How does a Calvinist KNOW they are elect?

[reformedfan]

you are confusing Calvinism with Christianity in this question about election. True, that anyone is either of those is by God's grace, but someone is the elect if they are redeemed by Christ's blood, that includes Arminians & Catholics that know it's Christ's works not their own that will ultimately get them into heaven.

A Calvinist knows they are the elect later on, when they learn their theology; at this point they realize that truth, which was true before the foundation of the world (& give thanx).

 

[Imblessed]

I underlined the parts which I am concentrating on. You speak as if your elect, and affirm a doctrine based because you feel you were chosen. From what I have been told election is not something you desire and then your elect, either you were or you werent. If your not elect in the first place then all that believing, assurance,fruits, etc is in vain. Anyone can say/think they believe, assured, fruit, etc, but that doesnt mean elect.
"enduring to the end" means nothing unless you first assume election.

Ok, I think there is a misconception here. From God's point of view, you are either Elect or reprobate. But luckily God gave us assurances from the bible how to know if we are saved and in Christ. You can't be "in Christ" and not Elect. It's not possible. Elect=Saved Saved=Elect

Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Catholics, Baptists, Nazarenes, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, Quakers, Church of Christ, and any other denomination I'm not naming---they all have christians in them. All of them are Elect because they are Christians. Even if they don't use the term Elect, or understand that God chose them before the foundation of the world--it doesn't change anything.

Do you get what I'm saying?

Can we see into the future? No. Do I presume to look at you or anyone else and say "Yes, you are elect", or "NO, you are not"? NO One can examine other people's lives and their fruit and say "Yes the probability is there", or "No, it doesn't appear to be so"--but these are only based on outward appearances and only God knows the true heart of a person. There are weak christians who some would say are not, but are; and there are "perfect" christians who are only self serving and are not truly christian at all. I can only look at myself and say for certaintly whether or not I am elect. And I can do that by examining my lifestyle, my heart, the fruit of my works, my motivation, etc etc. That is why Paul says to make your calling and election sure. I don't just say, I'm elect--and then go around doing whatever the heck I feel like!! Resting on the Lord's promise does not mean being a couch potato christian!!! It means accepting what the Bible says about how to KNOW for SURE you are christian. So that is what I do, and that is how I can say 100% that I am saved, and therefore elect.

Hope this made sense. I'll say this again. Elect=Saved and Saved=Elect. There are NO true christians who are not elect. None. zip. nada. zero.

 

[cygnusx1]

oh man ........... now that is a serious problem ......... asking a Calvinist how a Roman Catholic can have assurance of salvation because of his faith and works ......... it is like asking an Arminian how can a Christian be secure in his salvation ...


the bottom line is there can be no lasting assurance of salvation owing to good works or acts of faith as objects in themselves , assurance can only come from looking unto Jesus , He never changes , unlike our experiences of good works that proceed from faith.

I think when we look within , most often we will not like what we see , Romans 7.

That is why the introspection of The Gospel Standard Baptists was often such a negative and deadening effect on their lives.

compare the above with this :



Assurance by Inner Witness?

Romans 8:16

by Bob Wilkin

The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.


According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, there are three pillars of assurance of salvation: the promises of God's Word, the works which the Holy Spirit produces, and the inner witness of the Spirit to the believer. All three of these witnesses are viewed as necessary in order for one to be reasonably confident of his salvation.

According to the GES Affirmations of Belief, there is only one pillar of assurance: the promises of God's Word. Good works may have a secondary, confirmatory value; however, they are not needed for assurance. (See the article by Zane Hodges on works and assurance on Are Good Works Necessary for Assurance? of this issue for more information on this question.)

Since the GES Affirmations do not even mention the so-called inner witness of the Spirit, I thought it might be helpful to address that issue here. Does He Witness to Us or with Us?

Most people misread Romans 8:16 as though it read, "The Spirit Himself bears witness to our spirit that we are children of God." Actually the text says that He "bears witness with our spirit. . ."


The Greek makes this clear. One Greek verb (summartureo) conveys the meaning "bears witness along with." It is a compound verb which has a preposition prefixed to it. The preposition clearly means along with, not to.

Romans 8:16 speaks of two witnesses, the Holy Spirit and our human spirit. They both bear witness together. This is in keeping with the OT principle that all matters need to be verified by at least two witnesses. To Whom Does He Bear Witness?

The Holy Spirit bears witness along with our human spirit that we are children of God. But to whom does He bear witness? The answer is clear in the context. Verse 15 indicates that we (i.e., our human spirits) cry out, "Abba, Father." In other words, our witness is to God the Father. If the Spirit is bearing witness with our human spirits, then He, too, must bear witness to God the Father. This conclusion is confirmed by v 26 which asserts that whenever we pray the Holy Spirit intercedes for us. Clearly the Person to whom He is interceding for us is God the Father.


God the Father is the One to whom our human spirits, and the Holy Spirit, bear witness. It Happens As We Pray

The Holy Spirit's witness does not occur constantly. Rather, it happens as we pray. Whenever our human spirits cry out to God saying, "Abba, Father" (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6; see also the Lord's Prayer, Luke 11:2, "Our Father. . ."), the Holy Spirit witnesses to God the Father that we are indeed His children.


To call God our Father is a way of reminding Him that we are His children. Whenever that greeting is true-that is, whenever a genuine child of God is praying, the Holy Spirit confirms its validity. The Spirit's Witness Is Undetectable

While we are aware when our human spirits cry out to God in prayer, calling Him our Father, we are unable to monitor the Holy Spirit's confirming witness. We cannot infallibly feel, see, hear, or in any way tune in to the witness of the Holy Spirit to God the Father that we are His children-even though in our experience of prayer we might have a general sense that the Holy Spirit is at work. The only sure way we know that He does this is because the Bible tells us that He does.
God Delights in These Reminders

God takes pleasure in this twofold testimony of our status as His children. This should motivate us to do our part.


And what is our part? Our part is to pray. As we say, "Our Father," the Holy Spirit says, "Yes, this is a child of God."

What a joy it is to realize that God delights in being reminded by us, and by the Holy Spirit, that we are His children. God's Promises Are All We Need

According to the Apostle John, if we accept the testimony of God concerning His Son, then we know that we have eternal life (1 John 5:913). Assurance is objective. It is sourced in the Gospel. If we accept Jesus' claim that "He who believes in Me has everlasting life" (John 6:47), then we know that we have everlasting life!


It goes without saying that if we can know we have eternal life simply by accepting the testimony of God, then nothing else is needed.

I have a birth certificate that indicates that I was born in Los Angeles in 1952. That objectively testifies to me that I am a citizen of the United States. I need not evaluate how I feel to determine if I am really a U.S. citizen. My birth certificate is all I need.

The birth certificate of the believer is God's Word. It objectively testifies to us that we are citizens of heaven. Assurance Is the Backbone of Confident Prayer

Those who search for the so called inner witness of the Spirit do so in vain since that is His witness to God the Father, not to us.


Feelings can be deceptive. Liver quivers are unreliable.

Look to the biblical promise that he who accepts the testimony of God concerning His Son has ever lasting life. That and that alone is the only way to know for sure that you are a child of God. The Scriptures are the real witness of the Holy Spirit to us. The Spirit's work in assurance is through the Word, not through feelings. Only on the basis of the promises of God as found in His infallible and inerrant Word can we know for sure that we are His children. And only with such assurance can we confidently call God our Father.


http://faithalone.org/news/y1993/93march3.html

I don't agree with everything Zane Hodges writes , but I find more help from some places that only my foolish prejudice might blind me to!

 

[Jon_]

So are you saying that you really heard the voice of God like Paul did or that you simply felt a "burning in your bosom"?

You are confusing the concept. The testimony of the Spirit is the inward working of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. I know I am elect because the Spirit assures me of this by working out my sanctification daily. Moreover, God provides me this assurance through the testimony of the Spirit. The argument can even be expressed transcendentally. "How do you know you are elect?" To which I reply, "Because it would be impossible for me to disbelieve."

There is no audible "voice of God," nor a "burning in my bosom." Both of these are untrue to the doctrine of the testimonium Spiritu Sancti. God speaks to us through his Holy Word. And a "burning" in the bosom could simply be heartburn from the chili dog you had for lunch.

No, our assurance is something much greater. It is the peace that surpasses understanding.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Catholic Dude]

Monergism-

When I was looking at the view between monergism and synergism, I thought to myself, "Am I truly saved?" "How do I know I am saved, if I am not the one who chooses?" "If God is the one who chooses, and I have no choice in choosing, then how can I be saved?" I do realize that all those words of mine that I would pray would be in vain, if I am not one of the elect, but as I have said before, the First Letter of John shows us, it reveals to us on how we know if we are saved or not. 2 Peter 1:3-11 shows us how to make sure that we are of the elect.

So you do admit that if you were non elect it would be in vain. But Im not sure how 1John "reveals to us" how we know. You have to keep in mind that some people will always "feel" elect and "feel" the comfort and read things like 1John and think it means them, but the whole time they were never elect to begin with.
From what I read in the bold above is that you wouldnt be calvinist if you knew you were not elect.


cygnusx1-

there is a difference between presuming something , and trusting God that He has saved you ......... it would be presumptious to guess God's Decree , it is mostly hidden , but it is Biblical to accept the path of trusting that God is able to save to the uttermost all those who trust in Him.

The last line is back to the main issue, if a person was never elect to begin with then they could give up their lives "trusting in Him" and it would make no difference. They could beg and plead on their knees and God wouldnt blink an eye.

By persevering .......... we don't just sit around doing nothing , we have that Loving Motivation.

Your missing what Im trying to say, "we dont just sit around" is presuming your elect. You can have all the loving motivation you want and that wouldnt mean you were elect, on the flip side a guy who spent most of his time in bars all day could be an elect.

yes , of course , many times , not audibly ....... but a still small voice ........ we are promosed "my sheep hear my voice and they come to me" so prayer isn't all one way

Those could just as easily be responses from the devil, when a non elect prays to God is God really going to respond? People think they have visions and hear God all the time, Im not saying they are all liars, but Im sure most of them are just being deceived.

God leads His sheep daily , "give us this day our daily bread" ...... life and sustanance from God's Word.

If you haven't ever heared God speak to you , pray until you do.We cannot go by feelings , (burning in the bosom is the way of the Mormons) we go by the word of God, and we hear God speak!

For you to say "give us this day" assumes your elect.
As for the "pray until you do", does God answer a non elect?
Also does He even have to answer an elect at that same moment the elect asks?

According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, there are three pillars of assurance of salvation: the promises of God's Word, the works which the Holy Spirit produces, and the inner witness of the Spirit to the believer. All three of these witnesses are viewed as necessary in order for one to be reasonably confident of his salvation.

How many pastors fit that profile? I would say a high percentage, does that mean none of them will turn atheist or criminal or something? Now take that down to the average joe in the pews, does he want to go to hell? I dont think so. He is going to learn the promises, do the works, and feel the spirit if that what it takes, but all that doesnt equal election no matter how hard he tries. Its just as likely that someone who never cared about Christ 99% of their life and were found to be elect on their deathbed.

The Holy Spirit bears witness along with our human spirit that we are children of God. But to whom does He bear witness? The answer is clear in the context. Verse 15 indicates that we (i.e., our human spirits) cry out, "Abba, Father." In other words, our witness is to God the Father. ...

How does a person know this is happening inside them?, eg Abba, Father?
Anyone who feels they are Christian would believe this is happening with them, that doesnt make them elect.

The Holy Spirit's witness does not occur constantly. Rather, it happens as we pray. Whenever our human spirits cry out to God saying, "Abba, Father" (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6; see also the Lord's Prayer, Luke 11:2, "Our Father. . ."), the Holy Spirit witnesses to God the Father that we are indeed His children.

You are assuming that God will hear your prayers. A person can spend years on their knees in prayer of Our Father and Abba, but they could easily not be elect, in which case all those years of prayer were nothing by empty words falling on deaf ears.

While we are aware when our human spirits cry out to God in prayer, calling Him our Father, we are unable to monitor the Holy Spirit's confirming witness. We cannot infallibly feel, see, hear, or in any way tune in to the witness of the Holy Spirit to God the Father that we are His children-even though in our experience of prayer we might have a general sense that the Holy Spirit is at work. The only sure way we know that He does this is because the Bible tells us that He does.

This right here says that assurance is never sure. The Bible can hold all the answers and you can spend years striving to learn and believe, but as the saying goes, if your not elect, your not elect, and no amount of prayer or Bible will change that.

According to the Apostle John, if we accept the testimony of God concerning His Son, then we know that we have eternal life (1 John 5:913). Assurance is objective. It is sourced in the Gospel. If we acceptknow that we have everlasting life! Jesus' claim that "He who believes in Me has everlasting life" (John 6:47), then we

Here it is again. Name one member of your church who doesnt accept the testimony and believe. Everyone would accept that testimony or else they are wasting their time in church. That doesnt make them elect just because they accept.

It goes without saying that if we can know we have eternal life simply by accepting the testimony of God, then nothing else is needed.

And what does this mean? Can the person now rob banks for a living and still know they have eternal life?

I have a birth certificate that indicates that I was born in Los Angeles in 1952. That objectively testifies to me that I am a citizen of the United States. I need not evaluate how I feel to determine if I am really a U.S. citizen. My birth certificate is all I need.

Yes but thats a clear sign, black and white, solid proof. If you were not a citzen you could follow some steps through your own doing, and attain citizenship. Not so with election, your either born elect or not, and you cant change your fate.

The birth certificate of the believer is God's Word. It objectively testifies to us that we are citizens of heaven. Assurance Is the Backbone of Confident Prayer

Thats just it, I havent seen such assurance.

Feelings can be deceptive. Liver quivers are unreliable.

How can you talk about assurance one line previous and then say this?


reformedfan-

you are confusing Calvinism with Christianity in this question about election. True, that anyone is either of those is by God's grace, but someone is the elect if they are redeemed by Christ's blood, that includes Arminians & Catholics that know it's Christ's works not their own that will ultimately get them into heaven.

So why be Calvinist if you hold a high risk of not being elect, when those other groups memebers are just as likely to be elect?
At least in the other two groups you have a say in the matter (eg free will).

A Calvinist knows they are the elect later on, when they learn their theology; at this point they realize that truth, which was true before the foundation of the world (& give thanx).

What do you mean by "learn their theology"? Does a Calvinist have to wait until they have finished reading the Institutes before they "know"? And how long is "later on"? You could spend all that time learning and one day realize that you were not elect.


Imblessed-

Ok, I think there is a misconception here. From God's point of view, you are either Elect or reprobate. But luckily God gave us assurances from the bible how to know if we are saved and in Christ. You can't be "in Christ" and not Elect. It's not possible. Elect=Saved Saved=Elect

I agree, but you can believe/feel your in Christ which many do. Just because someone attends you church does not mean they are elect, then can think they are "in Christ" their whole life and do nothing but good, but in the end if they are non elect their life meant nothing. Here is another thing, do you think all pastors are elect? A pastor is not a pastor because he wants a nice pay check, he is a pastor because he feels God's call to teach, he can teach millions of people each year the good news, but that doesnt make himself elect.

Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Catholics, Baptists, Nazarenes, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, Quakers, Church of Christ, and any other denomination I'm not naming---they all have christians in them. All of them are Elect because they are Christians. Even if they don't use the term Elect, or understand that God chose them before the foundation of the world--it doesn't change anything.

But each of these groups theology is at odds with eachother, that cant be the way God intended Christianity. Luther and Calvin condemned Catholics left and right, how come they did so if the catholics were just as likely to be elect? And what about those groups who say that its up to man, not predestination, they are just as likely to be elect as anyone else.

Do you get what I'm saying?

Not really, whats the point in being Calvinist if all those groups hold the same odds?

Can we see into the future? No. Do I presume to look at you or anyone else and say "Yes, you are elect", or "NO, you are not"? NO One can examine other people's lives and their fruit and say "Yes the probability is there", or "No, it doesn't appear to be so"--but these are only based on outward appearances and only God knows the true heart of a person. There are weak christians who some would say are not, but are; and there are "perfect" christians who are only self serving and are not truly christian at all. I can only look at myself and say for certaintly whether or not I am elect. And I can do that by examining my lifestyle, my heart, the fruit of my works, my motivation, etc etc. That is why Paul says to make your calling and election sure. I don't just say, I'm elect--and then go around doing whatever the heck I feel like!! Resting on the Lord's promise does not mean being a couch potato christian!!! It means accepting what the Bible says about how to KNOW for SURE you are christian. So that is what I do, and that is how I can say 100% that I am saved, and therefore elect.

So whats the point in looking at other people's fruit and judging them if that isnt even a sure sign?
About examining you life and fruit and motivation, you just said above that a person can have good fruit and not be elect.
When Paul says "make you election sure"? What does that mean? Is someone going to read the Bible, Pray, keep all the commandments and then one day get a note that says they were never elect?

The part where you said you dont call youself elect and sit around, well, right there you presume your elect, and then change you ways.
There are pastors, theologians, etc that accept what the Bible says and rest on the Lords promise but that doesnt mean they were elect.
You started off by saying we cant see the future but then ended with 100% in the affirmative of your election?


Jon-

You are confusing the concept. The testimony of the Spirit is the inward working of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. I know I am elect because the Spirit assures me of this by working out my sanctification daily. Moreover, God provides me this assurance through the testimony of the Spirit. The argument can even be expressed transcendentally. "How do you know you are elect?" To which I reply, "Because it would be impossible for me to disbelieve."

Thats circular reasoning at the end.

And at the start you say "the spirit assures me by working out..." what is that supposed to mean? Are you doing good works or something?

There is no audible "voice of God," nor a "burning in my bosom." Both of these are untrue to the doctrine of the testimonium Spiritu Sancti. God speaks to us through his Holy Word. And a "burning" in the bosom could simply be heartburn from the chili dog you had for lunch.

When you say "through His Holy Word" Im guessing thats the Bible? A person can read and read, but that doesnt make him elect.

As for the chili dog comment, thats exactly what I had for lunch.

No, our assurance is something much greater. It is the peace that surpasses understanding.

And who doensnt want that peace? Just because they show up at church on sunday doesnt mean God cares about them. It could be your very own pastor (who doesnt even know he is non elect) teaching people like you who claim to be elect.

 

[Imblessed]

You have to keep in mind that some people will always "feel" elect and "feel" the comfort and read things like 1John and think it means them, but the whole time they were never elect to begin with.

that's not what we are saying. If they feel the comfort, read 1john and think it means them, then it does---that's how you know!!

The last line is back to the main issue, if a person was never elect to begin with then they could give up their lives "trusting in Him" and it would make no difference. They could beg and plead on their knees and God wouldnt blink an eye.

Not true

Your missing what Im trying to say, "we dont just sit around" is presuming your elect. You can have all the loving motivation you want and that wouldnt mean you were elect, on the flip side a guy who spent most of his time in bars all day could be an elect.

YOU are missing the point totally. totally

He is going to learn the promises, do the works, and feel the spirit if that what it takes, but all that doesnt equal election no matter how hard he tries. Its just as likely that someone who never cared about Christ 99% of their life and were found to be elect on their deathbed.

Wrong

You are assuming that God will hear your prayers. A person can spend years on their knees in prayer of Our Father and Abba, but they could easily not be elect, in which case all those years of prayer were nothing by empty words falling on deaf ears.

Wrong

This right here says that assurance is never sure. The Bible can hold all the answers and you can spend years striving to learn and believe, but as the saying goes, if your not elect, your not elect, and no amount of prayer or Bible will change that.

you are totally misrepresenting what we are saying

And what does this mean? Can the person now rob banks for a living and still know they have eternal life?

What do you mean by "learn their theology"? Does a Calvinist have to wait until they have finished reading the Institutes before they "know"? And how long is "later on"? You could spend all that time learning and one day realize that you were not elect.

Wrong

......then can think they are "in Christ" their whole life and do nothing but good, but in the end if they are non elect their life meant nothing.

you keep saying this over and over, but it's wrong.

About examining you life and fruit and motivation, you just said above that a person can have good fruit and not be elect.

(...actually I said that one could APPEAR to have good fruit, big difference)

When Paul says "make you election sure"? What does that mean? Is someone going to read the Bible, Pray, keep all the commandments and then one day get a note that says they were never elect?

that's what Cary.Melvin's view of Election to Grace but not to Salvation sounds like---but it's sure not what we teach.

The part where you said you dont call youself elect and sit around, well, right there you presume your elect, and then change you ways.

( I have no idea what you mean here)

There are pastors, theologians, etc that accept what the Bible says and rest on the Lords promise but that doesnt mean they were elect.
You started off by saying we cant see the future but then ended with 100% in the affirmative of your election?

(MY election, MINE, no one elses)

And who doensnt want that peace? Just because they show up at church on sunday doesnt mean God cares about them. It could be your very own pastor (who doesnt even know he is non elect) teaching people like you who claim to be elect.

there's that assumption again. Are you even listening to what we are saying?????

I'm sorry you are not getting it Catholic Dude. You are reading everything we write and picking it apart but you are not actually even trying to get what we are saying. at least it doesn't seem that way.....

i'm not sure I'm willing to try to explain it any further. I appreciate you being civil and all that(some people would have started flaming by now)--but I'm not up to beating my head against the wall any more. I'm getting a head ache.

 

[reformedfan]

you are still confused over the terms Calvinism & Christianity. Those are not interchangable terms. Understand this & you'll make better sense out of what everybody is saying.

So why be a Calvinist? *sighs* cuz God is good. Am i risking 'not being the elect'? HUH? What on earth are you asking me, election is based on God's sovereign choice, evidence of it is in my conversion, not my theology; that's what i meant by my second crack, something like 'when a person converts, he doesn't realize that he was the elect till he studies his theology & comes to that awareness.'

I mean, let's say:
1. Someone comes to Christ in a Christian church that's of a Calvinistic bent.
2. S/He is discipled, taught basics, hears in church every Sunday basics of TULIP, hears it in greater detail on Wed night Bible studies & hearing other Christians who are Calvinists talking about advancing Christ's kingdom & all that. May not understand comprehensively all that's being discussed, but gets the gist of it all, pretty much.
3. S/He still wants to learn stuff, but no longer needs instruction on having a quiet time, memorizing scripture, evangelism, etc. so s/he picks up some great theology book from the church library & understands better the stuff the pastor & the church guys were talking about all along. Turns out they are the elect, huh, how 'bout that. Figures out if s/he is infralapsarian or supralapsarian even though it won't help her get the laundry any cleaner. (that's my story)

Just because they may not know the term upon conversion does not negate the veracity of it, ya follow me? Someone is the elect if they end up a Christian, but you don't evangelize people by saying 'here is the Gospel, but since many of you are not the elect, then don't spend too much time worrying yourself over it.' I mean you could say that, evern though it's incredibly rude, God is still sovereign & will save His elect:those foreordained to eternal life, even if a pagan witnesses to them; but that's just a rude way to witness. I doubt many would find the humor in that.

 

[Monergism]

Monergism-

So you do admit that if you were non elect it would be in vain. But Im not sure how 1John "reveals to us" how we know. You have to keep in mind that some people will always "feel" elect and "feel" the comfort and read things like 1John and think it means them, but the whole time they were never elect to begin with.
From what I read in the bold above is that you wouldnt be calvinist if you knew you were not elect.

John reveals to us how we know that we are saved:

1. Walking in the light.
2. Obeying His commandments.
3. Loving your brother.
4. Believing that He is the Christ.
5. Believing that He came in the flesh.

Do unbelievers walk in the light?
Do unbelievers obey Christ?
Do unbelievers love Christians?
Do unbelievers believe that Jesus is the Christ?
Do unbelievers believe that Jesus came in the flesh?

I'm sure they believe that He came in the flesh, but they don't believe He is the Son of God. Just read 1 John. You'll see what John brings up.

If those who believe they are saved, because they feel saved, then I think they should examine themselves or read Romans 8. I don't think there's any problem with being affectual, and no unbeliever would desire to believe or obey.

As for if I were not of the elect, don't think I would have been also an Arminianist.

 

[Jon_]

Thats circular reasoning at the end.

No, it isn't. It's called a transcendental. A Philosophy 101 class should bring you up to speed on that.

If you still reject it, then tell me how you justify the charge of fallacy, since you must use logic to deduce fallacies, yet the argument for logic is intrinsically circular.

And at the start you say "the spirit assures me by working out..." what is that supposed to mean? Are you doing good works or something?

Yes, good works are a part of the sanctification process.

When you say "through His Holy Word" Im guessing thats the Bible? A person can read and read, but that doesnt make him elect.

Here again you are showing a lack of understanding regarding special revelation. The physical Bible itself is objective in its revelation in that it is universally true; yet, apart from the illumination of the Holy Spirit, no one will rightly understand the inspired texts because of the noetic effects of sin. It is only by this illumination of the Holy Spirit (also called subjective revelation) that we are able to discern the truth from the Scriptures.

You are right that reading the Bible does not make one elect; however, reading the Bible and understanding and believing it does, as God only gives such wisdom to his elect.

And who doensnt want that peace? Just because they show up at church on sunday doesnt mean God cares about them. It could be your very own pastor (who doesnt even know he is non elect) teaching people like you who claim to be elect.

I fail to see a point to this. Seems like you are simply trying to introduce doubt into my assurance.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Catholic Dude]

Imblessed-

If they feel the comfort, read 1john and think it means them, then it does---that's how you know!!

That is totally subjective, who is not going to think it means them? A person could read that and "think it means them" and 5 years down the road he could totally reject Christ.

Not true

Explain.

YOU are missing the point totally. totally

I dont see how you can make statements like "we dont just sit around" and not think your elect. Would you still get up and do stuff if you were sure you were not elect?

Wrong

You dont believe in deathbed conversions?

Wrong

Explain, why would God hear the prayers of a non elect?

you are totally misrepresenting what we are saying

What good does reading the Bible do if a person is non elect? The can still read it and memorize it just like anyone else, but if he is non elect then the sacred words dont do anything for his spirit.

Wrong

What does "learn their theology" mean?

you keep saying this over and over, but it's wrong.

So a buddhist who lives his whole life in peace and love yet doesnt believe in Christ is an example of elect or non elect?

(...actually I said that one could APPEAR to have good fruit, big difference)

And how do you know the difference? If a satanist saved your life and you didnt know he was a satanist then that would appear to you as a good work.

(I have no idea what you mean here)

I mean you wouldnt get up and do good if you knew you were non elect, on the flip side you assume your elect and based on that assumption you get up.

(MY election, MINE, no one elses)

I dont follow.
Anyway about the pastors and theologians, would we doubt that they dont think they are saved? But the thing is we dont know. If becoming a pastor meant a person was elect then everyone would want to become a pastor. The fact is, there are pastors who have gone downhill later in life in crime and rejecting God, etc.

there's that assumption again. Are you even listening to what we are saying?????

I am listening, your just missing my points.
If a person is non elect, then no matter what they do they are going to hell. Do you agree with this? Its a simple question.

I made the comment of a non elect attending church every Sunday, they were never elect so attending church meant nothing.


reformedfan-

So why be a Calvinist? cuz God is good.

What? Is God not good nomatter what a individual thinks?

Am i risking 'not being the elect'? HUH? What on earth are you asking me, election is based on God's sovereign choice, evidence of it is in my conversion, not my theology; that's what i meant by my second crack, something like 'when a person converts, he doesn't realize that he was the elect till he studies his theology & comes to that awareness.'

So converting to Calvinism means for sure a person is elect? So Scott Hahn is sure he is elect even though he is now a Catholic?

I mean, let's say:
1. Someone comes to Christ in a Christian church that's of a Calvinistic bent.
2. S/He is discipled, taught basics, hears in church every Sunday basics of TULIP, hears it in greater detail on Wed night Bible studies & hearing other Christians who are Calvinists talking about advancing Christ's kingdom & all that. May not understand comprehensively all that's being discussed, but gets the gist of it all, pretty much.
3. S/He still wants to learn stuff, but no longer needs instruction on having a quiet time, memorizing scripture, evangelism, etc. so s/he picks up some great theology book from the church library & understands better the stuff the pastor & the church guys were talking about all along. Turns out they are the elect, huh, how 'bout that. Figures out if s/he is infralapsarian or supralapsarian even though it won't help her get the laundry any cleaner. (that's my story)

So a person is sure he is elect if he joins a Calvinist church and follows along?

Just because they may not know the term upon conversion does not negate the veracity of it, ya follow me? Someone is the elect if they end up a Christian, but you don't evangelize people by saying 'here is the Gospel, but since many of you are not the elect, then don't spend too much time worrying yourself over it.' I mean you could say that, evern though it's incredibly rude, God is still sovereign & will save His elect:those foreordained to eternal life, even if a pagan witnesses to them; but that's just a rude way to witness. I doubt many would find the humor in that.

How does someone end up a Christian? Again that issue of are Arminians Christian even though they teach opposite of Calvinist? If they are Christian then that means they are elect and preach a different gospel than you.

John reveals to us how we know that we are saved:

1. Walking in the light.
2. Obeying His commandments.
3. Loving your brother.
4. Believing that He is the Christ.
5. Believing that He came in the flesh.

Do unbelievers walk in the light?
Do unbelievers obey Christ?
Do unbelievers love Christians?
Do unbelievers believe that Jesus is the Christ?
Do unbelievers believe that Jesus came in the flesh?

From what I understand the elect dont always walk in the light, they dont always obey, they dont always love, they probably accept Christ though.

If those who believe they are saved, because they feel saved, then I think they should examine themselves or read Romans 8. I don't think there's any problem with being affectual, and no unbeliever would desire to believe or obey.

So if someone "feels saved" then that is not enough?
Also about an unbeliever desiring to obey, election is not about man's desire. A new convert could be on fire for Christ, but later in life he could find himself outside Christianity all together.

Are you 100% sure you will still be Calvinist later in life? If you leave Christianity all together later in life then that means you were not elect in the first place yet all that time past you were sure you were elect.

A perfect example is a pastor. Did he become a pastor thinking that he was non elect? I doubt it. Yet there are pastors who leave later in life. This is key here. Did that pastor walk in the light, obey, love, believe, etc? Sure he did, and he even was teaching others to do the same, but he left later in life, and that means he was non elect in the first place.

Jon-

No, it isn't. It's called a transcendental. A Philosophy 101 class should bring you up to speed on that.

If you still reject it, then tell me how you justify the charge of fallacy, since you must use logic to deduce fallacies, yet the argument for logic is intrinsically circular.

Do you believe that every person who has said the same words as you in that statement remained Christian their whole life?

yes, good works are a part of the sanctification process.

And what if you dont do good works here and there? eg rob a bank

Here again you are showing a lack of understanding regarding special revelation. The physical Bible itself is objective in its revelation in that it is universally true; yet, apart from the illumination of the Holy Spirit, no one will rightly understand the inspired texts because of the noetic effects of sin. It is only by this illumination of the Holy Spirit (also called subjective revelation) that we are able to discern the truth from the Scriptures.

You are right that reading the Bible does not make one elect; however, reading the Bible and understanding and believing it does, as God only gives such wisdom to his elect.

So when a person reads the Bible and comes to totally different conclusions as you does that mean they were not illuminated?
Are you saying everything you read you are 100% sure of interpreting and understanding it correctly? If your not 100% sure then that means the illumination is not always guiding you. Worse yet, what if both people claim they were being illuminated and come to different conclusions?

I fail to see a point to this. Seems like you are simply trying to introduce doubt into my assurance.

You said the peace that surpases all understanding. I dont know of one person who attends church who doesnt believe they have that peace. As I said, it is perfectly reasonable for a person to attend church every sunday thinking that they feel that peace, but in fact they never did. The devil could have been deceiving them the whole time, I mean isnt that what he is doing in the divisions in Christianity?

 

[Imblessed]

Catholic Dude: I'm just going to repost this again so I don't have to type it again

I'm sorry you are not getting it Catholic Dude. You are reading everything we write and picking it apart but you are not actually even trying to get what we are saying. at least it doesn't seem that way.....

i'm not sure I'm willing to try to explain it any further. I appreciate you being civil and all that(some people would have started flaming by now)--but I'm not up to beating my head against the wall any more. I'm getting a head ache.

that said, I will add one thing. Being a Calvinist is not assurance that you are elect. Being saved is assurance that you are elect. But in my opinion "calvinists" have a better understanding of the Sovereignity of God and a better grasp on how He works all things for His good. We are not perfect, and I'm sure we've got some things wrong, but overall, I think our theology is most consistant with scripture.

I'm sure it compares with you and the RCC's stance. RCC claims that all in the RCC are surely in "the church", but won't go so far as to say that "the church" is exclusively in RCC. I can't remember the exact saying....

anyway, have a nice day! It's been interesting talking with you. Bye!

 

[cygnusx1]

cygnusx1-

The last line is back to the main issue, if a person was never elect to begin with then they could give up their lives "trusting in Him" and it would make no difference. They could beg and plead on their knees and God wouldnt blink an eye.

you have a very rigid and narrow and may I say warped view of the will of God CD , do you really think if a man pleads for mercy God will say " no , you are not elect "

two things ,
only the Elect will surrender to God and call out for mercy , the rest don't want God , they don't think that they have done anything that needs Divine Mercy displayed and ministered unto.

and

God's heart is not rigid , His arms are always outstretched to all who seek Him!

 

[Jon_]

Do you believe that every person who has said the same words as you in that statement remained Christian their whole life?

How could I even begin to answer this question? You're asking me to derive a universal from the particular experiences of other people.

And what if you dont do good works here and there? eg rob a bank

Even a single good work is evidence of salvific faith because only true faith produces righteous works. Are these works always evident to everyone? No. But that is meaningless because we're talking about objective truth, not the subjective observation of it.

So when a person reads the Bible and comes to totally different conclusions as you does that mean they were not illuminated?

That depends.

Are you saying everything you read you are 100% sure of interpreting and understanding it correctly?

Of everything? No. Of certain things? Yes.

If your not 100% sure then that means the illumination is not always guiding you.

Yep.

Worse yet, what if both people claim they were being illuminated and come to different conclusions?

This is an invalid question, as it assumes the illumination of the Holy Spirit can be contradictory. It cannot. God is not the author of confusion and he does not contradict himself. The illumination of the Holy Spirit always results in the correct understanding of the text. Does God always provide this illumination? No.

You will then ask me, "How do you know if you have been illuminated with the truth or not?" To which I respond, "When this truth provides a sound, deductively true conclusion based upon the Scriptures." You might stubbornly continue, "But how do you know that the conclusion is true?" To which I would reply, "The Word will only tolerate true deductions." That which is rightly deduced from the Scriptures will provide an objective truth. Whether or not it is subjectively recognized by others is inconsequential to the truth value of the deduction. And simple skepticism is not enough to refute the validity of such a conclusion. A sound counterargument must instead be provided.

You said the peace that surpases all understanding. I dont know of one person who attends church who doesnt believe they have that peace.

Seems you don't know a whole lot of church-going people, then.

As I said, it is perfectly reasonable for a person to attend church every sunday thinking that they feel that peace, but in fact they never did. The devil could have been deceiving them the whole time, I mean isnt that what he is doing in the divisions in Christianity?

You seem to fail to note a distinction between spiritual assurance and emotional or mental assurance. The former comes only by the Holy Spirit as unregenerate man is spiritually dead. The latter can come by any number of self-deceptions or delusions.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Catholic Dude]

cygnus-

you have a very rigid and narrow and may I say warped view of the will of God CD , do you really think if a man pleads for mercy God will say " no , you are not elect "

Thats the point, its not up to man. What man does does not interfere with God's will. Begging and pleading dont serve any purpose. Its like if you were sending someone off to jail for life, they were found guilty and no amount of begging and pleading will change his fate.

two things ,
only the Elect will surrender to God and call out for mercy, the rest don't want God, they don't think that they have done anything that needs Divine Mercy displayed and ministered unto.

I understand the some wont "want" God, but that doesnt mean that just because someone thinks they are surrenduring doesnt make them elect.
Even the JWs and LDS think they are surrenduring to God.

God's heart is not rigid , His arms are always outstretched to all who seek Him!

Thats not calvinism then. He doesnt stretch out and wait, He picks and they come. They dont seek, He draws.

Jon

How could I even begin to answer this question? You're asking me to derive a universal from the particular experiences of other people.

I know people who were once Christians who now dont have anything to do with Christ. That leads me to conclude that just because a person thinks doesnt mean they are.

Even a single good work is evidence of salvific faith because only true faith produces righteous works. Are these works always evident to everyone? No. But that is meaningless because we're talking about objective truth, not the subjective observation of it.

A single good work is evidence? So if a satanist risked his life to save you that would be evidence of salvific faith?

This is an invalid question, as it assumes the illumination of the Holy Spirit can be contradictory. It cannot. God is not the author of confusion and he does not contradict himself. The illumination of the Holy Spirit always results in the correct understanding of the text. Does God always provide this illumination? No.

So there is one truth out there, yet people dont have to be Calvinist to be elect? The only explaination is that people interpreted things differently and were elect none the less.

You will then ask me, "How do you know if you have been illuminated with the truth or not?" To which I respond, "When this truth provides a sound, deductively true conclusion based upon the Scriptures." You might stubbornly continue, "But how do you know that the conclusion is true?" To which I would reply, "The Word will only tolerate true deductions." That which is rightly deduced from the Scriptures will provide an objective truth. Whether or not it is subjectively recognized by others is inconsequential to the truth value of the deduction. And simple skepticism is not enough to refute the validity of such a conclusion. A sound counterargument must instead be provided.

So you only know if something is true if you interpret a passage and nobody can give you a counter interpretation? A person can come to a false conclusion, which nobody knows a counter for, yet that person was in error the whole time.
Also your assuming every point of disagreement was a clear cut yes/no, true/false issue, which most of the time its not. Im sure there were passages out there that Calvin struggled with.

Seems you don't know a whole lot of church-going people, then.

Why is the person attending church then? They should have stayed home.

You seem to fail to note a distinction between spiritual assurance and emotional or mental assurance. The former comes only by the Holy Spirit as unregenerate man is spiritually dead. The latter can come by any number of self-deceptions or delusions.

So what your saying is that when a person feels, thinks and concludes they are saved, it could easily be a number of self-deceptions or delusions.
That is what I have been saying the whole time.

 

[reformedfan]

Catholic dude, you keep confusing Calvinism with Christinaity, are you being obtuse on purpose because you think it's funny? I never said 'once you are a Calvinist you then know you are the elect"

Once you become a Christian, it turns out that you are the elect. Once you learn theology, you know enough to call it that.

 

[Jon_]

I know people who were once Christians who now dont have anything to do with Christ. That leads me to conclude that just because a person thinks doesnt mean they are.

That's a good conclusion. But I never said just because someone thinks they are a Christian means they're elect.

A single good work is evidence? So if a satanist risked his life to save you that would be evidence of salvific faith?

Any "work" done by an unregenerate person is not a "good work" because it is done out of unrighteousness. If a satanist were to save my life, it would still be unrighteous for him to do so because it would not have been motivated out of a love for God or a willingness to serve him.

So there is one truth out there, yet people dont have to be Calvinist to be elect? The only explaination is that people interpreted things differently and were elect none the less

When did I say that you have to be a Calvinist to be elect? I did not.

So you only know if something is true if you interpret a passage and nobody can give you a counter interpretation? A person can come to a false conclusion, which nobody knows a counter for, yet that person was in error the whole time.

Read what I said again, please. I did not say the simple fact that an interpretation is presented makes it true. I said that simply saying it might not be true doesn't make it so.

Just about the only thing you seem to understand is how to twist and distort the words of others. That's a dubious talent to have.

Also your assuming every point of disagreement was a clear cut yes/no, true/false issue, which most of the time its not.

This is just outright wrong. Everything is a true/false proposition. Whether or not we are able to determine the correct answer is irrelevant. To say that there are some things that are not true or false is to say that there are some things that God does not know because truth value is directly associated with God's knowledge. If God knows it to be true, it is true. If God neither knows it is true or false, then we have just made God semiscient, instead of omniscient.

Im sure there were passages out there that Calvin struggled with.

He acknowledged that he struggled with many, the Revelation in particular.

Why is the person attending church then? They should have stayed home.

Good quesiton. Perhaps it is yet another element of self-deception. Maybe they think that going to church once a week is enough to get them into heaven.

So what your saying is that when a person feels, thinks and concludes they are saved, it could easily be a number of self-deceptions or delusions. That is what I have been saying the whole time.

Yes, except you have completely misunderstood the premises nearly from the beginning. My point was that true assurance of faith is spiritual, not emotional or mental. You have yet to comprehend how someone could have that subjective assurance and have it be valid.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

Thats the point, its not up to man. What man does does not interfere with God's will. Begging and pleading dont serve any purpose. Its like if you were sending someone off to jail for life, they were found guilty and no amount of begging and pleading will change his fate.

I understand the some wont "want" God, but that doesnt mean that just because someone thinks they are surrenduring doesnt make them elect.
Even the JWs and LDS think they are surrenduring to God.

Thats not calvinism then. He doesnt stretch out and wait, He picks and they come. They dont seek, He draws.

I cannot help but note that this is all remarkably correct.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Monergism]

From what I understand the elect dont always walk in the light, they dont always obey, they dont always love, they probably accept Christ though.

That's rather insulting. They may stumble along the way, but nevertheless, they walk in the light. If they did not, they wouldn't even be the elect. And I suppose this means that you don't always walk in the light, don't always obey, don't always love, but do accept Christ though. I mean, Catholic Dude, what if you're one of the elect? You would have offended yourself.

So if someone "feels saved" then that is not enough?

It can be affectual. This would be another way of knowing how you're saved. But this doesn't mean that we should not examine ourselves to see if we are of the elect.

Also about an unbeliever desiring to obey, election is not about man's desire. A new convert could be on fire for Christ, but later in life he could find himself outside Christianity all together.

The unbeliever would not desire to obey. If for any reason that an unbeliever desires to obey, this means that he is a believer and not an unbeliever. An unbeliever wouldn't even desire for God. And I do realize that a new convert could be on fire for Christ, but later on in life commit apostasy. It's like what Jesus Christ spoke of in the parable of the seeds falling on the different types of ground.

Are you 100% sure you will still be Calvinist later in life? If you leave Christianity all together later in life then that means you were not elect in the first place yet all that time past you were sure you were elect.

If I leave, then this would mean that I was never the elect, but I'm positive that I will remain a Christian until the day I die.

A perfect example is a pastor. Did he become a pastor thinking that he was non elect? I doubt it. Yet there are pastors who leave later in life. This is key here. Did that pastor walk in the light, obey, love, believe, etc? Sure he did, and he even was teaching others to do the same, but he left later in life, and that means he was non elect in the first place.

He would be as described in Hebrews 6:4-6. He tasted the heavenly lights, but fell away. I believe apostasy is possible.

I'll be back tomorrow.

 

[Godzchild]

I asked "How do we know we are not an apostate"? from a friend yesterday and he answered...

"Because an apostate wouldn't care if they were an apostate"

 

[Catholic Dude]

reformedfan-

Catholic dude, you keep confusing Calvinism with Christinaity, are you being obtuse on purpose because you think it's funny? I never said 'once you are a Calvinist you then know you are the elect"

here is what you said:

I mean, let's say:
1. Someone comes to Christ in a Christian church that's of a Calvinistic bent.
2. S/He is discipled, taught basics, hears in church every Sunday basics of TULIP, hears it in greater detail on Wed night Bible studies & hearing other Christians who are Calvinists talking about advancing Christ's kingdom & all that. May not understand comprehensively all that's being discussed, but gets the gist of it all, pretty much.
3. S/He still wants to learn stuff, but no longer needs instruction on having a quiet time, memorizing scripture, evangelism, etc. so s/he picks up some great theology book from the church library & understands better the stuff the pastor & the church guys were talking about all along. Turns out they are the elect, huh, how 'bout that. Figures out if s/he is infralapsarian or supralapsarian even though it won't help her get the laundry any cleaner. (that's my story
​

What else am I supposed to conclude here, you entered a Calvin, learned the basics, studied, understood the stuff, and then find out your elect. Are you saying that people will join and learn and study and read theology and one day find out they were not elect?

Once you become a Christian, it turns out that you are the elect. Once you learn theology, you know enough to call it that.

Here is the problem I am seeing. There are Christians out there teaching totally opposite to what you guys teach, how can you say they are elect just because they are Christian if they are preaching a different gospel?


Jon-

That's a good conclusion. But I never said just because someone thinks they are a Christian means they're elect.

I agree. By the way how do you define when someone is a Christian?

Any "work" done by an unregenerate person is not a "good work" because it is done out of unrighteousness. If a satanist were to save my life, it would still be unrighteous for him to do so because it would not have been motivated out of a love for God or a willingness to serve him.

You said earlier a single good work is evidence of salvific faith. Well from what you said here, how are we ever supposed to know if a good work was really a good work? If someone saved your life you would not consider that a good work?

When did I say that you have to be a Calvinist to be elect? I did not.

I guess I dont understand how a group preaching a different gospel than you can be just as elect as you. Are you telling me all the Arminian churches in the world could be full of elect?

Read what I said again, please. I did not say the simple fact that an interpretation is presented makes it true. I said that simply saying it might not be true doesn't make it so.

Here is what you said:

You will then ask me, "How do you know if you have been illuminated with the truth or not?" To which I respond, "When this truth provides a sound, deductively true conclusion based upon the Scriptures." You might stubbornly continue, "But how do you know that the conclusion is true?" To which I would reply, "The Word will only tolerate true deductions." That which is rightly deduced from the Scriptures will provide an objective truth. Whether or not it is subjectively recognized by others is inconsequential to the truth value of the deduction. And simple skepticism is not enough to refute the validity of such a conclusion. A sound counterargument must instead be provided
​

Your deducing something here, that means your missing information and drawing conclusions based on what you know. You said the illumination is not always on which further shows that you are drawing conclusionss based on only what you have been shown. An example is lets say a box of strange parts appeared at your house one day, but they assembly instruction book only came to you once a week one random page at a time. You would build up what you could and make a conclusion on what the rest was, yet that conclusion could be wrong. A person could come by and say that your conclusion is off, but were unable to give a counter argument, you would continue to stick with your conclusion (but that doesnt mean its correct). A Biblical example is the creation story, there are many interpretations out there, you would make your conclusion from what has been revealed, but another person could point out a small problem with your conclusion but not a "sound counterargument", does that mean that your views are correct or simply that they are more logical than the other guy?

This is just outright wrong. Everything is a true/false proposition. Whether or not we are able to determine the correct answer is irrelevant. To say that there are some things that are not true or false is to say that there are some things that God does not know because truth value is directly associated with God's knowledge. If God knows it to be true, it is true. If God neither knows it is true or false, then we have just made God semiscient, instead of omniscient.

Thats not what I was getting at, Im not talking about God here, as humans many things are not simply yes/no. Again the example of the creation story in Genesis. On one end there are people who say its historical-fiction and fable on the other end there are those who say its literal word for word history. Im sure if someone asked God if it was historical fiction He would say yes or no. But as humans we, or at least I dont know for sure, I tend mostly to the literal end, but I dont exclude some of the points others make.

Yes, except you have completely misunderstood the premises nearly from the beginning. My point was that true assurance of faith is spiritual, not emotional or mental. You have yet to comprehend how someone could have that subjective assurance and have it be valid.

I never denied that it was spiritual. But as you just said, assurance is not an emotion or feeling, which I agree with. And your right I cant understand how someone can know if they are elect especially when emotions decieve.


monergism-

That's rather insulting. They may stumble along the way, but nevertheless, they walk in the light. If they did not, they wouldn't even be the elect. And I suppose this means that you don't always walk in the light, don't always obey, don't always love, but do accept Christ though. I mean, Catholic Dude, what if you're one of the elect? You would have offended yourself.

What? Are you saying you never sin? I sin, I admit that. When someone sins the are not walking in light. The opposite of sin is obey and love. I have said this before, King David sinned big time, he was not walking in the light when he did so, yet he kept faith in God.

It can be affectual. This would be another way of knowing how you're saved. But this doesn't mean that we should not examine ourselves to see if we are of the elect.

"Examine Ourselves"? What does that mean? That you check somehow to see if your elect and if your not you go on a rampage, but if you are you enter the nearest church?

The unbeliever would not desire to obey. If for any reason that an unbeliever desires to obey, this means that he is a believer and not an unbeliever. An unbeliever wouldn't even desire for God. And I do realize that a new convert could be on fire for Christ, but later on in life commit apostasy. It's like what Jesus Christ spoke of in the parable of the seeds falling on the different types of ground.

Your not making sense here. A new convert desires 10x more than those around him to obey Christ, yet as we know they could fall away. Yet for a time he did desire, does that mean he was a believer or not? And that parable indicates the most important thing, that a person can appear and feel elect for a given time and later fall because thats what God intended for them to do from the start.

If I leave, then this would mean that I was never the elect, but I'm positive that I will remain a Christian until the day I die.

So your not 100% sure, infact according to that parable you could be on a temporary joy ride and not realize it.

He would be as described in Hebrews 6:4-6. He tasted the heavenly lights, but fell away. I believe apostasy is possible.

How do you define apostacy?


Godzchild-

I asked "How do we know we are not an apostate"? from a friend yesterday and he answered...

"Because an apostate wouldn't care if they were an apostate"

I dont get it. Explain.
Also are you calvinist?