-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How do you know you are of the elect?
- Thread starter tenor
- Start date
Hello dale.
In the same way there will be many maybe coming from the RCC.
Hello Johnv.
By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. (John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3 chapter 21:5.)
You go to Heaven or Hell because that is what you are chosen for.
john.
I knew a man that became a Jehovah's witness after he was saved. He spent sometime with them until they got sick of him pointing out their error. So I think at the end, as long as the person has heard and believed the gospel, he can belong to whoever without realising it. A good Hindu though is a dead man walking.
In the same way there will be many maybe coming from the RCC.
Hello Johnv.
A rare bit of Calvin I shall spout:
By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. (John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3 chapter 21:5.)
You go to Heaven or Hell because that is what you are chosen for.
They were collected by Adam. As for us we are dead in our transgressions and sins don't you know?
john.
dale kesterson
New Member
JohnP uttered:
dale
Wrong, my dear brother, they are judged on what they believe.
dale
This line of thinking assumes that one arbitrarially chooses what one believes. A belief is a conclusion. "Conclude" can be substituted for "believe" in most any sentence. A conclusion is the result of some sort of analysis. People go to hell for an incorrect data analysis.
</font>[/QUOTE]If someone claiming to be a christian asked the question above that is pretty much proof they are not a christian! The question refers to antinomianism as in Romans 6:1. "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" NO one truly loving the Lord would consider such a question!
Also, regarding 'hypercalvinism', those are doctrinal extremists who think that if God is sovereign there is no need for them to evangelize. Of course that is ridiculous as God uses means, thats us as christians, to perform His work and follow His command to evangelize the world!
Blessings.
Greetings 2BHizown
Your wrote:
How is it that you think a christian cannot repeatedly fall? Is it because you have a certain list of sins that makes one "not a Christian?" If so, I'm sure your own peculiar sins wouldn't make the list.
We all must realize that we are not perfect. We aren't anywhere near it. We all huddle at the 0% end of perfection. It is only by God's grace that He imputes Christ's righteousness to us.
Ergo - we all provide repeatedly and vivid proofs that we don't deserve to be a Christian. Except by God's grace, I would be deservedly enroute to hell. Any Christian at any time in any place in any circumstance can ask any question. We aren't saved by our works. We aren't lost by our failures!
Praise God for the perfections of Jesus being made available to us all.
Lloyd
Your wrote:
This seems very legalistic to me. Isa 64:6 says that even our best righteous deeds are yet filthy rags.
How is it that you think a christian cannot repeatedly fall? Is it because you have a certain list of sins that makes one "not a Christian?" If so, I'm sure your own peculiar sins wouldn't make the list.
We all must realize that we are not perfect. We aren't anywhere near it. We all huddle at the 0% end of perfection. It is only by God's grace that He imputes Christ's righteousness to us.
Ergo - we all provide repeatedly and vivid proofs that we don't deserve to be a Christian. Except by God's grace, I would be deservedly enroute to hell. Any Christian at any time in any place in any circumstance can ask any question. We aren't saved by our works. We aren't lost by our failures!
Praise God for the perfections of Jesus being made available to us all.
Lloyd
This seems very legalistic to me. Isa 64:6 says that even our best righteous deeds are yet filthy rags.
How is it that you think a christian cannot repeatedly fall? Is it because you have a certain list of sins that makes one "not a Christian?" If so, I'm sure your own peculiar sins wouldn't make the list.
We all must realize that we are not perfect. We aren't anywhere near it. We all huddle at the 0% end of perfection. It is only by God's grace that He imputes Christ's righteousness to us.
Lloyd </font>[/QUOTE]My reply was not a sanctimonious attempt to place myself on the top of a list of "perfect" souls! We know there is no such thing and that only by His grace will any of us excape His wrath! That said, By their fruit we shall know them!
I'm just a lowly fruit inspector!
1 Cor 4:3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
Fruit inspector my foot.
john.
Fruit inspector my foot.
john.
Well now, You will know they are christians by their love! Only God knows and reads hearts. However, we are responsible to be discerning and aware of not only who we are in Christ but also our brethren. We know all christians are not equally commited to HIm! I like to share Christ even with christians as many are immature, needing much encouragement! However, If a brother continues in known sin it is my responsibility to separate from him, is it not?Fruit inspector my foot.
john. [/QB]
Hello 2BHizown.
To have nothing to do with a brother if he continues in a forbidden thing is right and proper but that is not a judgement that is a discipline.
Of course it's right to correct others but that is not a judgement is it? To expel a practising homosexual or promiscuous one from the congregation is a correction and we must not consider them as worse than us just that their sin is probably more visible and ours less so.
I agree with your post really but for You will know they are christians by their love!. Are you saying their love of God or the outworkings of that love. Mary did nothing and was commended for it don't forget.
john.
To have nothing to do with a brother if he continues in a forbidden thing is right and proper but that is not a judgement that is a discipline.
Of course it's right to correct others but that is not a judgement is it? To expel a practising homosexual or promiscuous one from the congregation is a correction and we must not consider them as worse than us just that their sin is probably more visible and ours less so.
I agree with your post really but for You will know they are christians by their love!. Are you saying their love of God or the outworkings of that love. Mary did nothing and was commended for it don't forget.
john.
Hey 2BHizown
It is indeed our responsibility to separate from wayward brothers. God hates sin - period!
Remember, that sin is not the basis for justification in any way, shape, concept or form. Justification and entrance into God's covenantal family is strictly and solely by faith in Jesus' finished works on the Cross on our behalf.
Our separation from erring brothren should not have any idea or language of damnation. Rather, our separation should spur them on to good works for the name and glory of Jesus Christ and their subsequent honor and rewards in heaven.
Many human-centered self-righteous works theologies confuse eternal destiny with eternal rewards. They are not the same.
Great statement! We separate from them based on our perception of their works. We do not judge or condemn to hell.
Lloyd
It is indeed our responsibility to separate from wayward brothers. God hates sin - period!
Remember, that sin is not the basis for justification in any way, shape, concept or form. Justification and entrance into God's covenantal family is strictly and solely by faith in Jesus' finished works on the Cross on our behalf.
Our separation from erring brothren should not have any idea or language of damnation. Rather, our separation should spur them on to good works for the name and glory of Jesus Christ and their subsequent honor and rewards in heaven.
Many human-centered self-righteous works theologies confuse eternal destiny with eternal rewards. They are not the same.
Great statement! We separate from them based on our perception of their works. We do not judge or condemn to hell.
Lloyd
Wow, for once I find myself agreeing with everything johnp said in one post.Originally posted by johnp.:
Hello 2BHizown.
To have nothing to do with a brother if he continues in a forbidden thing is right and proper but that is not a judgement that is a discipline.
Of course it's right to correct others but that is not a judgement is it? To expel a practising homosexual or promiscuous one from the congregation is a correction and we must not consider them as worse than us just that their sin is probably more visible and ours less so.
I agree with your post really but for You will know they are christians by their love!. Are you saying their love of God or the outworkings of that love. Mary did nothing and was commended for it don't forget.
john.
Hello 2BHizown.
I will know my brothers and sister by the love they have for the Lord and me not by their humanitarian works is all I'm saying. One that puts the Lord first even if that means their sister does all the work. Martha was busy serving the Lord but was rebuked. The difference is at a deeper level than the eye.
What is this love you are talking about? If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. 1 Cor 13:1.
Mother Treser may or may not have been a Christian we cannot tell by what she did but who she believed. All I'm saying is what a person does is not a guarantee that they are Christian and how a person behaves is not a guarantee that they are not Christian. Peter was not much better than Judas but Christ was at work in him and Judas healed the sick as well. At times Peter was not very Christian nor was King David and the story of the faithful is shot through with wrong doers.
If not see a doctor.
john.
I will know my brothers and sister by the love they have for the Lord and me not by their humanitarian works is all I'm saying. One that puts the Lord first even if that means their sister does all the work. Martha was busy serving the Lord but was rebuked.
The difference is at a deeper level than the eye.What is this love you are talking about? If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. 1 Cor 13:1.
Mother Treser may or may not have been a Christian we cannot tell by what she did but who she believed. All I'm saying is what a person does is not a guarantee that they are Christian and how a person behaves is not a guarantee that they are not Christian. Peter was not much better than Judas but Christ was at work in him and Judas healed the sick as well. At times Peter was not very Christian nor was King David and the story of the faithful is shot through with wrong doers.
It should pass AresMan.
If not see a doctor.john.
GeneMBridges
New Member
It means the lost were predestined for Hell, and not merely that the saved were predestined for Heaven.
Some Calvinists try to affirm the latter without the former. "Although the Bible teaches the predestination of the elect, I do not affirm the predestination of the lost because the Bible doesn't teach that. I leave that up to the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God." Such a one does not believe in double predestination.
To me it always sounded like "I believe that 3+2=5, but I will not affirm that 5-3=2, since the book doesn't expressly say that." But that just goes to show how much Enlightenment humanism has infected this Arminian excuse for a mind. </font>[/QUOTE]With respect to the definition of "Double predestination" the term means different things to different people.
Critics of Calvinism use it to assert that Calvinists believe that men are predestined to hell, period. They fail to note that they are so predestined as sinners, and condemned for their sins and for no other reason.
They fail to understand that we teach that election and reprobation are necessary but insufficient conditions for salvation.
They are both unconditional, and part of the same decree, the decree of election or redemption. However, justification is conditioned upon faith and repentance. Condemnation is conditioned upon sin. These 2 sets of conditions supply the sufficient condition for either. Without the presence of the sufficient condition, the necessary condition is null and void. However each necessary condition is directly linked to its sufficient condition.
Traditional Calvinists simply teach that election's sufficient condition (faith and repentance) is supplied by God Himself for the elect via the effectual call and regeneration. Since all are already condemned for sin anyway, God has no need to supply that sufficient condition, for they sin freely of their own accord. Thus, the reprobate himself provides the second sufficient condition.
These critics take what is called "equal ultimacy" to mean "double predestination" in the sense that, as in election in which there is an effectual call to the elect individual and regeneration that leads to their faith in Christ and repentance, there is an equally effectual call that puts fresh unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate. This is hyper-Calvinism.
Traditional or mainstream Calvinists who say "I do not believe in double predestination" are usually affirming that they do not believe in equal ultimacy. I personally will say, "I believe in double predestination, but I do not affirm equal ultimacy." The elect receive an active or positive effectual call to faith and repentance. The reprobate are simply passed over and left in their sins. Their inability to respond with faith and repentance is their own doing; it is a moral inability.
Also, on hyper-Calvinism look here:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/hypercalvinism.html
There are several articles and a rather comprehensive definition of its forms. Notice the list of their beliefs. Note that not all of these beliefs are held by all hypers. Note also that the last in the list is particularly vicious in the modern era. There are some hypers who draw the circle so tightly that any Calvinist who speaks peaceably to an Arminian is considered damned to hell. I've seen some list Calvin as being reprobate (No, I am not kidding). I'll explain some of the items in the list:
that God is the author of sin and of evil (e.g. they don't teach that God is the author of evil in the way that He is responsible for evil because He created the universe in which He permits it to exist for His purposes. They teach He actually causes men to sin by putting fresh evil into their hearts).
that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect. (There is only one will in the universe).
that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
that it is wrong to evangelize
that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do (e.g they can apostatize and still be elect, this contradicts the doctrine of perseverance of the saints and favors antinomianism)
that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others (as in just White people).
that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned
that God does not command everyone to repent
that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone. (E.g. the ordinances of the Lord's Supper and baptism actually confer a hardening upon the hearts of unbelievers).
that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church. (While it is true Protestants agree that salvation is not conditioned on membership in the church as an institution, Protestants also teach that the church is the one entrusted with preaching the gospel and teaching the saints just like their Catholic counterparts. However, this hyper doctrine is a denial of the need for evangelism and missions themselves and that the visible church is in no way connected to salvation at all).
that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church. (They deny that tradition plays any role in interpreting Scripture, including the teaching offices of the church in general. This is a denial of Sola Scriptura in which Scripture is our infallible rule of faith and practice but we are licensed to hold to fallible traditions as long as we subject them to Scripture. They teach SOLO Scriptura and deny that teaching elders have authority in the church).
that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority
that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men (Denial of common grace. This is the doctrine of many of the Protestant Reformed (PRC) Churches).
that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination (eg. one must believe in predestination itself to be saved, and/or that this, not faith in Christ is what saves)
that only Calvinists are Christians (Neo-gnostic Calvinism) (Actually, they sometimes believe only CERTAIN Calvinists are Christians)
Hello GeneMBridges.
I think that speaks of a double predestination. Esau is not hated because of his sin.
I'll read your link later man.
john.
Rom 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
I think that speaks of a double predestination. Esau is not hated because of his sin.
Causing him to be sovereign?
And some of them are a bit 'iffy'.
I'll read your link later man.
john.