How does a Calvinist KNOW they are elect?

[Bulldog]

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

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

...
...

​

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

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

By the way you have bolded the words, you seem to have implied a meaning that is not there. "Ingrafting into Christ" and "walk in the newness of life" are not descriptions of baptism, they are a description of the sign that baptism is.

 

[Catholic Dude]

Monergism-

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

I never said it was a salvific work for Calvinists, even thoug it says in that creed "of remission of sins". I meant "gateway" in the sense that you cant do things like Communion unless you have been baptized.

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

We are talking past eachother on this. You just said "You can't backslide unless you first move forward.", thats why no Calvinist I have evern come across has ever said apostacy is possible, its impossible I dont know what else to say.

I'm not denying that the people who joined the church, never left. When they leave, that's them commiting apostasy. Some persons are noted in the Bible that have left. The Bible supports both that the person who is saved will persevere to the end, and that there is truly apostasy. I cannot deny both.

Here you go again, they never joined the church, so they cant leave! The ones who leave only thought they were members of the church.

But, about the pastor. His state looks like the one where he was all fired up for God, but because he had no root, he withered away. You got to remember the four seeds. Of the four, only one is saved. And of the four, only 25% are saved.

Yes, and this goes to further the proof that if a PASTOR cant be sure he is elect then do we expect more confidence from the average pew sitter? In otherwords even the most diehard Calvinist cant be sure if he is the real 25% or the 25% that thinks they are elect.

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

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

And who believes more that "Jesus is Lord" then a Calvinist pastor? He can do all the "good" deeds he wants, but if he wasnt elect then those deeds were nothing.

For transubstantiation, or "Real Presence,":

-I do not like the thought that the bread and wine truly become the flesh and blood.

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

You still havnt explained why you dont like it other than "I dont like the thought". All you did is state the Catholic position (using Scripture) without refuting it. Do you have any Scriptural refutations or Church Father refutations?

In 1Cor11:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
​

I dont know of many warnings in the NT of people getting sick and died because they did something they werent supposed to. Doing what Paul warns against in v27ff carries a death/health penalty. Also Paul warned of many kinds of perverted sins that the Corinthians were doing, so when he warns here he means it.
Compare the above quote to this OT foreshadowing of the Real Presence in 1stSam21:

1 Then came David to Nob to Ahim'elech the priest; and Ahim'elech came to meet David trembling, and said to him, "Why are you alone, and no one with you?" 2 And David said to Ahim'elech the priest, "The king has charged me with a matter, and said to me, 'Let no one know anything of the matter about which I send you, and with which I have charged you.' I have made an appointment with the young men for such and such a place. 3 Now then, what have you at hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever is here." 4 And the priest answered David, "I have no common bread at hand, but there is holy bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women." 5 And David answered the priest, "Of a truth women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy, even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?" 6 So the priest gave him the holy bread; for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence, which is removed from before the LORD
​

Notice how they had to be clean in order to eat the bread? And more over what was the bread called? Now check out John 6 where Christ uses FIVE Loaves to feed the crowds and ends the chapter with promising the Bread of Life for those whom are worthy (notice Judas is clearly singled out in the last verse).
You will also see Christ foreshadowing this event all the way back in Genesis 14:18.

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

Again you seem to agree with the teaching, you just dont like the terms used. Im not sure why this is a problem. The logic as you pointed out is clear, Mary was the mother of Jesus and Jesus was God. I also agree that people misunderstand this to think Mary some how produced the Trinity or something, which as we agree is not what we mean.
Anyway, I made a long thread about this issue, the main point of error on this subject goes all the way back about 1500 years at the Council of Ephesus where a man named Nestorius didnt like calling Mary "Mother of God" because he didnt like the sound of it, well it turns out he actually ended up believing in many heretical ideas just to avoid calling her that. Also the term "Theotokos" more closely means "God-bearer" so that should clear some stuff up for you.

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

First of all you dont have to pray that to be Catholic.
Anyway in Luke1:

28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
...
41 And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
​

Im not sure about the "repetitive" thing though, you dont have to pray Hail Mary to be Catholic in good standing.

Also the Magnificat is Mary's prayer of praise to God in Luke1:

46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. 51 He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. 54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: 55 As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.
​

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

The funny thing is you seem to agree with the teachings more than disagree.

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

Im still looking around.

 

[Catholic Dude]

By the way you have bolded the words, you seem to have implied a meaning that is not there. "Ingrafting into Christ" and "walk in the newness of life" are not descriptions of baptism, they are a description of the sign that baptism is.

Im not sure what your saying here. Is getting Baptized a outward sign of being ingrafted or not?

Also what do you think of Acts22:16?

 

[Monergism]

I'm going to just quit this discussion.

 

[Catholic Dude]

I'm going to just quit this discussion.

So does that mean you didnt persevere?
Just kidding, Im done with this thread myself.

(I did look into that Hyper Calvinism link and made a thread in General Theology if you arent burned out by now.)