My thoughts and questions on "Ten Reasons Primitive Baptists Are Not Calvinists."

[kyredneck]

"You are saved because God chose you before the foundation of the world. Now believe!"

I prefer: 'Ye have been reconciled. Be ye therefore reconciled unto God.'

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I mean any evidence that Fuller caused this. You probably live where at one time there was the old white Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance. That fell apart years ago. But out in fly over country conservative Christian groups thrived for a while. But since the 80's the idea of being a Baptist has fallen out of favor and many Baptist churches in this area are shying away from the name "Baptist". My take on it is that the WASP churches gave up their beliefs on their own 100 years ago. My fundamentalists went into politics, not just the right or wrong of issues, but partisan politics and lost some focus. The Calvinist resurgence, mainly driven by Baptists, quicky went woke and is falling apart.

I don't blame PB churches. But I don't blame Fuller either.

Would you consider the southern region of the country to be white Anglo-Saxon Protestant? The NE part of the country has never been that…rather it has or was working class immigrant… generally European.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Fuller upset the apple cart in the Northeast….he did the same in the south and the south west, particularly in Kentucky and Tennessee, that you will have to talk to Kentucky Redneck for details. But up here he introduced himself via young men who were processing his viewpoints and came into existing churches preaching another gospel to Existing Primitive Baptist Churches causing rifts. Consequently people became confused and many either stopped going and many found other churches to attend. Growth of Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed & Methodist Churches began to increase because of this diaspora. Unfortunately the PB’s up here did not have the population to repopulate unlike the Southern states.

 

[kyredneck]

Why would anyone bother to plant a church in New Jersey when it's such hard work and since he can say, "no one, not one soul, is going to hell on account of any act of commission or omission on my part." So don't you dare complain!

Deja Vu. Martin Marprelate, as bumptious as ever.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Deja Vu. Martin Marprelate, just as bumptious ever.

If the cap fits, you can wear it, chum.

 

[DaveXR650]

Unfortunately the PB’s up here did not have the population to repopulate unlike the Southern states.

There just were not as many elect people living in the Northeast as there were in the South. Seriously, the controversy as you describe it brings up what I think is the problem. It should not have been necessary to separate from someone who likes "The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation". This is a problem with Baptist groups everywhere, not just PB's. I was a card carrying, bonified Fundamentalist, with my own subscription to Sword of the Lord. We left that church when we moved away from the area and honestly, the only real complaint I had against fundamentalism in general was that they had a tendency to separate so quick from anyone who disagreed on any point that they tended to be in constant turmoil, and constantly having to rebuild after splits. I will never go back to them but I can worship with them and will always remember and use many of the good things they taught.

You PB's show some of those same tendencies when you do like you do and speak to badly of someone like Fuller, without feeling the need to explain why his gospel is false. And I don't mean saying he was disruptive. He's long dead and his teaching should stand or fall on it's own, and if you have a beef with him you should explain his doctrinal errors, which is appropriate on a debate forum.

 

[Silverhair]

I would say, as Ephesians 1:3-6 say, that Christians were chosen before the foundation of the world. The salvation becomes a reality for the individual sinner when they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ with God-given faith. The apostles said to the Philippian jailer: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved," not "You are saved because God chose you before the foundation of the world. Now believe!"

Many times have I seen, not only on this board, but in Ephesians that the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world. But nobody who ends up in hell will be able to say to God, "Well, I wanted to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved, but I wasn't among the elect." If somebody savingly believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, that shows that they are among the elect.

I would echo that.

God being omniscient knows all those that will freely trust in Him for their salvation but no one was of the elect/saved prior to them freely trusting in Him. We see this clearly stated in Eph 1:13 "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise," Those that have trusted in Him have been predestined to adoption as sons and to receive every spiritual blessing.

By your own words you have made God responsible for all those that end up in hell. If God did not choose them then it matters not what they do or believe. According to calvinism the die is cast and they are doomed.

Thankfully the bible does not teach that view. While God knows all that will trust He does not cause any one to believe or give them faith to believe.

 

[Silverhair]

You do not…your views echo your own interpretations ONLY. And thus you impose them on them. How very ignorant are those who think themselves correct rather then actually knowing that they are….LOL!!!

So prove this to me… What is your definition of a HYPER-CALVINIST?

Hyper-Calvinism is a branch of Protestant theology that places strong emphasis on supralapsarianism, or salvation from eternity, where the atonement of Christ was and is difficult for the non-elect to understand, where man has little to do with his salvation, there being nothing man can do to resist being saved, wherein evangelism was given lower emphasis as compared to traditional Calvinism, and where assurance of salvation was felt within a person, identified by introspection. Wikipedia

My interpretation is based on scripture read in context. I do not have to change the meaning of words or twist scripture to make it fit my theology.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hyper-Calvinism is a branch of Protestant theology that places strong emphasis on supralapsarianism, or salvation from eternity, where the atonement of Christ was and is difficult for the non-elect to understand, where man has little to do with his salvation, there being nothing man can do to resist being saved, wherein evangelism was given lower emphasis as compared to traditional Calvinism, and where assurance of salvation was felt within a person, identified by introspection. Wikipedia

My interpretation is based on scripture read in context. I do not have to change the meaning of words or twist scripture to make it fit my theology.

That’s right, your theology LOL You did have a dialog with a fellow named Archangel several months ago…he has an advanced degrees in Greek & Hebrew. He told you point blank that your interpretation of scripture is flawed simply due to the fact your translations don’t line up with the word meanings you profess to entertain thus you are nobody to even attempt to interpret & preform a biblical Exegesis of each verse. Frankly you do not have the knowledge to do this, not properly. Exegesis is not a common word in our daily vocabulary. The term exegesis comes from the Greek verb exegeisthai, which means to "explain" or "interpret." Simply put, exegesis is the process of determining or bringing out the meaning of a text.

 

[Silverhair]

That’s right, your theology LOL You did have a dialog with a fellow named Archangel several months ago…he has an advanced degrees in Greek & Hebrew. He told you point blank that your interpretation of scripture is flawed simply due to the fact your translations don’t line up with the word meanings you profess to entertain thus you are nobody to even attempt to interpret & preform a biblical Exegesis of each verse. Frankly you do not have the knowledge to do this, not properly. Exegesis is not a common word in our daily vocabulary. The term exegesis comes from the Greek verb exegeisthai, which means to "explain" or "interpret." Simply put, exegesis is the process of determining or bringing out the meaning of a text.

Oh foolish man that you are. Do you not have the ability to read the English language? I have seen more than one person that has advanced degrees in Greek & Hebrew that have let their theological biases colour their understanding of a clear text.

It is easy to point out errors in calvinist theology, all you have to do is compare what they say with scripture.

BTW I know what exegesis is and I also know what eisegesis is. The act of inserting one's own ideas or biases into a text. That is one of the reasons why I reject the calvinist philosophy.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There just were not as many elect people living in the Northeast as there were in the South. Seriously, the controversy as you describe it brings up what I think is the problem. It should not have been necessary to separate from someone who likes "The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation". This is a problem with Baptist groups everywhere, not just PB's. I was a card carrying, bonified Fundamentalist, with my own subscription to Sword of the Lord. We left that church when we moved away from the area and honestly, the only real complaint I had against fundamentalism in general was that they had a tendency to separate so quick from anyone who disagreed on any point that they tended to be in constant turmoil, and constantly having to rebuild after splits. I will never go back to them but I can worship with them and will always remember and use many of the good things they taught.

You PB's show some of those same tendencies when you do like you do and speak to badly of someone like Fuller, without feeling the need to explain why his gospel is false. And I don't mean saying he was disruptive. He's long dead and his teaching should stand or fall on it's own, and if you have a beef with him you should explain his doctrinal errors, which is appropriate on a debate forum.

I’m fine with the Primitive Baptists as they are and would not adjust it in any way shape or form. In fact, I’m now in the process of reintroducing it to NJ communities via our vast network of churches and Elders willing to provide support. I’m confident that with Gods help we can make it happen.

 

[David Lamb]

God being omniscient knows all those that will freely trust in Him for their salvation but no one was of the elect/saved prior to them freely trusting in Him. We see this clearly stated in Eph 1:13 "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise," Those that have trusted in Him have been predestined to adoption as sons and to receive every spiritual blessing.

Yes, having believed, they were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise. Ephesians 1:13 doesn't say, "having believed, you became elect."

By your own words you have made God responsible for all those that end up in hell. If God did not choose them then it matters not what they do or believe. According to calvinism the die is cast and they are doomed.

Not so. Everyone who ends up in hell is receiving God's righteous judgment for their sins, including their unbelief of the one and only Saviour. Everyone in hell is there because of themselves; everyone in heaven is there because of God.

Thankfully the bible does not teach that view. While God knows all that will trust He does not cause any one to believe or give them faith to believe.

Yet the bible does say that faith/belief is a gift from God:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,” (Eph 2:8 NKJV)

 

[Silverhair]

Yes, having believed, they were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise. Ephesians 1:13 doesn't say, "having believed, you became elect."

Odd that you would say that as you said “Many times have I seen, not only on this board, but in Ephesians that the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world.” Yet we do not see “the elect were chosen before”

What we do know is the Christ is the elect one, and believers are elect on the basis of their relationship to Him. Since Christ was chosen before creation to be the Savior, it can be said that those that are joined to Him through faith share in His eternal election. One is only elect when that are in Christ, who is the elect one, which happens in time Eph 1:13, Rom 10:9-10.

Not so. Everyone who ends up in hell is receiving God's righteous judgment for their sins, including their unbelief of the one and only Saviour. Everyone in hell is there because of themselves; everyone in heaven is there because of God.

You do seem to miss that contradiction in your comments. On one hand you say the “elect” were chosen before creation then you say that those that are in hell are there because of their choice. But you ignore the obvious result of God’s choosing some and not others. Those that were not chosen are condemned before they even have taken a breath. They are condemned prior to them even committing a single sin. That does not seem very just to me and we know that God is just. Rom 3:26

While I agree with your comment “Everyone in hell is there because of themselves; everyone in heaven is there because of God.” I do not agree with your reasoning for this. Man is lost or saved because of his free will choices. Those that are lost are there because they rejected God those that are saved are saved because they have freely trusted in God for their salvation and He has saved them.

Yet the bible does say that faith/belief is a gift from God:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,” (Eph 2:8 NKJV)

Exegesis of the verse by Bill Mounce

While a pronoun's case is determined by its function in the sentence, the gender and number are determined by its antecedent. Therefore, "that" G5124 a neuter pronoun cannot be referring back to "faith" G4102 a feminine noun. But "grace" G5485 also is feminine, so it cannot be the antecedent of [that G5124]. So what is?

The answer is to know a little Greek! When Greek wants to refer back to a general thought, perhaps a phrase, the pronoun can be in the neuter. This is "not of yourselves" does not refer specifically to [πίστεως faith G4102] but rather to the entire salvific process, of which faith obviously is a part.

["For by grace you have been saved "] {how} through faith. Salvation is a gift that we receive from God because of our faith.
Bill Mounce {He was the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version (ESV) translation of the Bible, and serves on the New International Version (NIV) translation committee.}


For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

That refers back to the whole clause, For by grace you have been saved through faith. So what we see here is:

The gift of God is that you have been saved

How by His grace

Why because of your faith.


John was clear as to why he wrote his gospel. Joh 20:31 “but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

 

[Martin Marprelate]

While a pronoun's case is determined by its function in the sentence, the gender and number are determined by its antecedent. Therefore, "that" G5124 a neuter pronoun cannot be referring back to "faith" G4102 a feminine noun. But "grace" G5485 also is feminine, so it cannot be the antecedent of [that G5124]. So what is?

The answer is to know a little Greek! When Greek wants to refer back to a general thought, perhaps a phrase, the pronoun can be in the neuter. This is "not of yourselves" does not refer specifically to [πίστεως faith G4102] but rather to the entire salvific process, of which faith obviously is a part.

["For by grace you have been saved "] {how} through faith. Salvation is a gift that we receive from God because of our faith.
Bill Mounce {He was the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version (ESV) translation of the Bible, and serves on the New International Version (NIV) translation committee.}

That's fine (although other Greek experts take a different view)! So "the entire salvific process, of which faith is obviously a part," is the gift of God. Ergo, faith is the gift of God, along with the rest of the "salvific process." All of God, none of us; wonderful!

 

[Silverhair]

That's fine (although other Greek experts take a different view)! So "the entire salvific process, of which faith is obviously a part," is the gift of God. Ergo, faith is the gift of God, along with the rest of the "salvific process." All of God, none of us; wonderful!

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of your own doing, it is the gift of God;

To bad that the bible does not agree with your view. As the text states clearly one is saved through faith. Faith in Him is the condition that God has set before He saves. We see this clearly stated in various places in scripture.

We also see that God desires all to come to repentance so the question becomes, why does He not give this faith to everyone. That's because He does not give a person faith.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
If we went by the view you have presented then we would need to change a number of verses in scripture.

In fact under your view we can dispense with faith altogether. If God has to give you faith then it is not your faith is it and actually even if you say it is real how could you know. Remember your theological view says you are unable to trust in God on your own, you have to be given that faith. So you have to hope that what you call faith in God is actually real and not just your wishful thinking.

See what a mess you get into when to ignore what the word of God says.

 

[David Lamb]

Odd that you would say that as you said “Many times have I seen, not only on this board, but in Ephesians that the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world.” Yet we do not see “the elect were chosen before”

Yet the very words "elect" and "chosen" mean the same thing. Indeed, the same Greek word, elektos, is sometimes translated "chosen" and sometimes "elect". For example:

“But you [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;” (1Pe 2:9 NKJV)

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.” (1Pe 1:1-2 NKJV)

So to say, "the elect were chosen before” is merely duplication.

What we do know is the Christ is the elect one, and believers are elect on the basis of their relationship to Him. Since Christ was chosen before creation to be the Savior, it can be said that those that are joined to Him through faith share in His eternal election. One is only elect when that are in Christ, who is the elect one, which happens in time Eph 1:13, Rom 10:9-10.


You do seem to miss that contradiction in your comments. On one hand you say the “elect” were chosen before creation then you say that those that are in hell are there because of their choice. But you ignore the obvious result of God’s choosing some and not others. Those that were not chosen are condemned before they even have taken a breath. They are condemned prior to them even committing a single sin. That does not seem very just to me and we know that God is just. Rom 3:26

Yes God is just. If He had left us to ourselves, we would all be facing eternity in hell, in other words, by nature, we were all "condemned before we even had taken a breath," but, praise God, He chose to save some.

While I agree with your comment “Everyone in hell is there because of themselves; everyone in heaven is there because of God.” I do not agree with your reasoning for this. Man is lost or saved because of his free will choices. Those that are lost are there because they rejected God those that are saved are saved because they have freely trusted in God for their salvation and He has saved them.

Exegesis of the verse by Bill Mounce

While a pronoun's case is determined by its function in the sentence, the gender and number are determined by its antecedent. Therefore, "that" G5124 a neuter pronoun cannot be referring back to "faith" G4102 a feminine noun. But "grace" G5485 also is feminine, so it cannot be the antecedent of [that G5124]. So what is?

The answer is to know a little Greek! When Greek wants to refer back to a general thought, perhaps a phrase, the pronoun can be in the neuter. This is "not of yourselves" does not refer specifically to [πίστεως faith G4102] but rather to the entire salvific process, of which faith obviously is a part.

["For by grace you have been saved "] {how} through faith. Salvation is a gift that we receive from God because of our faith.
Bill Mounce {He was the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version (ESV) translation of the Bible, and serves on the New International Version (NIV) translation committee.}


For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

That refers back to the whole clause, For by grace you have been saved through faith. So what we see here is:

The gift of God is that you have been saved

How by His grace

Why because of your faith.


John was clear as to why he wrote his gospel. Joh 20:31 “but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

But all that seems to go against so much of what Paul wrote. If I was saved because I chose to have faith, there would be a reason for boasting, but Paul says there is none:

“For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” (1Co 4:7 NKJV)

 

[Silverhair]

Yet the very words "elect" and "chosen" mean the same thing. Indeed, the same Greek word, elektos, is sometimes translated "chosen" and sometimes "elect". For example:

“But you [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;” (1Pe 2:9 NKJV)

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.” (1Pe 1:1-2 NKJV)

So to say, "the elect were chosen before” is merely duplication.

To be chosen in Him before the foundation of the world is quite different than to be elect in Him before the foundation of the world. The first means that God choose faith in Christ as the means of salvation the second means that a select group were saved prior to creation. One is only elect when they are in the elect one through faith.

God being omniscient knows all those that will freely trust in Him for their salvation but knowing who will trust does not require God to cause them to trust. The good news about Christ is powerful but it is still resistible.

Yes God is just. If He had left us to ourselves, we would all be facing eternity in hell, in other words, by nature, we were all "condemned before we even had taken a breath," but, praise God, He chose to save some.

The bible is clear that we are all sinners who deserve hell but God in His love has provided the means of our salvation, Christ Jesus. While He has provided the means He does not cause/force anyone to trust in Him. God in His sovereignty has chosen to save those that believe in Him.

But all that seems to go against so much of what Paul wrote. If I was saved because I chose to have faith, there would be a reason for boasting, but Paul says there is none:

“For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” (1Co 4:7 NKJV)

I agree that man has no reason to boast about receiving the gift of salvation, so I do wonder why so many calvinist think they were so special that God actually picked them out and then forced them to come to Him via Irresistible Grace and then had to give them faith after they were saved. So the only boasting that I see is from calvinists.

Those that respond to the gospel message with faith have humbled themselves before God and acknowledged that they cannot save themselves, so no boasting.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of your own doing, it is the gift of God;

To bad that the bible does not agree with your view. As the text states clearly one is saved through faith. Faith in Him is the condition that God has set before He saves. We see this clearly stated in various places in scripture.

We also see that God desires all to come to repentance so the question becomes, why does He not give this faith to everyone. That's because He does not give a person faith.

Exegesis of the verse by Bill Mounce

While a pronoun's case is determined by its function in the sentence, the gender and number are determined by its antecedent. Therefore, "that" G5124 a neuter pronoun cannot be referring back to "faith" G4102 a feminine noun. But "grace" G5485 also is feminine, so it cannot be the antecedent of [that G5124]. So what is?

The answer is to know a little Greek! When Greek wants to refer back to a general thought, perhaps a phrase, the pronoun can be in the neuter. This is "not of yourselves" does not refer specifically to [πίστεως faith G4102] but rather to the entire salvific process, of which faith obviously is a part.

So you disagree with your own Greek Expert! To say, “For by grace you have been saved, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,” is a tautology. If it's by grace then obviously it's not of ourselves. So when Paul says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,” it is those words 'through faith' which keep it from being a tautology. Therefore it must be, as Mounce says, the whole of salvation including faith that is the gift of God.
I studied Greek for a number of years, but I am not any sort of expert to contradict Mounce, and I don't need to because he proves my point. However, I did take time to look up William Hendricksen's commentary of this verse. He spends four pages discussing it, so I won't paste all of it.
The problem is that the word 'that' is neuter in Greek, while 'salvation' and 'faith' are both feminine. So what does 'that' agree with? Hendricksen suggests that it is the act of believing, which would be neuter which is represented by touto. But whether one agrees with Mounce or Hendricksen, the fact is that the whole of salvation, every aspect of it, is of God.

 

[Silverhair]

So you disagree with your own Greek Expert! To say, “For by grace you have been saved, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,” is a tautology. If it's by grace then obviously it's not of ourselves. So when Paul says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,” it is those words 'through faith' which keep it from being a tautology. Therefore it must be, as Mounce says, the whole of salvation including faith that is the gift of God.
I studied Greek for a number of years, but I am not any sort of expert to contradict Mounce, and I don't need to because he proves my point. However, I did take time to look up William Hendricksen's commentary of this verse. He spends four pages discussing it, so I won't paste all of it.
The problem is that the word 'that' is neuter in Greek, while 'salvation' and 'faith' are both feminine. So what does 'that' agree with? Hendricksen suggests that it is the act of believing, which would be neuter which is represented by touto. But whether one agrees with Mounce or Hendricksen, the fact is that the whole of salvation, every aspect of it, is of God.

Agreed we are only saved by God when we believe, but that is where I see calvinism error. They say man is saved prior to his believing. That is illogical.

Any of us can say faith is a gift of God. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God so in that sense it is a gift. I couldn't believe if it wasn't for the fact that He gave me light and truth and the ability to understand and to know Him and to come to Him. Those are gifts of God which are available to all men but I'm responsible for what I do with His gifts. If I reject His gifts and I push His gifts away that's totally on me. It's not a lacking of the gift nor a lack of sufficiency of the gift giver that condemns me but rather my rejection of the gift.

Eph_2:8-9 Place things in their proper salvific order, and the fact is that we are not saved by faith, but are saved by grace through faith. Because it is the grace of God in full motion that has Him revealing the Gospel to the natural man, and that takes place while the unbeliever is spiritually dead.

We are not saved so we can have faith as some on this board seem to think but rather because we do have faith.

 

[DaveXR650]

Yet the bible does say that faith/belief is a gift from God:

I like to read Horatius Bonar. He says it's referred to in the Bible as a gift and also as something required by a person and seemingly coming from that person. And he gives verses. It seems like you definitely can understand and believe in the sense that you ascribe to the truth of the gospel message. And you can understand naturally that you have broken God's law and understand when you hear of the consequences. It is not clear whether you can change your own character enough to begin to value and love Christ and "draw" yourself to him in a true trusting commitment. It's not that you can't as far as mental ability, but you just don't see the value in doing so.

Even more difficult is that even staunch Calvinists say the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit is not a zapping of us consciously but an acting with and on our very being and will. Therefore, our perception will and should be that we have changed our minds and decided to repent. Plus at some point, during all this awakening, illumination, and believing we are regenerated, which we all agree is supernatural and there again scripture seems to say more than one thing about the precise order of this. The "wind bloweth where it listeth" is probably all we are supposed to know for sure, except we are flat out promised that if we believe, whether we understand how it happened or not, we shall be saved (or show we already were saved if you want to put it like that).