sacraments is. If a person is Baptized are they assured they are elect? I dont think so, so really is there any assuance in someone getting Baptized?

I believe it engrafts me into Christ. It brings me into His Kingdom and His Church. This is where salvation is to be found. We both believe that the grace of baptism can be squandered, if it is not followed up by true faith in Jesus Christ. IF we do not believe (which brings about Spiritual fruit) on Jesus Christ, who is the true vine, we who are branches will be cut off and cast into the fire. In order to be cut off, we must be attached to the vine (be part of God’s covenant people), and we were attached to the vine by our baptism. We must make our baptism sure by living a life of repentance, faith and obedience to Jesus Christ.

I hope this helps

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[Catholic Dude]

Monergism-

Before I give an example, I want to say that we must realize that man is sinful, and he will always sin, but God doesn't make the man sin.

Are you sure about that? Im sure there are cases in the Bible where people could get to the point where they didnt sin anymore.

An example of service would be that of Joseph and his brothers. ... (see Genesis 50:15-21). But I am positive that Joseph and his brothers are in heaven as the Twelve Tribes of Israel.

Is there an example of service where the person is not elect?

An outward work can be deceiving. The Pharisees, for example, were formalists, which means that they were people who took the form of holiness and devotion to God, but in reality, their inwardness wasn't really changed. They only had an outward appearance. Examining one's self should be taken carefully.

Im not talking about pharisee type people, Im talking about people who believe deep down they are elect. Again I dont understand the idea of "examining yourself", what is someone going to do examine and find out they are not elect or that God wont forgive them?

I know not everyone in the Bible is of the elect. I was being a bit sarcastic by saying that I suppose everyone in the Bible is of the elect.

Ok. Now about Ananias thing in Acts5, why did he sell off those things in the first place if he was non elect?

Can a deaf person appreciate fine music? Can a dead man, by himself, willfully resurrect himself? To be regenerated is to be born again, and Christ said, "You must be born again." Before we are regenerated, we are God-haters, rebellions, dead in our trespasses. How can we obtain faith, if we are not born again? First, God gives us life, then we put our trust in him. The Scriptures clearly says, "By grace you have been saved, through faith." It never says, "By faith you have been saved, through grace." If God gives us faith, but no regeneration, then what's the point of faith, if we don't even trust in the Almighty to begin with? It's pointless.

That "born again" quote is interesting, you know that two verses later how Jesus defines "born again"? Jn3:5 says its Baptism (which most people would agree its the gateway Sacrament that opens one up to receive the others).

Exactly! Faith is God's gift. But the Arminianist believes differently, and furthermore, the Arminianist believes that you can lose your salvation. So, as cygnusx1 said before to an Arminianist, "You're only putting faith in yourself."

Your confused on the definition of apostacy, you agreed with my original views here, but I dont think your seeing what Im saying...apostacy is impossible in Calvinism (from what I understand).

While Paul does baptize many as it is written in the Bible, he doesn't do so at

Corinth. He baptizes some, but not all, and so this is what I mean.

He didnt have to Baptize them for them to get Baptized, it looks like the reason why they were forming divisions is because they were Baptized by different people.

...If one chooses to be a Christian, simply because they're afraid of what'll happen hereafter, then they truly have no love for God. They only have fear, and not the same fear that God demands, which is respect. Also, what I am doing, it isn't contrary to the Bible. Where did I say that if I obey God, yet He throws me in hell, that He is just in doing so?

The issue was would you still try to worship God even if there was a chance you were non elect? You said yes you would. I asked if anyone in the NT held that view and you said nobody did. I said your position to say "yes you would still worship" was unBiblical. Here is your quote again:

However, I see God's sovereignty is just and holy, and if I am sent to heaven, so be it, and if I am sent to hell, then that is the place where all men deserve to be thrown in.
​

By experience, as I've said before, I saw it as ritualistic. I'm sure there are other former Catholics who had some kind of experience and switched over to paganism. I've seen that by some at a different place. But, I may be a small percentage, whatever that means.

The quote was:

There’s not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church teaches.
​

The data is a hundred (group1) people who hate the CC vs. millions (group2) who are misinformed. If you combine those two groups in a area and randomly select one person out of there, there is a tiny fraction of 1% of a chance it would be one of the people who hate the CC. In otherwords the chances that your someone who simply hates the CC for no reason (group1), your chances of falling into group1 are 100/1,000,000 less than .01% chance (not 1%, one one-hundreth of a percent). With odds like that I would bet you hate what you mistakenly think the CC teaches.

The difference between Paul and Hitler is that we have the Scriptures to show us that Paul was converted, plus, he wrote most of the letters in New Testament. We have nothing on Hitler, except that he may have called himself a Christian. And of course, Paul condemns their actions. Some were dividing the church, saying that some where of Paul, others of Apollos, and others of Christ. Paul was a busy and probably one of the greatest Christians in the church history (or so I believe).

First we know that no sin an elect does will cause him to lose election, so Hitler could have been elect the whole time. Or, as shown in Matt20:1-13 Hitler could have come in all the way up to the 11th hour.

And what's wrong with John warning his children? The Word of God gives us warnings. Just because some are of the elect, doesn't mean that they should not be warned anyway.

Two things, he makes a strong warning at the very end of the letter, not something one does for people who are so confident. Second of all what does a warning accomplish? The non elect are not going to listen to the warning, and the elect, if they happen to not listen to the warning, (eg Solomon with 1000s of idols) we know they will just be forgiven so it didnt matter if they avoided the idols or not (though it is ideal for them to avoid them).

Why do you pray? Why do you read the Bible? Why do you do good things to others? I think you're confusing Calvinism with Arminianism. The Calvinist believes that once God has chosen you, you cannot be "snatched" from His hand. But, the Arminianist believes that you can lose your salvation. The Arminianist would be the one who was doing the trickery all this time.

Thats not what Im saying.

Catholic Dude, we are saved by God's grace alone, by faith alone, because of Christ alone. While our good deeds are the evidence of us being one of the elect, they do not save us. Our doing good was prepared in advance for us (Ephesians 2:10). I am in fact glad for you though, that you pray, read the Word, and do good to others. I don't know of any other thing that could make you not of the elect.

You dont get what Im saying, why do I have the urge to read the Bible and pray in the first place? Should I just stop? If doing those things is evidence of my election then I shouldnt stop. Yet we both know that I could be tricked this whole time (ie non elect) and be doing these things for reasons I have no control over. I read the Bible and is says to honor my parents, well I do honor them but is it true honoring? If Im not elect then my honoring is dead works in the eyes of God. The problem is I dont know if Im performing dead works or good works (ie good fruit), Im visibly honoring them either way though. If Im not elect that honoring was in vain.

Two people can save your life, but if one of them was non elect then his work was dead (and worthy of hell).

Though those who gathered the New Testament were fallible, I do believe that they were being guided by God. They didn't say, "We'll just take this and that. But this, I hate." They took special care and time to see which of the letters were truly God-inspired.

The gathering of those books was nothing short of a miracle, it was an infallible decision by fallible men (all possible because they were guided by the Holy Spirit).

To each his own.

Jesus said judge not lest ye be judged.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Jesus said judge not lest ye be judged.

That was to the Pharisees, but then Jesus told His disciples "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." (John 7:24)

Remember context.
In Christ,
Kenith

 

[Monergism]

Are you sure about that? Im sure there are cases in the Bible where people could get to the point where they didnt sin anymore.

Verses?

Is there an example of service where the person is not elect?

Judas Iscariot.

Im not talking about pharisee type people, Im talking about people who believe deep down they are elect. Again I dont understand the idea of "examining yourself", what is someone going to do examine and find out they are not elect or that God wont forgive them?

I don't know what someone is going to do. But it would be better to do what the Bible says, rather than just not doing anything at all.

Ok. Now about Ananias thing in Acts5, why did he sell off those things in the first place if he was non elect?

Why does a person help at a relief, if he's not one of the elect?

That "born again" quote is interesting, you know that two verses later how Jesus defines "born again"? Jn3:5 says its Baptism (which most people would agree its the gateway Sacrament that opens one up to receive the others).

Most, or just Catholics?

Your confused on the definition of apostacy, you agreed with my original views here, but I dont think your seeing what Im saying...apostacy is impossible in Calvinism (from what I understand).

No I'm not. I gave the definition of "apostasy." I'm not saying one of the elect can commit apostasy.

He didnt have to Baptize them for them to get Baptized, it looks like the reason why they were forming divisions is because they were Baptized by different people.

Okay, you know, I'm really going to not respond on this now. It's old, I don't care, there's no evidence, yadda, yadda, yadda. I'm moving on.

The issue was would you still try to worship God even if there was a chance you were non elect? You said yes you would. I asked if anyone in the NT held that view and you said nobody did. I said your position to say "yes you would still worship" was unBiblical. Here is your quote again:

However, I see God's sovereignty is just and holy, and if I am sent to heaven, so be it, and if I am sent to hell, then that is the place where all men deserve to be thrown in.​

​

Where in my quote do I say that I should still try worshiping God, if I am not even of the elect? Furthermore, the reprobate wouldn't even worship God, because his mind is hostile towards God.

The quote was:

There’s not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church teaches.




​

The data is a hundred (group1) people who hate the CC vs. millions (group2) who are misinformed. If you combine those two groups in a area and randomly select one person out of there, there is a tiny fraction of 1% of a chance it would be one of the people who hate the CC. In otherwords the chances that your someone who simply hates the CC for no reason (group1), your chances of falling into group1 are 100/1,000,000 less than .01% chance (not 1%, one one-hundreth of a percent). With odds like that I would bet you hate what you mistakenly think the CC teaches.

I do hate what they teach. Explain all of the teachings to me, if you will, to see if what I hate, can be justified by if it's really true what you Catholics believe and teach.

First we know that no sin an elect does will cause him to lose election, so Hitler could have been elect the whole time. Or, as shown in Matt20:1-13 Hitler could have come in all the way up to the 11th hour.

This is baseless on your part, and thus, I am not going to go any further with this. But, it's funny that you would believe that one who only professed to be a Christian, was actually one in reality. I guess that pagan is really a Christian, but doesn't realize it!

Two things, he makes a strong warning at the very end of the letter, not something one does for people who are so confident. Second of all what does a warning accomplish? The non elect are not going to listen to the warning, and the elect, if they happen to not listen to the warning, (eg Solomon with 1000s of idols) we know they will just be forgiven so it didnt matter if they avoided the idols or not (though it is ideal for them to avoid them).

Who said the children were so confident? I'm sure John was, but who's to say that the children were? And your second question is full of hyper-Calvinism, for a hyper-Calvinist would say, "Don't tell the reprobate (non-elect) to repent and believe, because they can't." Continue the misconceptions, and I shall discontinue with this discussion.

Thats not what Im saying.

Then could you explain?

You dont get what Im saying, why do I have the urge to read the Bible and pray in the first place? Should I just stop? If doing those things is evidence of my election then I shouldnt stop. Yet we both know that I could be tricked this whole time (ie non elect) and be doing these things for reasons I have no control over. I read the Bible and is says to honor my parents, well I do honor them but is it true honoring? If Im not elect then my honoring is dead works in the eyes of God. The problem is I dont know if Im performing dead works or good works (ie good fruit), Im visibly honoring them either way though. If Im not elect that honoring was in vain.

I believe I do know what you're saying. Your questions are like that of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who said,

Born as all of us are by nature, an "Arminian," I still believed the old things I had heard continually from the pulpit, and did not see the Grace of God. When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this.


​

I can recall the very day and hour when first I received these truths in my own soul - when they were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron: I can recollect how I felt that I had grown all of a sudden from a babe into a man - that I had made progress in scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God.


One week-night when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher's sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, 'how did you come to be a Christian?' (...I sought the Lord). But how did you come to seek the Lord? - (the truth flashed across my mind in a moment) - I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him.
I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, "How came I to pray?" - I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. I did read them; but what led me to do so? - Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith; and as the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make it my constant confession.​

​

Jesus said judge not lest ye be judged.

That's out of context. John tells us to "test," which, testing would be trying, and to try would be judging. The quote you are quoting is that of hypocrites.

 

[Catholic Dude]

(edited for size)
Cajun Huguenot-

King David committed adultery,... murdered... and God’s grace was certainly sufficient and from a human perspective King David did “basically get off.” ...

The point though (it doesnt even have to be a serial killer for this to work, it can be any sins, even a combination of them), which you seem to agree with is that the person does get "off the hook" if they are elect.

It is like the Westminster Confessions says about Salvation. It says , “The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” Rome too, at Vatican II seems to agree with this (does it not). ...

First there is one major difference, it says "VISIBLE Church". Is there are central authority and/or hierarchy in the "visible chruch" you describe? Biblically and historically there has been a visible Church led by chosen people and their true successors. The way I see "church" defined is all the people who profess the "true religion"...that is a very vague and open ended definition, people are preaching thousands of different gopels, even within Calvinism there are many divisions...so what is "true religion"?...the Catholic Church is a visible institution with visible leaders, there is one truth defined for all to see.

About that "no salvatin outside the church" stuff, that is a maybe. We dont know if God will make some way for them and they will follow it, but what we do know is that there is one sure way of being saved and that is through the Catholic Church (who is the perfect protector and preacher of the Gospel).

I don’t know of anyone ... would deny that God “can save a serial killer, but I don’t think any of them would thing that to be an ordinary happening.

You not getting what Im saying, lets say a person did twice the sins David did, is that "out of the ordinary"? the point is that God can and has saved rapists, murderers, etc. Didnt Jesus say to forgive a brother 70x7 times (ie never stop forgiving)? No sin, none is too much for God to forgive.

If you knew someone murdered 10 people would you say that person should not have the Gospel preached to him? For all we know that guy could be radically changed for the better after hearing what Jesus had to say.

Did David and Peter know God when they sinned so terribly? Yes of course they did, yet they fell into sin. God allowed them to yield to temptation. He did not cause them to sin, his Spirit could have restrained them from sinning, but he allowed David and Peter to sin and He used that sin for His glory.

I guess I dont understand how David "chose" to sin. God "allowed" an elect like David to kill, why?...did God want that guy dead?

I Calvinism like this, lets say man is a ball and God is a hand, the goal is to get the ball to the other end of the field (heaven)...the ball cant move at all and resides in the mud (sin)...if it wants, the hand can enact a force on that ball via the hand throwing it (grace), that ball cant resist that force and goes freely with it in the same direction (irresistable grace), this can go on forever because that force is so powerful (God's grace is able to keep a person going all the way to heaven)...yet somehow that ball doesnt stay moving in that direction and gravity (mans constant inclinations to sin) overcomes it and it starts to fall downward, if it hits the ground (in sin) it is lifeless and dead unless the hand picks it up again.
How did gravity overcome the powerful force?

Haven’t you known Catholics to leave the faith...and return to the faith? This is all that they are saying. God allows, at times, for His elect, such as King David, to fall into sin, but God’s spirit did not leave him there, but brought him to repentance. The same is true of Peter. ... He, unlike Judas, who also apostatised, repented.

I cant say right now I know any Catholics like that, but I probably do. I do know of Catholics who leave and dont/havnt returned though, so I dont think your analogy works.
Hmm, Judas is an interesting topic, why did Jesus pick him in the first place to be part of the 12 and listen in to the inside story of what Jesus had to teach? What was the point of Judas according to Calvinism, couldnt any soldier have come and arrested Jesus? Better yet, why did Judas return the money?

See above what I’ve already said about the sins of David and Peter. We are all capable of grievous sin. I see it when I look into my own heart. I could do evil. The potential is there. God’s spirit restrains me. But if I do fall into sin...

I just cant comprehend how "the potential is there, but God restrains me", yet you still end up sinning.

You are reading way to much into this statement and ripping it out of its context. Certainly you believe a person can fall into terrible sin, repent and return to a godly life. This is the thrust of what they are saying.

Yes, I believe a person can murder 10 people and repent and return to a Godly life.

I think part of the problem is you don’t understand the Reformed teaching on the extent of the corruption that is in natural man because of the fall. We believe in total depravity of natural man.

The way I see total depravity is this, man is nothing but a sinning machine, he could do nothing but evil. Yet his evil is not to the highest level, eg they could murder, but that doesnt mean they would murder everyone on the planet, in otherwords there is always a worse leve of sin they can commit.
They are like that ball sitting in the mud, it can only sink in that mud, they cant move unless God acts on them.

How they return to that mud after God has picked them up is where Im confused. Yet if they are one of the special balls, God picks them back up and starts them off again.

But even then the men at the Synod of Dort were only quoting Paul’s letter to the Church at Philippi...Phil.2:12

I knew exactly what they were quoting, my question is how can "WORK out YOUR own salvation in FEAR and TREMBLING" be an indication of someone who is sure that they are going to heaven?

In Reformed circles where Covenant concepts have been lost OSAS has in many cases replaced perseverance.

It does stand to reason that if someone is predestined to eternal life by a sovereign God than he must in the end be saved. That is from God’s vantage point.

From God's vantage point OSAS is the same as persevere to the end.

From a human perspective we MUST persevere in the faith. IF we do not persevere, than we were not predestined to persevere.

So basically you dont know if your elect, BECAUSE you dont know the FUTURE? How do you know you will remain in the Calvinist faith in the next 10 years?? Unless you know the future (up to the end) you dont know if your going to persevere.

The Scriptures give us two angles from which to look at this doctrine and both are true. ...

I would agree with this: God does know who will be in Heaven, God knows everything.

The other is mans. From mans vantage point we must persevere. OSAS ignores the need for men to persevere ...

I think I get it now, but the question of how you know your going to persevere is my original assertion. To claim your elect is to know your going to persevere, and to know your going to persever means you know what your going to do in the future. Can you see in the future?

Of course I assume I am elect. Do you not assume that you will be saved by following the teachings of the Catholic Church?

There is a big difference though...the Bible, Fathers, Catholic Church say that the Sacraments are saving acts in and of themselves, to partake in a Sacrament means you have received Gods saving grace. In Baptism, my sins are washed away, God will never judge me on those sins, I am for sure regenerated and a new person.
For more I turn to reformed.org on the council of Orange (529AD) here:

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

CONCLUSION. ...According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.
​

In this council I see that after Baptism I have the "ability and responsibility" to do what needs to be done to get to Heaven. As we know not all persons who are Baptized are going to heaven, not because they are unable to do what pleases God, but because they chose to disobey. That is objective assurance on my part, not that Im sure Im going to Heaven, but that Im sure that Im NOT in a helpless pit where I cant please God no matter what I do. Also Im sure that Im not "assuming" Im elect with the risk of finding out I never was.

Thats not what I see in Calvinism, do things like Baptism REALLY forgive all sins and restore features like free will? From what I see, man only assumes they are elect and in the end COULD find out that they never really were elect or even go insane questioning their unknown fate.

I dont assume, I believe...I believe in what the Bible, Early Church Fathers and Councils said.

The Catholic Church teaches that you have to believe and repent and take part in the sacraments to be saved. Don’t you believe you will be saved, if you continue in these things?...

Calvinism misses some important points in terms of Sacraments and "continuing in these things" than what Biblical and Historical Christianity teach.

I was “born again” long before I became a Calvinist. I studied the Bible and looked for ways in it to escape the Doctrines of Predestination and Election. I found that the Bible teaches this from Gen. to Rev. I was compelled to believe it against my will to do so, because it rubbed me the wrong way.

I hope for the day when that set of Early Church Fathers comes to your home and you read the first few Ecumenical Councils and first few Church pre-Nicene Fathers, I pray that the Holy Spirit opens you mind to what you read and you prove to yourself what they believed and preached both via the Bible and Tradition.

As I mention there is a subjective and objective grounds for our assurance

I cant really reply to this until I see your responses for the previous questions concerning knowing the future.

Some people struggle with assurance. I have to. If we fall into sin we should lack assurance. But as I’ve grown in my understanding, and as I’ve overcome some of my sinful tendencies, and can look back on my life and see how the Lord has matured me in the faith the my assurance too grows, but never to the point where I become complacent and flippant in my assurance.

This sounds just like me, but thats far from me believing Im sure of my perseverence to the end (ie elect).

I would be more than happy to work with you on these things. I struggled with them for a number of years and invested countless hours in, first working to refute them and then in trying to understand and be able to explain them.

Im interested in refutation examples coming from ALL of the following: Scripture AND Church Fathers AND Councils. For the most part they all should agree (or at least not contradict eachother) on the major teachings.

I believe you on struggling with this stuff for years and Im all ears for examples proving/disproving using those three criteria (with online sources available)

I believe it engrafts me into Christ. ...This is where salvation is to be found. We both believe that the grace of baptism can be squandered, if it is not followed up by true faith in Jesus Christ. IF we do not believe (which brings about Spiritual fruit) on Jesus Christ, who is the true vine, we who are branches will be cut off and cast into the fire. ...

Do you believe your sins are forgiven (especially original sin) at Baptism?

The problem I have with your definition is that talk like "followed up by true faith in Christ" is impossible unless your elect, if your not elect then the Baptism did nothing for you. The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople as well as other places teaches that Baptism really does forgive all sin of EVERYONE who is Baptized.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Catholic Dude,

Thanks for your comments. Here is my reply.

(edited for size)
Cajun Huguenot-

The point though (it doesnt even have to be a serial killer for this to work, it can be any sins, even a combination of them), which you seem to agree with is that the person does get "off the hook" if they are elect.


First there is one major difference, it says "VISIBLE Church". Is there are central authority and/or hierarchy in the "visible chruch" you describe? Biblically and historically there has been a visible Church led by chosen people and their true successors. The way I see "church" defined is all the people who profess the "true religion"...that is a very vague and open ended definition, people are preaching thousands of different gopels, even within Calvinism there are many divisions...so what is "true religion"?...the Catholic Church is a visible institution with visible leaders, there is one truth defined for all to see.

About that "no salvatin outside the church" stuff, that is a maybe. We dont know if God will make some way for them and they will follow it, but what we do know is that there is one sure way of being saved and that is through the Catholic Church (who is the perfect protector and preacher of the Gospel).

I do have a different definition of the visible Church than what is generally understood by my Roman Catholic friends. I see the visible Church as all those who fall under the Orthodoxy of the Nicene, Apostles and even the Athanasian Creeds.

I believe the EasternChurches and the WesternChurches make up the visible Church. Those that have strayed so far from Orthodoxy that they are outside umbrella of the Apostles Creed are outside of the Christian faith.

I do think that St. Cyprian’s statement “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (outside the Church, no salvation) is ordinarily correct. But I have a broader view of the Church than Rome (at least pre-Vatican II) will admit to. Rome at Vatican II does seem to take a broader view of salvation outside of the Roman Communion, but it seems to contradict other infallible Church pronouncements such ass Boniface VIII’s Unum Sactum, Vatican I and Trent. They limit salvation to only those under Papal authority. I see contradiction between Vat.II and these other pronouncements.

You not getting what Im saying, lets say a person did twice the sins David did, is that "out of the ordinary"? the point is that God can and has saved rapists, murderers, etc. Didnt Jesus say to forgive a brother 70x7 times (ie never stop forgiving)? No sin, none is too much for God to forgive.

If you knew someone murdered 10 people would you say that person should not have the Gospel preached to him? For all we know that guy could be radically changed for the better after hearing what Jesus had to say.

We should ALWAYS proclaim the Gospel even to the most hideous criminals. It is the Holy Spirits work to save sinners. I have seen that David Berkowitz (the Son of Sam serial killer) has become a Christian. Is it true? I don’t know, but In Christ all things are possible.

I guess I dont understand how David "chose" to sin. God "allowed" an elect like David to kill, why?...did God want that guy dead?

God alone knows why and He has not revealed His secret will to us. The Scripture says that this same David was “A man after [God’s] own heart”

I [see] Calvinism like this, lets say man is a ball and God is a hand, the goal is to get the ball to the other end of the field (heaven)...the ball cant move at all and resides in the mud (sin)...if it wants, the hand can enact a force on that ball via the hand throwing it (grace), that ball cant resist that force and goes freely with it in the same direction (irresistable grace), this can go on forever because that force is so powerful (God's grace is able to keep a person going all the way to heaven)...yet somehow that ball doesnt stay moving in that direction and gravity (mans constant inclinations to sin) overcomes it and it starts to fall downward, if it hits the ground (in sin) it is lifeless and dead unless the hand picks it up again.
How did gravity overcome the powerful force?

That is an interesting analogy, but it is not very accurate, because from our perspective even the bounce is part of the predestined plan of God.

To continue with your analogy, God doesn’t make the ball bounce but he uses even our sin to accomplish His will in our lives and in His creation. Every point is predestined before the Creation (even the bounce) and is headed toward God’s predetermined end.

I cant say right now I know any Catholics like that, but I probably do. I do know of Catholics who leave and dont/havnt returned though, so I dont think your analogy works.

I’ve known Catholilics who have left and returned. I even struggled with that idea myself for a time, but that is another matter.

Hmm, Judas is an interesting topic, why did Jesus pick him in the first place to be part of the 12 and listen in to the inside story of what Jesus had to teach? What was the point of Judas according to Calvinism, couldnt any soldier have come and arrested Jesus? Better yet, why did Judas return the money?

Christ chose Jesus because He knew his heart and He know what Judas would do. I think it was important that someone close to Jesus would betray Him. This made the betrayal all the more painful to the Lord. But Judas did that which he was ordained to do. He returned money because he knew he had betrayed the Lord, but he did not repent even in his sorrow and despair.

I just cant comprehend how "the potential is there, but God restrains me", yet you still end up sinning.

If God did not restrain me I would fall into far greater sin. The sin we do commit He uses for His glory, to perfect us in the faith, and to cling all more tightly to Christ who is our surety.

The way I see total depravity is this, man is nothing but a sinning machine, he could do nothing but evil. Yet his evil is not to the highest level, eg they could murder, but that doesnt mean they would murder everyone on the planet, in otherwords there is always a worse leve of sin they can commit.

The best analogy of total depravity is if you have a vile of water and you drop poison into it and shake it. Who much of the water is tainted by the poison? All is. It is not all poison but all of the water is now corrupted. That is how we are. There is no part of our being that is not corrupted by the fall. Satan is a file that is all poison. Man is a vile that is corrupted totally corrupted but is not total poison.

I knew exactly what they were quoting, my question is how can "WORK out YOUR own salvation in FEAR and TREMBLING" be an indication of someone who is sure that they are going to heaven?

Even in our Bible based assurance we are to be humble and not presumptuous. We are always to remember that God is LORD and we are undeserving sinners.

From God's vantage point OSAS is the same as persevere to the end.

Right, but God’s vantage point is not ours. We must persevere, and God enables his elect to persevere.

So basically you dont know if your elect, BECAUSE you dont know the FUTURE? How do you know you will remain in the Calvinist faith in the next 10 years?? Unless you know the future (up to the end) you dont know if your going to persevere.


I would agree with this: God does know who will be in Heaven, God knows everything.

I think I get it now, but the question of how you know your going to persevere is my original assertion. To claim your elect is to know your going to persevere, and to know your going to persever means you know what your going to do in the future. Can you see in the future?

To say “I will persevere no matter what; I have it in me to do so,” would be presumption. To say “I will, by God’s grace, persevere” is biblical assurance.

There is a big difference though...the Bible, Fathers, Catholic Church say that the Sacraments are saving acts in and of themselves, to partake in a Sacrament means you have received Gods saving grace. In Baptism, my sins are washed away, God will never judge me on those sins, I am for sure regenerated and a new person.
For more I turn to reformed.org on the council of Orange (529AD) here:

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

CONCLUSION. ...According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.

In this council I see that after Baptism I have the "ability and responsibility" to do what needs to be done to get to Heaven. As we know not all persons who are Baptized are going to heaven, not because they are unable to do what pleases God, but because they chose to disobey. That is objective assurance on my part, not that Im sure Im going to Heaven, but that Im sure that Im NOT in a helpless pit where I cant please God no matter what I do. Also Im sure that Im not "assuming" Im elect with the risk of finding out I never was.
​

Thats not what I see in Calvinism, do things like Baptism REALLY forgive all sins and restore features like free will? From what I see, man only assumes they are elect and in the end COULD find out that they never really were elect or even go insane questioning their unknown fate.

I dont assume, I believe...I believe in what the Bible, Early Church Fathers and Councils said.

I really believe baptism unites us to Christ. I am sure that all who are baptised as infants, and die young are elect, and are forgiven of their sins.

As (I think) you know, the teachings of the early church are one of my primary areas of study right now, and I hope to concentrate on their views of the sacraments in the near future. So we can discuss these items when I have done that.

Calvinism misses some important points in terms of Sacraments and "continuing in these things" than what Biblical and Historical Christianity teach.

We will see. I think some of my resent posts showing a little what Calvin believed on the Supper and Baptism are not what is generally held even by many Reformed Christians today. Again we can discuss this at a later date after I study the early church (and Calvin) on these matters.

I hope for the day when that set of Early Church Fathers comes to your home and you read the first few Ecumenical Councils and first few Church pre-Nicene Fathers, I pray that the Holy Spirit opens you mind to what you read and you prove to yourself what they believed and preached both via the Bible and Tradition.


I cant really reply to this until I see your responses for the previous questions concerning knowing the future.


This sounds just like me, but thats far from me believing Im sure of my perseverence to the end (ie elect).


Im interested in refutation examples coming from ALL of the following: Scripture AND Church Fathers AND Councils. For the most part they all should agree (or at least not contradict eachother) on the major teachings.

I believe you on struggling with this stuff for years and Im all ears for examples proving/disproving using those three criteria (with online sources available)


Do you believe your sins are forgiven (especially original sin) at Baptism?

The problem I have with your definition is that talk like "followed up by true faith in Christ" is impossible unless your elect, if your not elect then the Baptism did nothing for you. The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople as well as other places teaches that Baptism really does forgive all sin of EVERYONE who is Baptized.

On this point I am in agreement with Calvin and the great St. Augustine. The same argument you use here against the Calvinist position can be aimed at Augustine who said “Consequently this verse seems to compel us to believe that during that time, short as it is, no one will be added to the Christian community, but that the devil will make war with those who have previously become Christians, and that, though some of these may be conquered and desert to the devil, these do not belong to the predestinated number of the sons of God. For it is not without reason that John, the same apostle as wrote this Apocalypse, says in his epistle regarding certain persons, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us.” (City of God – 907)

I do believe that baptism ALWAYS accomplishes something. It covenantally unites all who are baptised to Jesus Christ and more. Calvin certainly believed that baptism was effectual. But not in the same way as the Roman Catholic Church does.

But even those who are not elect unto eternal salvation receive grace in their Baptism. They will also be held accountable to God for rejecting the grace they received at their baptism.


Dominus vobiscum,
Kenith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Catholic Dude,

I found this in Augustine:
And Peter himself then stood firm, so that he preached Him with confidence, whom, before he stood firm, he had thrice from fear denied; although, indeed, already before placed in predestination upon the watch-tower of the rock, but with the hand of the Lord still held over him that he might not see. For he was to see His back parts, and the Lord had not yet “passed by,” namely, from death to life; He had not yet been glorified by the resurrection. (Augustine in On the Trinity -- Vol 3 Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Series 1)

 

[Catholic Dude]

Monergism-

Verses?

I cant think of verses, but people like Abel, Abraham, Daniel, Paul, etc grew in love for the Lord each day. Im not saying they never sinned in their life, but that as they went on they got better and better at reducing the number and not yielding to urges.

Judas Iscariot.

How do you know he is not elect? He returned the money and repented.
Matt27:

3 When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, 4 saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood."
​

We dont know if Judas was elect or not, if he was then he did repent and return the money as stated. It is clear he recognizes "innocent blood" and was verry sorry, no less sorry than Peter who denied Jesus and went and cried.

I don't know what someone is going to do. But it would be better to do what the Bible says, rather than just not doing anything at all.

What are you saying? Do the work anyway, even if you dont know? Wernt you the one who mentioned Pascals Wager and how people shouldnt act like that?

Why does a person help at a relief, if he's not one of the elect?

I dont know, why should a non elect fireman save you or your family if it is a risk to him and costs him his life?

Most, or just Catholics?

Cajun believes that Baptism is the gateway sacrament, and they way it looks historical/traditional Calvinism sees it that way as well.

No I'm not. I gave the definition of "apostasy." I'm not saying one of the elect can commit apostasy.

Have you read the ball in the mud example I gave in my post to Cajun? If the ball was never picked up to begin with then it cant fall to the ground (apostasize).

Where in my quote do I say that I should still try worshiping God, if I am not even of the elect? Furthermore, the reprobate wouldn't even worship God, because his mind is hostile towards God.

Thats not correct, a person sitting in the pew next to you could think he is worshipping God when he never really was.
About that quote:

...I see God's sovereignty is just and holy, and if I am sent to heaven, so be it, and if I am sent to hell, then that is the place where all men deserve...
​

You see God as just and holy is that not worship right there? "AND IF I am sent to hell thats what men deserve", indicates that that possibility is open for you.

I do hate what they teach. Explain all of the teachings to me, if you will, to see if what I hate, can be justified by if it's really true what you Catholics believe and teach.

Give me an example of at least 3 teachings of the CC you hate, and briefly explain why.

This is baseless on your part, and thus, I am not going to go any further with this. But, it's funny that you would believe that one who only professed to be a Christian, was actually one in reality. I guess that pagan is really a Christian, but doesn't realize it!

You just refuse to acknowledge that God can forgive anything and save anyone He wants.

Who said the children were so confident? I'm sure John was, but who's to say that the children were? And your second question is full of hyper-Calvinism, for a hyper-Calvinist would say, "Don't tell the reprobate (non-elect) to repent and believe, because they can't." Continue the misconceptions, and I shall discontinue with this discussion.

1Jn2:

12 I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his sake. 13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. 14 I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
​

John right here tells the children "your sins are forgiven", "you know the father", "you are strong", etc.
1Jn3:

1 See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
​

He is not talking to reprobates here, there is nothing "hyper" about this. By the way what makes you correct and hypers wrong? Im starting to think that the hypers's position might be more logical because they carry out the logical possibilities, but Im not sure.

I never said "dont tell the reps". I said: "The non elect are not going to listen to the warning" IN OTHERWORDS the reprobate will hear the warning, they just would be unable to respond.

Then could you explain?

I followed up what I meant and explained it in in the next paragraph after I said that. (I sholdnt have broken that passage up into two parts)

I believe I do know what you're saying. Your questions are like that of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who said,

Born as all of us are by nature, an "Arminian," I still believed the old things I had heard continually from the pulpit, and did not see the Grace of God. When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this.​

I dont believe I was doing anything outside God's grace. To say I was doing it all myself is semi-pelagian at the least.

I can recall the very day and hour when first I received these truths in my own soul - when they were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron: I can recollect how I felt that I had grown all of a sudden from a babe into a man - that I had made progress in scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God.

​

Im not sure what to say here.

One week-night when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher's sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, 'how did you come to be a Christian?' (...I sought the Lord). But how did you come to seek the Lord? - (the truth flashed across my mind in a moment) - I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him.
I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, "How came I to pray?" - I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. I did read them; but what led me to do so? - Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith; and as the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make it my constant confession.

So why was he in a church in the first place if he didnt believe what his pastor told him? The thing that first made him seek God is grace, who denies that? The rest of this stuff he is too vague on what he means, Calvinism didnt exist before 1500, so if he thinks he saw something that the Early Christians were missing then I would question his central doctrines.

That's out of context. John tells us to "test," which, testing would be trying, and to try would be judging. The quote you are quoting is that of hypocrites.

It comes from Luke6:

37 "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven
​

We are in no position to judge or condemn anyone's final state. There is a difference between "test" and "judge/condemn not". To test means you detect something not good and avoid it, but thats not the same as judging someone's soul. Just becaue you detect something bad, that doesnt mean that person is always that way nor does it mean that person is going to die in that state. Humans are in no position to know for sure that any given person is going to hell.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Monergism-

How do you know he is not elect? He returned the money and repented.






Matt27:

3 When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, 4 saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood."


​

We dont know if Judas was elect or not, if he was then he did repent and return the money as stated. It is clear he recognizes "innocent blood" and was verry sorry, no less sorry than Peter who denied Jesus and went and cried.

Sorry Catholic Dude, but we do know that Judas went to hell. Read the Words of Jesus on the matter "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled." Jhn 17:12 The son of Perdition is clearly Judas.

Ok I will let you and monergism continue the discussion. I just had to answer on that point.


In Christ,
Kenith

 

[Monergism]

How do you know he is not elect? He returned the money and repented.




Matt27:

3 When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, 4 saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood."




​

We dont know if Judas was elect or not, if he was then he did repent and return the money as stated. It is clear he recognizes "innocent blood" and was verry sorry, no less sorry than Peter who denied Jesus and went and cried.

Cajun covered this.

What are you saying? Do the work anyway, even if you dont know? Wernt you the one who mentioned Pascals Wager and how people shouldnt act like that?

Blaise Pascal tells his people something like this:

Wager for God: If God exists, you've gained all.
Wager against God: If God exists, you're going to suffer eternal punishment.
Wager for God: If God doesn't exist, you've had nothing to worry about.
Wager against God: If God doesn't exist, you were right all along.

In other words, "Pascal argues that it is always a better 'bet' to believe in God, because the expected value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. Note that this is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather one for the belief in God." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Mine, however, is more like this: "Repent and believe, for the kingdom of God is near."

I dont know, why should a non elect fireman save you or your family if it is a risk to him and costs him his life?

Because, he's doing his job.

Cajun believes that Baptism is the gateway sacrament, and they way it looks historical/traditional Calvinism sees it that way as well.

May I see it?

Have you read the ball in the mud example I gave in my post to Cajun? If the ball was never picked up to begin with then it cant fall to the ground (apostasize).

No. Due to the lack of time I am able to get online, I've only been able to read what you've written to me, and no other. But the thing is, the person already picked up the ball. He just never held on to it.

Thats not correct,

Oh, but it is! Romans 8:6-10: "The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness."

a person sitting in the pew next to you could think he is worshipping God when he never really was.

Which I see no basis from the Bible.

About that quote:

...I see God's sovereignty is just and holy, and if I am sent to heaven, so be it, and if I am sent to hell, then that is the place where all men deserve...




​

You see God as just and holy is that not worship right there? "AND IF I am sent to hell thats what men deserve", indicates that that possibility is open for you.

And does a sinner who does not know God, but has been told that God is holy and just, is he worshiping the God he hates? If I were to be worshiping God, I would do so by telling Him, not you. I am being descriptive, that's all. After all, I wouldn't want to be talking about a different god.

Give me an example of at least 3 teachings of the CC you hate, and briefly explain why.

I won't say why. I'll wait for your explanation to see if what I think of it is justified or not. I'll give three though: transubstantiation, theotokos, and Hail Mary.

You just refuse to acknowledge that God can forgive anything and save anyone He wants.

Far from it. In fact, I believe that God is the one who does the saving. I know of no Calvinist who denies that salvation is solely up to God and God alone. What I deny, however, is that you have no historical basis, thus, the burden of proof is on you, which you have not proven, thus, your saying is baseless on Hitler.

1Jn2:

12 I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his sake. 13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. 14 I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.




​

John right here tells the children "your sins are forgiven", "you know the father", "you are strong", etc.






1Jn3:

1 See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.




​

He is not talking to reprobates here, there is nothing "hyper" about this.

I never said he was talking to the reprobates, but I also said that just because one is a reprobate, does not mean that they should not be told to repent and believe.

By the way what makes you correct and hypers wrong? Im starting to think that the hypers's position might be more logical because they carry out the logical possibilities, but Im not sure.

And what makes you correct and others wrong? You want to see a list by hyper-Calvinists? Let's see if you agree with them, or that you should start thinking that. Hyper-Calvinists believe:

-that God is the author of sin and evil
-that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
-that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
-that it is wrong to evangelize
-that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
-that men who have sincerely professed beliefs are saved regardless of what they do later
-that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others
-that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned
-that God does not command everyone to repent

The rest is here: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/hypercalvinism.html

I dont believe I was doing anything outside God's grace. To say I was doing it all myself is semi-pelagian at the least.

​

Im not sure what to say here.

You don't need to say anything. The quote seemed similar to your questions, thus, I brought them up.

So why was he in a church in the first place if he didnt believe what his pastor told him?

Why do I go to my church (which is Arminianistic), if I don't believe what the pastor is saying? I come to tell others about monergism. But I believe here, Spurgeon was listening to the pastor, but then all of a sudden had a revelation, and thus, his new-found thought was contrary to what the pastor was teaching.

The thing that first made him seek God is grace, who denies that?

Arminianists.

The rest of this stuff he is too vague on what he means, Calvinism didnt exist before 1500, so if he thinks he saw something that the Early Christians were missing then I would question his central doctrines.

Calvinism gets its soteriology from Augustine, and while Spurgeon was a Baptist, he defended Calvinism.

It comes from Luke6:

37 "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven




​

We are in no position to judge or condemn anyone's final state. There is a difference between "test" and "judge/condemn not". To test means you detect something not good and avoid it, but thats not the same as judging someone's soul. Just becaue you detect something bad, that doesnt mean that person is always that way nor does it mean that person is going to die in that state. Humans are in no position to know for sure that any given person is going to hell.

If you have a problem with this, then don't go on, nor worry of what I say.

 

[Catholic Dude]

Sorry Catholic Dude, but we do know that Judas went to hell. Read the Words of Jesus on the matter "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled." Jhn 17:12 The son of Perdition is clearly Judas.

Ok I will let you and monergism continue the discussion. I just had to answer on that point.


In Christ,
Kenith

Ok, I guess you have a strong proof there.

Anyway, why do you think it says he "repented" and returned the money, and said "innocent blood"?

 

[cygnusx1]

Ok, I guess you have a strong proof there.

Anyway, why do you think it says he "repented" and returned the money, and said "innocent blood"?

because he had a guilty conscience and knew he had handed Christ over to be Murdered .

 

[Catholic Dude]

Cajun Huguenot-

I do have a different definition of the visible Church than what is generally understood by my Roman Catholic friends. I see the visible Church as all those who fall under the Orthodoxy of the Nicene, Apostles and even the Athanasian Creeds.

But even from these arise serious problems:
Nicece Creed:

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
​

How much more clear is it, yet you wont come to agree that Baptism does forgive sins.

Apostles Creed:

I believe in...the forgiveness of sins
​

Here is a commentary by Augustine on that line:

15. "Forgiveness of sins." Ye have [this article of] the Creed perfectly in you when ye receive Baptism. Let none say, "I have done this or that sin: perchance that is not forgiven me." What hast thou done? How great a sin hast thou done? Name any heinous thing thou hast committed, heavy, horrible, which thou shudderest even to think of: have done what thou wilt: hast thou killed Christ? There is not than that deed any worse, because also than Christ there is nothing better. What a dreadful thing is it to kill Christ! Yet the Jews killed Him, and many afterwards believed on Him and drank His blood: they are forgiven the sin which they committed. When ye have been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God, that ye may guard your Baptism even unto the end. I do not tell you that ye will live here without sin; but they are venial, without which this life is not. For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be, was prayer provided. What hath the Prayer? "Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors." Once for all we have washing in Baptism, every day we have washing in prayer. Only, do not commit those things for which ye must needs be separated from Christ's body: which be far from you! For those whom ye have seen doing penance, have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, to blot out these daily prayer would suffice.

16. In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God doth not remit sins but to the baptized. The very sins which He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized. When? when they are baptized. The sins which are after remitted upon prayer, upon penance, to whom He remits, it is to the baptized that He remitteth. For how can they say, "Our Father," who are not yet born sons? The Catechumens, so long as they be such, have upon them all their sins. If Catechumens, how much more Pagans?how much more heretics? But to heretics we do not change their baptism. Why? because they have baptism in the same way as a deserter has the soldier's mark: just so these also have Baptism; they have it, but to be condemned thereby, not crowned. And yet if the deserter himself, being amended, begin to do duty as a soldier, does any man dare to change his mark? (On the Creed: a Sermon to the Catechumens.)
​

It is clear here (as well as many other places) that Augustine believed Baptism to forgive sins. He further comments that people should take care to avoid serious sins, because Baptized people CAN be separated from Christ's Body.

I havnt looked into the Athanasian Creed much so I dont know what to say.

Falling under the "orthodoxy" of those creeds (at least the primary 2) is not as clear cut as it sounds in terms of all Christians agreeing with it.

Do you recognize that according to the first two Creeds that Baptism was a sin forgiving act? If not then I see you and anyone else who claims that Baptism doesnt forgive as all being outside of orthodoxy. We are preaching two different gospels in this case of forgiving sins, there is only one Gospel, so one of us is wrong.

And even those creeds were backed by Apostolic Successors that continue today. In the case of the Nicene Creed, over 300 Bishops who could make it to the councils (Nicea and Constantinople) affirmed it, as well as many of the following Ecumenical Councils reaffirmed it. That was clearly a visible Church, with clear leadership positions continuing to today. Where is such leadership among protestant sects?

I do think that St. Cyprian’s statement “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (outside the Church, no salvation) is ordinarily correct. But I have a broader view of the Church than Rome (at least pre-Vatican II) will admit to. Rome at Vatican II does seem to take a broader view of salvation outside of the Roman Communion, but it seems to contradict other infallible Church pronouncements such ass Boniface VIII’s Unum Sactum, Vatican I and Trent. They limit salvation to only those under Papal authority. I see contradiction between Vat.II and these other pronouncements.

I would like to see direct quotes from the stated documents stating your case.

We should ALWAYS proclaim the Gospel even to the most hideous criminals. It is the Holy Spirits work to save sinners. I have seen that David Berkowitz (the Son of Sam serial killer) has become a Christian. Is it true? I don’t know, but In Christ all things are possible.

Then you agree that the idea of "out of the ordinary" means nothing because In Christ all things are possible, all sinners including Hitler can be forgiven. And my original point was that if one is elect then any sin no matter how grave will be forgiven and excused as a bump in the road.

God alone knows why and He has not revealed His secret will to us.

Either David was under control of himself or he wasnt. If David was undercontrol of himself then he overpowerd Irresistable Grace, if he could not overpower IG then God was the originator of that sin.

In the case of what you just said though it only goes to further the point that if people like Hitler were elect they were simply acting according to God's secret will and as an elect he would have made it to Heaven.

That is an interesting analogy, but it is not very accurate, because from our perspective even the bounce is part of the predestined plan of God.

The bounce? I dont recall using that term, do you mean the original fall of all the balls to the mud (original sin) or do you mean when the ball somehow falls back after being thrown?
In either case you seem to be saying God planned for that fall, which would make Him the originator of a sin.

To continue with your analogy, God doesn’t make the ball bounce but he uses even our sin to accomplish His will in our lives and in His creation. Every point is predestined before the Creation (even the bounce) and is headed toward God’s predetermined end.

How can God not be the originator here?

There is a difference between foreknowing and predestining, Im guessing you meant to say forknew? Foreknowing means God knew a sin would happen and He arranged for that sin to work out for the better, Predestining means God willed that sin to happen so it did.

Christ chose Jesus because He knew his heart and He knew what Judas would do. I think it was important that someone close to Jesus would betray Him. This made the betrayal all the more painful to the Lord. But Judas did that which he was ordained to do. He returned money because he knew he had betrayed the Lord, but he did not repent even in his sorrow and despair.

Right here again you make it sound as if Judas was just doing his job in turning the Lord over. Also if you say Jesus picked Judas becase He knew that Judas would turn Him over means that God tempted man into sin.

If God did not restrain me I would fall into far greater sin. The sin we do commit He uses for His glory, to perfect us in the faith, and to cling all more tightly to Christ who is our surety.

It still doesnt explain how you overcame Irresistable Grace in the first place. Not to mention "fall into a far greater sin", what is that supposed to mean? If you robbed 10 banks are you saying God prevented you from robbing 11?

The best analogy of total depravity is if you have a vile of water and you drop poison into it and shake it. How much of the water is tainted by the poison? All is. It is not all poison but all of the water is now corrupted. That is how we are. There is no part of our being that is not corrupted by the fall. Satan is a vile that is all poison. Man is a vile that is corrupted totally corrupted but is not total poison.

Funny thing is that is how the Catholic position can be explained, except with a different interpretation. The whole vile is not poisoned, even if the poison is spread equally throughout, we agree. But that doesnt mean that the water is useless it still has "purity" to a degree. The CC teaches that man was, born in sin, prone to sin, and suffered from its effects (eg will suffer & die), but never was man so poisoned that it rendered what was pure useless or irrelevant.

To say “I will persevere no matter what; I have it in me to do so,” would be presumption. To say “I will, by God’s grace, persevere” is biblical assurance.

Your confusing two issues here, this has nothing to do with the pelagian "I have it in me to do so (ie outside God's grace)".

For the second part it is not assurance because anytime you say you know your going to persevere means you know the future. You can have a high level of faith in God's promise, but never to the extent of saying "I know Im giong to persevere to the end for sure", that is only possible if you know what tomorrow holds, and the Bible is clear that nobody knows that.

I really believe baptism unites us to Christ. I am sure that all who are baptised as infants, and die young are elect, and are forgiven of their sins.

As (I think) you know, the teachings of the early church are one of my primary areas of study right now, and I hope to concentrate on their views of the sacraments in the near future. So we can discuss these items when I have done that.

Ok I will wait till your ready.

On this point I am in agreement with Calvin and the great St. Augustine. The same argument you use here against the Calvinist position can be aimed at Augustine who said “Consequently this verse seems to compel us to believe that during that time, short as it is, no one will be added to the Christian community, but that the devil will make war with those who have previously become Christians, and that, though some of these may be conquered and desert to the devil, these do not belong to the predestinated number of the sons of God. For it is not without reason that John, the same apostle as wrote this Apocalypse, says in his epistle regarding certain persons, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us.” (City of God – 907)

I dont get what your saying here. Also I havnt read City of God, it is about 1000 pages long, I hope in the future I can but right now I can only look up individual passages. I will look up that passage asap.

also I will get to the other posts asap.

 

[Catholic Dude]

Monergism-

Blaise Pascal tells his people something like this:

Wager for God: If God exists, you've gained all.
Wager against God: If God exists, you're going to suffer eternal punishment.
Wager for God: If God doesn't exist, you've had nothing to worry about.
Wager against God: If God doesn't exist, you were right all along.

In other words, "Pascal argues that it is always a better 'bet' to believe in God, because the expected value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. Note that this is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather one for the belief in God." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Mine, however, is more like this: "Repent and believe, for the kingdom of God is near."

Here is what you said:

I don't know what someone is going to do. But it would be better to do what the Bible says, rather than just not doing anything at all.
​

I recognize its not the same exact question as Pascal, but the same proposal is made by you.

Also, a person cant repent and believe if they were not elect.

Because, he's doing his job.

I hope your kidding me, someone risks their life like that and possilbe injury to save your family and you say its simply his job? Sounds like all you would say to him is "Im glad to see my tax dollars going for something useful".
Im willing to bet that no fireman who is injured or died from saving someone believes its just a job like anything else. There are better safer ways to make money.

May I see it?

Just read Cajuns last few posts. Read the Church Fathers. In the Westminster Confession of Faith (an official Calvinist Confession) here it says:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]

...
...

​

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]
​

Baptism is a "gateway" Sacrament in that it opens the door and lets you in.

No. Due to the lack of time I am able to get online, I've only been able to read what you've written to me, and no other. But the thing is, the person already picked up the ball. He just never held on to it.

That "person" is none other than God, He only picks up to save.

Oh, but it is! Romans 8:6-10: "The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness."

So your saying everyone in a Clavinist church who thinks they are serving God really are? They must be according to this quote.
The truth is that people can think they are serving God when they never really were, they were deceived the whole time, we already agreed on that.

Which I see no basis from the Bible.

What do you mean, are you saying that everyone in the Bible who joined the Church never left? According to Calvinists there were many who were only outwardly members of the Church.
It goes back to my Calvinist Pastor example, they became a pastor truly believing they were worshipping God, but as we know that some pastors have rejected Christ later in life.

And does a sinner who does not know God, but has been told that God is holy and just, is he worshiping the God he hates? If I were to be worshiping God, I would do so by telling Him, not you. I am being descriptive, that's all. After all, I wouldn't want to be talking about a different god.

Then what are you saying?
You seem to now be saying that "Nobody can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit", but we know that many people today have believed for years that Jesus was Lord only to one day reject Him.

Conclusion: People can be deceived and are deceived thinking they are elect but never were.

I won't say why. I'll wait for your explanation to see if what I think of it is justified or not. I'll give three though: transubstantiation, theotokos, and Hail Mary.

If you dont say why then I dont know why you dont like them. Your next sentence tells me you dont really know what the Church teaches on the subjects, which sofar does agree with that quote by Fulton Sheen. I asked for a brief statement why so I could zero in on the problem, otherwise explaining those in full could take pages and pages.

Far from it. In fact, I believe that God is the one who does the saving. I know of no Calvinist who denies that salvation is solely up to God and God alone. What I deny, however, is that you have no historical basis, thus, the burden of proof is on you, which you have not proven, thus, your saying is baseless on Hitler.

Im not saying I have historical proof of Hitler repenting, I never said that. Even if I showed you a video of him on his knees praying Psalm 51 that still wouldnt prove anything to you. I said the possibility is there, and if you believe that God can save anyone no matter how grave the sin then Hitler is not outside of God's power to be saved.

I never said he was talking to the reprobates, but I also said that just because one is a reprobate, does not mean that they should not be told to repent and believe.

From what I have been told by Calvinists, since we dont know who is reprobate, thats why all men must be preached to.

And what makes you correct and others wrong? You want to see a list by hyper-Calvinists? Let's see if you agree with them, or that you should start thinking that. Hyper-Calvinists believe:

-that God is the author of sin and evil
-that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
-that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
-that it is wrong to evangelize
-that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
-that men who have sincerely professed beliefs are saved regardless of what they do later
-that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others
-that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned
-that God does not command everyone to repent

The rest is here: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/hypercalvinism.html

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/hypercalvinism.html
I will look more into that link asap, it looks like it has good articles to explain those points.

Calvinism gets its soteriology from Augustine, and while Spurgeon was a Baptist, he defended Calvinism.

I have a very strong case that what Augustine preached is not the same as what Calvinists believe.
And Im not sure how CHS was a Baptist but defended Calvinism.

 

[Catholic Dude]

because he had a guilty conscience and knew he had handed Christ over to be Murdered .

What is the Calvinist view on a person's conscience? Why does it exist?

I dont know how he had a guilty conscience if he didnt hold some degree of sorrow.

 

[Monergism]

Here is what you said:

I don't know what someone is going to do. But it would be better to do what the Bible says, rather than just not doing anything at all.






​

I recognize its not the same exact question as Pascal, but the same proposal is made by you.



Also, a person cant repent and believe if they were not elect.

But if I said, "The time has come. The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news," I would be saying the same thing. It's in the very Word of God. Woe to those who do hear the good news, but do not accept it.

I hope your kidding me, someone risks their life like that and possilbe injury to save your family and you say its simply his job? Sounds like all you would say to him is "Im glad to see my tax dollars going for something useful".
Im willing to bet that no fireman who is injured or died from saving someone believes its just a job like anything else. There are better safer ways to make money.

He may believe it's his life, or more, but I still see it as his job. Just as Christianity is my life, but others may see it as service. And I know there's a better way to make money safely, rather than going out and stopping fires.

Just read Cajuns last few posts. Read the Church Fathers. In the Westminster Confession of Faith (an official Calvinist Confession) here it says:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]

...​

...





IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]



​

Baptism is a "gateway" Sacrament in that it opens the door and lets you in.

Hm, it says a "sign of seal." I don't see anywhere where it says that it has salvific work, and thus, makes one regenerated. I'm not saying that baptism shouldn't be performed, but I am saying that I don't see anywhere there where it says that it has the power to save.

That "person" is none other than God, He only picks up to save.

That's a misnomer. All you said was, "If the ball was never picked up to begin with then it cant fall to the ground (apostasize)." What I interpreted what you were saying was that if the person never had faith, then how could he have committed apostasy? Just like the saying, "You can't backslide unless you first move forward." Truly though, God would never have anyone whom He has chosen, be "snatched" from His hand. But there are those who do profess to be Christians. They may have the knowledge (notitia) and intellectual assent (assensus), but their faith is truly that of the demons.

So your saying everyone in a Clavinist church who thinks they are serving God really are? They must be according to this quote. The truth is that people can think they are serving God when they never really were, they were deceived the whole time, we already agreed on that.

I'm just saying that all sinners have a hatred, where they hate God. By the basis of Matthew 7:21-23, yes, I could agree on that. They were people who thought that they were truly serving the Lord, but in reality, they were not saved. I'm going to have to investigate Calvinism some more.

What do you mean, are you saying that everyone in the Bible who joined the Church never left? According to Calvinists there were many who were only outwardly members of the Church.
It goes back to my Calvinist Pastor example, they became a pastor truly believing they were worshipping God, but as we know that some pastors have rejected Christ later in life.

I'm not denying that the people who joined the church, never left. When they leave, that's them commiting apostasy. Some persons are noted in the Bible that have left. The Bible supports both that the person who is saved will persevere to the end, and that there is truly apostasy. I cannot deny both. But, about the pastor. His state looks like the one where he was all fired up for God, but because he had no root, he withered away. You got to remember the four seeds. Of the four, only one is saved. And of the four, only 25% are saved.

Then what are you saying?
You seem to now be saying that "Nobody can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit", but we know that many people today have believed for years that Jesus was Lord only to one day reject Him.

Conclusion: People can be deceived and are deceived thinking they are elect but never were.[/quote]

It is true that "Nobody can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit." I hold to that belief very much. But mere profession does not equal true faith. James states that faith without deeds is dead.

If you dont say why then I dont know why you dont like them. Your next sentence tells me you dont really know what the Church teaches on the subjects, which sofar does agree with that quote by Fulton Sheen. I asked for a brief statement why so I could zero in on the problem, otherwise explaining those in full could take pages and pages.

For transubstantiation, or "Real Presence," I do not like the thought that the bread and wine truly become the flesh and blood. I am not saying that it transforms into that. You may tell me and get into Biblical exegesis that phago was used for "eat" and literally means to eat. That's fine and dandy. You'd probably further say that when Jesus was saying to eat His flesh and drink His blood, that if it were taken figuratively, it would be sought as Jewish and Arabic idiom, where the Jews would be horrified of hearing the words which Jesus spoke, because it would mean something more than that. You'd probably also tell me that Christ did not bother correcting them, or saying, "No, you have it all wrong. Let me tell you in clearer words." Have you seen such arguments? I have. And that's my problem.

For theotokos, you may tell me that Mary is truly the Mother of God, because Christ, who is God, bore the Son of God and had Him in her womb for nine months. And we could not say that she should be called the Mother of Christ, because she did not only bear the humanity of Christ. My problem is that she is called Mother of God. It can be deceiving, the least to say (and I have defended the "Mother of God" before against several Protestants). And why Mother of God, and not Mother of Christ (I've heard an answer to why Catholics don't call her Mother of Christ, but I would like your say, please).

And for Hail Mary. My main problem isn't that it's not found anywhere in the Bible. In fact, I may be told that the Gospel According to Luke contains the Magnificat. You may even throw out to me Luke 1:28 to show that Mary is to be highly favored, that she is the highest of creatures, and that in exegesis, you cannot find anywhere else the same Greek word for "highly favored." My main problem on this is that it is repetitive, to say the least, and when I witnessed it, not too many people looked happy (no, I don't endorse the "feel-good" attitude that we should all get and family-friendly sermons with no mentioning of hell, damnation, and sin).

(I'm a bit surprised to even know any of this. lol)

Im not saying I have historical proof of Hitler repenting, I never said that. Even if I showed you a video of him on his knees praying Psalm 51 that still wouldnt prove anything to you. I said the possibility is there, and if you believe that God can save anyone no matter how grave the sin then Hitler is not outside of God's power to be saved.

I'll drop this. I was wrong on my part, Catholic Dude. I am not God, that I can tell who went where, but only by mere observation of how his life went, that I believe he wasn't granted heaven. If I were to see Hitler on his knees, praying Psalm 51, it would be rather wonderful. I do not deny God's power in saving people, nor do I deny that Hitler was outside of God's power, for God is the One who bestows His gift to whomever.

From what I have been told by Calvinists, since we dont know who is reprobate, thats why all men must be preached to.

Correct.

I will look more into that link asap, it looks like it has good articles to explain those points.

It's rather one of the greatest sites supporting five-point Calvinism.

And Im not sure how CHS was a Baptist but defended Calvinism.

You can be a Baptist and defend Calvinism. Have you ever seen Reformationist around here? I'm not sure if he is a Calvinist, but from what I've observed, he does defend the monergistic act of regeneration, and yet he's non-denominational. I would consider Calvinism to be more of a title of soteriology, or doctrine of grace.