How does a Calvinist KNOW they are elect?

[Jon_]

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

Someone who confesses Christ as their Lord and Savior and has been baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. (Can there be unbaptized Christians? Yes, but the sacrament of baptism is the outward sign that we have been given.)

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?

I would consider that a good work from my perspective, but my perspective is meaningless where salvation is concerned. I am not at all dismayed that I cannot truly know which works are righteous and which are not.

You see, Calvinism is theocentric, not anthropocentric. This isn't a jab at you, but I can understand why this is difficult for you to accept because Catholicism is undeniably anthropocentric. The church's perspective is supposedly God's perspective. That leads to many fightfully wrong conclusions.

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?

On this I can simply say that I judge no man. Indeed, semi-Pelagianism has been twice denounced by the orthodox church of Christ (Council of Orange 529 A.D., Canons of Dordt 1619 A.D.). I further cannot personally understand how one could believe the Bible to be errant, imperfect, or in anyway subordinate to any other standard and still have a salvific faith in Christ, but this is just a personal struggle. I certainly don't assume that someone is not a Christian if he believe the Bible to be errant, but I do question his obedience.

Your deducing something here, that means your missing information and drawing conclusions based on what you know.

Deducing something does not mean you are necessarily missing information. Deduction means that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Note in the part that you quoted that I said, "sound, deductive truth." Sound is the term ascribed to deductive arguments that are logical and have true premises, which means the conclusion will always be true.

For instance,

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
​

This is a sound argument. All men are mortal, and Socrates is (was) a man, therefore, Socrates is mortal.

This is the pattern that biblical interpretation should follow.

You said the illumination is not always on which further shows that you are drawing conclusionss based on only what you have been shown.

That's true; however, we know these things to be true because of the impossibility of the contrary. They are what is known as transcendentals. For instance, God exists. This is unequivocally true because it is impossible for it to be not true.

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 why I specified sound arguments. Sound arguments always follow true premises.

But your illustration is flawed. The concluded assembly created above would not follow. It would be fallacious. Without the premises (the plans) upon which to derive the correct conclusion, the argument would be invalid.

A valid argument always follows the premises. A sound argument is a valid argument with true conclusions. The argument you have given above is invalid because it does not follow the premises (because you do not have them, yet).

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.

Granted, but I did not say that all things in the Bible were equally understandable. A hear an hypothetical objection: "Then how do you know you understand this?" To this, the reply is again to the transcendental nature of the evidence. That it is impossible for it to be any other way. Because there is no higher standard to which we might appeal than the Bible, our evidence comes in the form of transcendental argumentation. Assurance comes this way because it is impossible for it to come any other way. Or, more precisely, assurance is subjective because it is impossible for it to be objective.

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.

Well, like I said, it is a subjective assurance of the Holy Spirit. There is no objective standard by which you can appeal to determine if one is elect or not. In fact, God wants it that way because his elect are a part of his secret will. He has not chosen to explicitly reveal to us those that are his. So, if you are looking for some kind of universal basis by which you might judge the souls of men, you will not find it. Scripture deplores such things.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cygnusx1]

cygnus-

Thats the point, its not up to man. What man does does not interfere with God's will.

there are two sides to this issue , sure salvation is not up to man , It is Grace that saves , not free-will .
Now turn the coin over , why does God send sinners to hell ?

Begging and pleading dont serve any purpose.

Well if that were the case , then you would have something going on outside God's will ....... yes , Ministers should plead with sinners , pursuasion is Biblical. we don't merely get up and preach cold facts in a 'take it or leave it' Hyper Calvinist or Neo-Calvinist type manner!

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.

No! It's like someone is off to jail and you tell them there is a FREE pardon upon certain conditions , and that can change peoples lives.

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

oh , man .........

what do the scriptures say about disobedient , hardened Israel ?

see Romans 10 : 21

''But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.''

note well , this is not a preacher holding out his hands , this is not someone who doesn't know who the elect and reprobate are , this is not the ignorance and cynicism of an insincere call ........ This is God , in loving , kindness in the face of rejection!

 

[Godzchild]

Godzchild-

Quote:

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?

Well an apostate who is obviously a 'false professor' and not one of the Lord's sheep isnt' going to really care that he isn't the Lord's sheep. Or that he's a false professor. Why would he care? Likewise, of one of the Lord's sheep questioned or 'worried' about being an apostate then it's obvious that they're not one because they 'care'.

As for if I'm a calvinist - well...Ummm...I really don't know. I'm asking a lot of questions - that is all.

 

[Monergism]

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.

Then all of those who claim to be Christians are calling God a liar. 1 John 1:6, 7, "If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sins." Now tell me, are all Christians deceiving themselves?

You misinterpreted me again, for perhaps the third time? Did I ever claim I was without sin? No. Tell me, was Noah sinless? No, he wasn't. But he was considered blameless and righteous. Why? Because, he was obedient. Is one who is obedient, one who is in the light? Is he not walking in the light? The one who does not walk in the light is one who is disobedient, and thus, he walks in the darkness. So, I guess all Christians are disobedient all the time, and they are "twice the sons of hell." In other words, we're all big, fat, hypocrites.

As for David, we can see he had God's grace, for one who did not have God's grace would not even say such a beautiful psalm, asking God to forgive him and to wash away his sins, and to have the Holy Spirit remain with him (Psalm 51).

"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?

Must you always insult me? Is there something that I have done, that you throw out jabs of sarcasm? What do I mean when I say that we should "examine ourselves"? This is what I mean: Are we obedient? Do we believe that Jesus is the Christ? Do we love our brothers (and sisters)? Do we set ourselves apart from the world (being holy)? "[A]dd to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love."

By the way, even an unbeliever can enter a church, but it doesn't make him a Christian. The regenerating act of the Holy Spirit makes one a Christian. They can proclaim to be a Christian, but if they don't show any change over time, then they truly were never Christians, but only have the professed to be one.

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.

He is the seed that sprouted up immediately, but withered away. If this person has fallen away, he is truly not a Christian, and he never belonged to us (1 John 2:19). He is the anti-Christ. He has tasted the heavenly gifts. Out of the four seeds, only twenty-five percent persevere to the end.

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

Just how temporary will this joy ride be then, until I finally fall away?

How do you define apostacy?

One who was once a believer, but is one no more. Because he has tasted the heavenly gifts, if he were to go back, he would be crucifying the Son of God all over again, and he would be subjecting Christ to public disgrace. I do not believe in "once saved always saved." In the past, and several times, I have e-mailed John Hendryx, the owner of Monergism.com. At the time, when I was not a monergist, and before I had become a Calvinist, I asked of five questions, and the fifth (as well as the first response) had surprised me. Below is my question, and Hendryx's response to it:

5. If "once saved always saved" is true does this mean that the regenerate man has every right to sin?


​

Once saved always saved is not true. This is an antinomain doctrine. We believe in the preservation of the saints. Jesus said: "All that the Father gives to me will come to me and all who come I will not cast out." The Holy Spirit was given as a pledge, a seal or promise for the life to come. Jesus is our righteousness. We can neither attain nor maintain our salvation by our good works. But if Jesus has done a work of Grace in us than we will not continue to live a lifestyle of sin simply because our new regenerate natures desire the things of the Spirit. In John 15:16 Jesus said "You have no chose me but I have chose you an ordained that you bear much fruit."


​

Here is a great short essay which shows the difference between the Calvinist, Arminians and Antinomian doctrine of whether salvation can be lost. The once saved always saved doctrine is not a Calvinist one, it is dispensational. Can a Christian Lose His or Her Salvation? by Greg Johnson.

​

In that link, I take the Classical Calvinistic view of salvation.

 

[Godzchild]

Why is "The perserverance of the Saints" different from OSAS?

 

[Imblessed]

OSAS teaches that those who professed faith once(said the magic words) maybe did good works for a while, but fell away from the faith, and died without faith, are still saved.

perseverance of the saints teaches that all true believers will die with faith. there will be true believers who will fall away for a while, but God will always bring them back to faith and repentence before they die. Those who professed faith once, but die without faith, were never true christians to start with.


That's how I see the difference

 

[Monergism]

Why is "The perserverance of the Saints" different from OSAS?

I believe Imblessed stated it correctly. Last night, I saw your question, and I interpreted as to what John Hendryx meant. Imblessed has stated what Hendryx meant, and I came up with the same conclusion as she.

 

[Godzchild]

Thank you!

 

[Monergism]

Thank you!

You're welcome!

 

[Jon_]

I love the Bible. It puts these things so much more succinctly than I do and makes me look like a blathering idiot at the same time. Oh, Lord, humble me.

(Rom. 8:14-16 AV) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15) For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16) The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
​

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Why is "The perserverance of the Saints" different from OSAS?

Perhaps you will find this thread helpful: Perseverance or OSAS

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[Catholic Dude]

I got back as soon as I could.

Jon-

Someone who confesses Christ as their Lord and Savior and has been baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. (Can there be unbaptized Christians? Yes, but the sacrament of baptism is the outward sign that we have been given.)

What do you mean by UnBaptized Christian? Do you mean someone who hasnt gotten the chance to be Baptized or someone who simply refuses to be Baptized?

I would consider that a good work from my perspective, but my perspective is meaningless where salvation is concerned. I am not at all dismayed that I cannot truly know which works are righteous and which are not.

You see, Calvinism is theocentric, not anthropocentric. This isn't a jab at you, but I can understand why this is difficult for you to accept because Catholicism is undeniably anthropocentric. The church's perspective is supposedly God's perspective. That leads to many fightfully wrong conclusions.

Ok I looked up both of those words, the first one means God centered religion and the other means human centered religion. How is Christianity not both? It is primarily focused on worshipping God but it also seeks to build up the individual believer.

But that stuff about not knowing what is a good work or not and going through life like that? I dont see how it cant be considered a good work, the Catholic Church teaches that it might not hold the merits to Heaven, but it is still pleasing to God to a degree. That saving of your life was definately not the work of the devil. If that guy saved my life I would be forever greatful of him, while still retaining that his religious views are misguided.

On this I can simply say that I judge no man. Indeed, semi-Pelagianism has been twice denounced by the orthodox church of Christ (Council of Orange 529 A.D., Canons of Dordt 1619 A.D.). I further cannot personally understand how one could believe the Bible to be errant, imperfect, or in anyway subordinate to any other standard and still have a salvific faith in Christ, but this is just a personal struggle. I certainly don't assume that someone is not a Christian if he believe the Bible to be errant, but I do question his obedience.

So technically they have just as much of a chance as you, who knows they could all convert on their deathbeds.
Also who says the Bible has errors?

Deducing something does not mean you are necessarily missing information. Deduction means that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Note in the part that you quoted that I said, "sound, deductive truth." Sound is the term ascribed to deductive arguments that are logical and have true premises, which means the conclusion will always be true.

For instance,

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
​

This is a sound argument. All men are mortal, and Socrates is (was) a man, therefore, Socrates is mortal.

This is the pattern that biblical interpretation should follow.

Ok, I guess that makes sense to a degree, but we also have to take into consideration those things which dont seem to be logical but they are. eg miracles. Also not all men are mortal, at first Adam was not and Jesus was not, straight up logic doesnt always work with Christianity.

That's true; however, we know these things to be true because of the impossibility of the contrary. They are what is known as transcendentals. For instance, God exists. This is unequivocally true because it is impossible for it to be not true.

So your saying its impossible for God not to exist? What about is it possible for Jesus not to exist? According to the OT there was no such person as Jesus (at least on the surface).

Granted, but I did not say that all things in the Bible were equally understandable. A hear an hypothetical objection: "Then how do you know you understand this?" To this, the reply is again to the transcendental nature of the evidence. That it is impossible for it to be any other way. Because there is no higher standard to which we might appeal than the Bible, our evidence comes in the form of transcendental argumentation. Assurance comes this way because it is impossible for it to come any other way. Or, more precisely, assurance is subjective because it is impossible for it to be objective.

Sure there is a higher standard, private revelation just like for Paul.
Also the way you admit not everything is understandable, there is a lot out there that is not fully understandable, but to a degree it is understandable, eg Trinity.
Im not sure where this impossible stuff comes from, people since day one have said its impossible for there to be 3 in 1 as in the Trinity.

Well, like I said, it is a subjective assurance of the Holy Spirit. There is no objective standard by which you can appeal to determine if one is elect or not. In fact, God wants it that way because his elect are a part of his secret will. He has not chosen to explicitly reveal to us those that are his. So, if you are looking for some kind of universal basis by which you might judge the souls of men, you will not find it. Scripture deplores such things.

What? There are many ways to tell if someone has a chance, the primary way is Baptism. Both the Bible and Council of Orange (which you cited) teach that Baptism is proof or regeneration and new life.
I dont see how Scripture can do that, thats grounds for depression and confusion. Scripture should be a sure teacher of grounds for election, otherwise its no different than playing russian roulette which I dont think God ever intended. The whole point of circumcision in the OT was a clear clear sign of God's chosen people, the same in the NT with Baptism.


cygnus-

there are two sides to this issue , sure salvation is not up to man , It is Grace that saves , not free-will .
Now turn the coin over , why does God send sinners to hell ?

Well to be frank, from what I understand, God desires/likes sending people to hell. But Im guessing Im missing something here? I dont know, why does He?

Well if that were the case , then you would have something going on outside God's will ....... yes , Ministers should plead with sinners, pursuasion is Biblical. we don't merely get up and preach cold facts in a 'take it or leave it' Hyper Calvinist or Neo-Calvinist type manner!

I dont follow. Despite what you wish, desire, do, etc you cant make God change His mind. I dont see how persuasion is Biblical when it is God who does the deciding. There is no take it or leave it, there is elect and non elect.

No! It's like someone is off to jail and you tell them there is a FREE pardon upon certain conditions , and that can change peoples lives.

The pardon is not up to you though.

what do the scriptures say about disobedient , hardened Israel ?

see Romans 10 : 21

''But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.''

note well , this is not a preacher holding out his hands , this is not someone who doesn't know who the elect and reprobate are , this is not the ignorance and cynicism of an insincere call ........ This is God , in loving , kindness in the face of rejection!

Yes but God wanted them to not believe, He wanted to send them to Hell.
Same thing with Ezekiel 33:11

11 Say to them, As I live, says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?
​

Here again, God hardens and sends to Hell based on His good pleasure.



monergism-

Then all of those who claim to be Christians are calling God a liar. 1 John 1:6, 7, "If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sins." Now tell me, are all Christians deceiving themselves?

Well Im not sure, the logical thing for me to conclude is when someone murders he very well could simply be walking in the light if he is elect. If you murdered you (if elect) would simply be walking in the light.

You misinterpreted me again, for perhaps the third time? Did I ever claim I was without sin? No. Tell me, was Noah sinless? No, he wasn't. But he was considered blameless and righteous. Why? Because, he was obedient. Is one who is obedient, one who is in the light? Is he not walking in the light? The one who does not walk in the light is one who is disobedient, and thus, he walks in the darkness. So, I guess all Christians are disobedient all the time, and they are "twice the sons of hell." In other words, we're all big, fat, hypocrites.

I dont follow this passage. So when David murdered and fornicated he was simply obedient and blameless and righteous? Im not here to disagree, according to you its a yes or else he was a hypocrite.
I dont know where you get this "all the time" stuff, Im concerned with a finite amount of time.

As for David, we can see he had God's grace, for one who did not have God's grace would not even say such a beautiful psalm, asking God to forgive him and to wash away his sins, and to have the Holy Spirit remain with him (Psalm 51).

So one murder and one fornication are ok as long as one is elect and has God's grace? I guess I should question the next time a pastor speaks out against violence and fornication, for all we know the people he is accusing could simply be under God's grace.

What do I mean when I say that we should "examine ourselves"? This is what I mean: Are we obedient? Do we believe that Jesus is the Christ? Do we love our brothers (and sisters)? Do we set ourselves apart from the world (being holy)? "[A]dd to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love."

Just because someone follows all those steps doesnt make them elect. Look to the very next verse of that quote you made:

9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.
​

So what does this mean other than a person can very well lack those things you mentioned and be fine.

By the way, even an unbeliever can enter a church, but it doesn't make him a Christian. The regenerating act of the Holy Spirit makes one a Christian. They can proclaim to be a Christian, but if they don't show any change over time, then they truly were never Christians, but only have the professed to be one.

And how does the regenerating act of the Holy Spirit occur Scripturally? From what I remember the Bible saying it was done via Baptism.

He is the seed that sprouted up immediately, but withered away. If this person has fallen away, he is truly not a Christian, and he never belonged to us (1 John 2:19). He is the anti-Christ. He has tasted the heavenly gifts. Out of the four seeds, only twenty-five percent persevere to the end.

And the lesson is that a person can feel elect and even show signs of being elect, but he was decieved the whole time.

Just how temporary will this joy ride be then, until I finally fall away?

Time isnt the issue it could be tomorrow or just before you die. With God one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.

One who was once a believer, but is one no more. Because he has tasted the heavenly gifts, if he were to go back, he would be crucifying the Son of God all over again, and he would be subjecting Christ to public disgrace. I do not believe in "once saved always saved." In the past, and several times, I have e-mailed John Hendryx, the owner of Monergism.com. At the time, when I was not a monergist, and before I had become a Calvinist, I asked of five questions, and the fifth (as well as the first response) had surprised me. Below is my question, and Hendryx's response to it:

So why did that person once believe in the first place?
Anyway, here is a quote from that link:

As the Westminster Assembly concluded, Christians might temporarily yield to Satan's temptations, even to excess, but like Peter when he denied Christ three times, God will still restore and preserve the faith of the Christian, a faith which God gave in the first place!
​

With talk like this we could just as well assume Hitler or any one who goes on a rampage was just as elect as anyone else.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

With talk like this we could just as well assume Hitler or any one who goes on a rampage was just as elect as anyone else.

This is pure sillyness. Your comparing Hitler to Petters short lapse into sin and denial of Christ. Catholic Dude, I think you are stretching things way beyond all common sense.

Could an elect (bornagain person) fall into the sin of adultry? Yes. Could they remain in that life style for ever? No. God's Spirit would bring them back to repentence.

Could an elect person go become a drunk, or counltess other sinful ways of acting? Yes, but like Peter, they will repent.

The Hitler analogy was less than a reasonable comment.

Dominus vobiscum Catholic Dude,
Kenith

 

[Catholic Dude]

Hitler was a human just like the rest of us. Paul started off his mission murdering, torturing and jailing Christians, he was changed later in life though for the better.

 

[cygnusx1]

cygnus-

Well to be frank, from what I understand, God desires/likes sending people to hell. But Im guessing Im missing something here? I dont know, why does He?


I dont follow. Despite what you wish, desire, do, etc you cant make God change His mind. I dont see how persuasion is Biblical when it is God who does the deciding. There is no take it or leave it, there is elect and non elect.


The pardon is not up to you though.


Yes but God wanted them to not believe, He wanted to send them to Hell.












Same thing with Ezekiel 33:11

11 Say to them, As I live, says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?












​

Here again, God hardens and sends to Hell based on His good pleasure.

I see from your answers you have only a narrow view of God's will , yet scripture shows at least 4 sides to God's will:

His will of Decree (often called His secret will). Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (KJV)
Romans 8:28 ''And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose''. (KJV)

His will of Command.(often called His Preceptive will) Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt. 5:48 (KJV)
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Acts 17 :30) (KJV)

His will of Desire.(this is one , yet variety is involved in it , see next point)"He is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth."—Job 23:13

His will of Approval (Delight) (often called His will of Approbation).Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: [and] not that he should return from his ways, and live? -Ez 18 :23
Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? Ez 33:11

I am certain if you were to spend time dwelling upon God's will towards Pharoah , you would be able to see all 4 aspects of God's will.

BTW , No need to be a fatalist .......... = The Divine Decree contains both Permissive and a Direct aspect.

Permissive decree
In Christian theology, those decrees (ordained events) of God that are different from His direct decrees. An example of a permissive decree would be the fall of Adam into sin. God does not desire sin, yet He permitted its occurrence. He decreed that it would occur by permission, not by direct action of His will. A direct decree of God would be the incarnation of the Son.

http://www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_p-r.htm

 

[Monergism]

Well Im not sure, the logical thing for me to conclude is when someone murders he very well could simply be walking in the light if he is elect. If you murdered you (if elect) would simply be walking in the light.

Is that so? I don't believe murder, and the last time I checked, is pleasing to God. That's like saying, "You're the elect, and so you are free to do whatever. I won't be angry with you, because I know you will eventually return to me, be it after you murder, or a few days, weeks, months, or even years."

I dont follow this passage. So when David murdered and fornicated he was simply obedient and blameless and righteous? Im not here to disagree, according to you its a yes or else he was a hypocrite.
I dont know where you get this "all the time" stuff, Im concerned with a finite amount of time.

No, did I say that? Just because David was a "man after God's own heart" didn't mean that he was scot-free when he murdered and committed adultery. Whether he was or was not a hypocrite isn't my concern right now. But what I do know is that he was forgiven.

So one murder and one fornication are ok as long as one is elect and has God's grace? I guess I should question the next time a pastor speaks out against violence and fornication, for all we know the people he is accusing could simply be under God's grace.

If that's what you want to do, so be it. But, murder and fornication are not all right. They're sins. But, when one repents of those sins, they shall live. I am not saying that it is all right to sin, then ask for forgiveness, and then go back on sinning. True repentance will always have the person abstaining from his or her past sins. This would be a sign of election.

Just because someone follows all those steps doesnt make them elect. Look to the very next verse of that quote you made:

9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.


​

So what does this mean other than a person can very well lack those things you mentioned and be fine.

Who said they were steps? Shall not all those be as one? And the above quote is, "For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted nd has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins." I'll leave it up to you to interpret that verse.

And how does the regenerating act of the Holy Spirit occur Scripturally? From what I remember the Bible saying it was done via Baptism.

And what say you of the man who was dying on the cross? Was he not saved, because he was not baptized? Does this mean that he didn't have the Holy Spirit with him? And of those who Paul did not baptize, were these people left without the Spirit of God? Were they not regenerated?

And the lesson is that a person can feel elect and even show signs of being elect, but he was decieved the whole time.

But, as it is so, the person never truly had faith to begin with.

Time isnt the issue it could be tomorrow or just before you die. With God one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.

While God is eternal, and while that verse seems to be taken a bit far, time is the issue in human standards, for if a tree does not bear fruit over time, then it shall be cut down.

So why did that person once believe in the first place?


Anyway, here is a quote from that link:

As the Westminster Assembly concluded, Christians might temporarily yield to Satan's temptations, even to excess, but like Peter when he denied Christ three times, God will still restore and preserve the faith of the Christian, a faith which God gave in the first place!


​

With talk like this we could just as well assume Hitler or any one who goes on a rampage was just as elect as anyone else.

But I do wonder if Hitler even endured in his "faith" to the end. And as we can see, by the fruit that Hitler produced, he wasn't of the elect. He was a reprobate.

 

[Catholic Dude]

cygnusx1-

I see from your answers you have only a narrow view of God's will , yet scripture shows at least 4 sides to God's will:

His will of Decree (often called His secret will). Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (KJV)
Romans 8:28 ''And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose''. (KJV)

His will of Command.(often called His Preceptive will) Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt. 5:48 (KJV)
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Acts 17 :30) (KJV)

His will of Desire.(this is one , yet variety is involved in it , see next point)"He is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth."—Job 23:13

His will of Approval (Delight) (often called His will of Approbation).Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: [and] not that he should return from his ways, and live? -Ez 18 :23
Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? Ez 33:11

I am certain if you were to spend time dwelling upon God's will towards Pharoah , you would be able to see all 4 aspects of God's will.

BTW , No need to be a fatalist .......... = The Divine Decree contains both Permissive and a Direct aspect.

Permissive decree
In Christian theology, those decrees (ordained events) of God that are different from His direct decrees. An example of a permissive decree would be the fall of Adam into sin. God does not desire sin, yet He permitted its occurrence. He decreed that it would occur by permission, not by direct action of His will. A direct decree of God would be the incarnation of the Son.

I dont understand all these. Like the Command one, why command something that is impossible for a person to do? The desire one I dont get at all,like what about 1Tim2:4? And the Approval one I dont get, what is God approving of in those passages?



monergism-

Is that so? I don't believe murder, and the last time I checked, is pleasing to God. That's like saying, "You're the elect, and so you are free to do whatever. I won't be angry with you, because I know you will eventually return to me, be it after you murder, or a few days, weeks, months, or even years."

So when someone who is elect does murder then are they walking in the light or not? Im confused here, you said "If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth". I concluded that an elect who murdered was walking in the light OR ELSE they are walking in darkness and not elect. Now your saying above that those things are not pleasing to God. So explain to me how someone can do something not pleasing to God and be walking in the light.

No, did I say that? Just because David was a "man after God's own heart" didn't mean that he was scot-free when he murdered and committed adultery. Whether he was or was not a hypocrite isn't my concern right now. But what I do know is that he was forgiven.

What do you mean he wansnt "scot free"? Was he in jeopardy of not going to Heaven ever? If you answer "no" then that means he did get off "scot free". Also Im going back to what you said:
"But he was considered blameless and righteous. Why? Because, he was obedient. Is one who is obedient, one who is in the light? Is he not walking in the light? The one who does not walk in the light is one who is disobedient, and thus, he walks in the darkness."
What am I to conclude here, was David blameless or not? I agree that he was forgiven, but Im still confused on if he was a hypocrite or not.

If that's what you want to do, so be it. But, murder and fornication are not all right. They're sins. But, when one repents of those sins, they shall live. I am not saying that it is all right to sin, then ask for forgiveness, and then go back on sinning. True repentance will always have the person abstaining from his or her past sins. This would be a sign of election.

The issue is whether or not the person is elect and if he is then murder is ok. If Person A is not elect and Person B is and they both commit murder then Person A is dammed no matter what, while Peson B will still be saved. That is the issue.

Who said they were steps? Shall not all those be as one? And the above quote is, "For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted nd has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins." I'll leave it up to you to interpret that verse.

Here is what it says that you cited:Add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.
They are steps in the sense that you build off of you faith. And why are you leaving it up to me to interpret that verse? The person was cleansed from his sins, yet he didnt demonstrate those qualities, that means a person doesnt have to examine themself if they dont want to their sins were removed already.

And what say you of the man who was dying on the cross? Was he not saved, because he was not baptized? Does this mean that he didn't have the Holy Spirit with him? And of those who Paul did not baptize, were these people left without the Spirit of God? Were they not regenerated?

The guy on the cross had Jesus right there to give him a special pass. About Paul not Baptizing, Paul Baptized a lot of people and never refused to Baptize anyone. If you thinking about that 1Cor1 passage he is simply saying he didnt Baptize them, NOT that they were never Baptized. Paul wasnt the only person who could Baptize.

But, as it is so, the person never truly had faith to begin with.

Thats not what I was getting at. A person can feel and show sings but he was really deceived the whole time.

While God is eternal, and while that verse seems to be taken a bit far, time is the issue in human standards, for if a tree does not bear fruit over time, then it shall be cut down.

Still time isnt the issue, it could be next month or next year and you situation would still be possible.

But I do wonder if Hitler even endured in his "faith" to the end. And as we can see, by the fruit that Hitler produced, he wasn't of the elect. He was a reprobate.

You cant say that, thats judging someone's soul and that is left to God alone. You have no grounds to say he was reprobate. His chances at election are just as good as you or me.

 

[cygnusx1]

cygnusx1-

I dont understand all these.

and that is a problem for many.

Like the Command one, why command something that is impossible for a person to do?

To show us the utter inability for that which is good except in reliance upon Grace.
Salvation is not sit back and do nothing , it is work BECAUSE God is at work ..... until a person realises his lack of power he will forever stumble through his own lack of ability ........ Salvation is the Work of God.

The desire one I dont get at all,like what about 1Tim2:4?

right OK , tell us what you think , word for word 1 Tim 2:4 is saying.

And the Approval one I dont get, what is God approving of in those passages?

can you not see that if God does not delight in the death of the sinner (notice the death of sinners still takes place!) then He does delight in the life of the sinner ... there is much joy in heaven over one sinner who repents!

 

[Monergism]

So when someone who is elect does murder then are they walking in the light or not? Im confused here, you said "If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth". I concluded that an elect who murdered was walking in the light OR ELSE they are walking in darkness and not elect. Now your saying above that those things are not pleasing to God. So explain to me how someone can do something not pleasing to God and be walking in the light.

What is darkness? It is disobedience. Have I not said in the past that Christians will stumble? By what you're saying, that is, one who walks in darkness is not the elect, I ask, shall we assume that if we sin once, we are not of the elect? If so, then who can save us, and who can stand before a righteous God? For again, as I have said before, Christians will stumble. Is murder something that God commands? No, it isn't something He commands. If it was something He commanded, it would be His will. But because it is contrary to His will, it is not what He commands, thus, it is disobedience. And I ask, Would a Christian even murder? But we are all murderers, because Christ made anger akin to murder, so we are all murderers, though we have not physically murdered anyone.

If the elect was to murder someone, does this make him not of the elect? No. But it does break his fellowship with God, and until he has asked for forgiveness, the Holy Spirit will not be at rest. The person who lives accordingly to God's Word, he is in the light. And if he is one of the elect, he won't desire to murder someone. If he did, he would have broken the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself."

What do you mean he wansnt "scot free"? Was he in jeopardy of not going to Heaven ever? If you answer "no" then that means he did get off "scot free".

My answer is no. You say that he did get off "scot-free," if I was to respond by saying, "No." But, just because he wasn't in jeopardy of not entering heaven, does not mean that he was judged on earth. For, he lost his child whom Bathsheba bore, and there are other things that occurred. David's prayer was not for the fear of punishment or of future success. Rather, he repented for offending God, hence his saying, "For I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done this evil in your sight" (Psalm 51:3, 4). He had a contrite heart, and of all the sacrifices, God will not despise a "broken and a contrite heart" (51:17). As we can see, it was contrition and not attrition.

Also Im going back to what you said:
"But he was considered blameless and righteous. Why? Because, he was obedient. Is one who is obedient, one who is in the light? Is he not walking in the light? The one who does not walk in the light is one who is disobedient, and thus, he walks in the darkness."
What am I to conclude here, was David blameless or not? I agree that he was forgiven, but Im still confused on if he was a hypocrite or not.

Is not that quote of Noah, and not of David?

The issue is whether or not the person is elect and if he is then murder is ok. If Person A is not elect and Person B is and they both commit murder then Person A is dammed no matter what, while Peson B will still be saved. That is the issue.

Do you not realize that grapes are not gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles? So too, every good tree bears good fruit, and every bad tree bears bad fruit, for a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Thus, we will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-20). But, this won't satisfy the issue. If person A is not elect, and person B is elect, and both commit murder, person A is going to hell, regardless of what he did anyway, and person B will be saved. However, if person B does not ask God to forgive him, and if person B does not repent, then he is also not of the elect. We know that person A would never ask God to forgive him, because A doesn't believe in God, but B does. Murder is a terrible thing, and even if the elect were to commit such a crime, I would hope that he was just as repentant as David was.

Here is what it says that you cited:Add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.
They are steps in the sense that you build off of you faith. And why are you leaving it up to me to interpret that verse? The person was cleansed from his sins, yet he didnt demonstrate those qualities, that means a person doesnt have to examine themself if they dont want to their sins were removed already.

I do not see them as steps, for how can the man who has no knowledge of Christ, have faith in Him, if he doesn't even know God? Just as these are godly fruits, I see them just as I see the fruits mentioned in Galatians 5:22, 23. They are numerous, yet the are as one, for if you have love, you will also have kindness, and with kindness, gentleness, for there is one Spirit who bears many fruits, but all these fruits are like grapes on a twig. That's how I see it.

And for verse 9, I see this as a possibility of falling into apostasy. A person who des not grow in the virtues listed above, he may have forgotten about the salvific work of Jesus Christ, thus, he falls back into his old sins. Paul does not declare that salvation is by works, but rather, he wants believers to live in such a way that their election is assured.

The guy on the cross had Jesus right there to give him a special pass.

So? "Am I a God near at hand," says the LORD, "And not a God afar off? Can anyone hide himself in secret places, so I shall not see him?" says the LORD; "Do I not fill heaven and earth?" says the LORD (Jeremiah 23:23, 24). God is omnipresent. I don't think we should limit His presence.

About Paul not Baptizing, Paul Baptized a lot of people and never refused to Baptize anyone. If you thinking about that 1Cor1 passage he is simply saying he didnt Baptize them, NOT that they were never Baptized. Paul wasnt the only person who could Baptize.

Then I suppose this argument here is irrelevant, for neither side has a case. But your interpretation is rather interesting. To each his own.

Thats not what I was getting at. A person can feel and show sings but he was really deceived the whole time.

Hm, yes, in the last days, God will send strong delusions. Who knows? We too could be believing that we are saved, and in reality, we are not.

You cant say that, thats judging someone's soul and that is left to God alone. You have no grounds to say he was reprobate. His chances at election are just as good as you or me.

But his fruit didn't follow, so, yeah.

 

[Catholic Dude]

cygnusx1-

To show us the utter inability for that which is good except in reliance upon Grace.
Salvation is not sit back and do nothing , it is work BECAUSE God is at work ..... until a person realises his lack of power he will forever stumble through his own lack of ability ........ Salvation is the Work of God.

So your saying God asks the impossible to prove to people they need Him? Usually when someone commands something of you they know your able to accept or refuse.

right OK , tell us what you think , word for word 1 Tim 2:4 is saying.

It looks like God desires all men to be saved and come to the fulness of truth.

can you not see that if God does not delight in the death of the sinner (notice the death of sinners still takes place!) then He does delight in the life of the sinner ... there is much joy in heaven over one sinner who repents!

But that "repentance" is God's choice, not man's. Why would God say He doesnt delight in sending people to Hell and at the same time delight in those whom He spared their life?
Thats like saying your holding two prisoners whom you dont want to execute either one, but you decide to execute one anyway because you like it, while the otherone you let go and throw a huge party because the one you let go was spared.

And the real quote from Luke is:

7 Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
​

That is what the "more joy in Heaven" thing comes from, the other 99 are already righteous!



monergism-

What is darkness? It is disobedience. Have I not said in the past that Christians will stumble? By what you're saying, that is, one who walks in darkness is not the elect, I ask, shall we assume that if we sin once, we are not of the elect? If so, then who can save us, and who can stand before a righteous God? For again, as I have said before, Christians will stumble. Is murder something that God commands? No, it isn't something He commands. If it was something He commanded, it would be His will. But because it is contrary to His will, it is not what He commands, thus, it is disobedience. And I ask, Would a Christian even murder? But we are all murderers, because Christ made anger akin to murder, so we are all murderers, though we have not physically murdered anyone.

If the elect was to murder someone, does this make him not of the elect? No. But it does break his fellowship with God, and until he has asked for forgiveness, the Holy Spirit will not be at rest. The person who lives accordingly to God's Word, he is in the light. And if he is one of the elect, he won't desire to murder someone. If he did, he would have broken the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself."

So should an elect murder it is OK for him, its that simple.
About the "until he has asked", thats not up to the person to ask. An elect doesnt have the option to ask or not ask for forgiveness, it is impossible for him to not ask for forgiveness, so "until he asks" means nothing more than part of the green light to sin and repent process.

About the "breaking the commandment" thing, the elect person doesnt care if he broke a commandment, it has no bearing on him.

My answer is no. You say that he did get off "scot-free," if I was to respond by saying, "No." But, just because he wasn't in jeopardy of not entering heaven, does not mean that he was judged on earth. For, he lost his child whom Bathsheba bore, and there are other things that occurred. David's prayer was not for the fear of punishment or of future success. Rather, he repented for offending God, hence his saying, "For I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done this evil in your sight" (Psalm 51:3, 4). He had a contrite heart, and of all the sacrifices, God will not despise a "broken and a contrite heart" (51:17). As we can see, it was contrition and not attrition.

But a true elect doesnt bother with what is on earth, ask Job, all things are temporary, if he loses some posession then no big deal when compared to Heaven. It doesnt have to even be David, it can be any elect who gets off scot free, Heaven is not lost, everything else pales in comparison to Heaven.


(i will get to the rest later)