How Do You Know when Your Child Has Genuine Belief? (Video)

How do you know when your child has genuine belief and should be baptized?

Comments

[WisdomLover]

Baptism saves (I Peter 3). Baptism regenerates. Children are born in sin. Children are born in need of salvation and regeneration. Children should be baptized as infants.

Colossions 2 ties baptism to circumcision. Baptism replaces circumcision. When were Jewish boys circumcised? When they could understand it? No. At eight days. That's a good time to baptize.

Some Jews were circumcised at different times, of course. Some never were (because they died before the eighth day...David's first child with Bathsheba died on the seventh day). But those were the exceptional cases. The normal case was infant circumcision on the eighth day.

Not coincidentally, I think, Jesus rose on the first day of the week. The day after the seventh day, i.e. the eighth day. Thus began the new creation. This is why baptismal fonts are often octagonal.

Baptism creates faith. How could it save otherwise. It is not some kind of reward of faith, or a first act of obedience for a faithful person. There is no issue of whether the child has enough faith to be baptized. They have enough faith because they are baptized.

Infant baptism is the most perfect example of conversion, for the child has no choice in the matter. Its sins are drowned in the waters of its baptism whether it wants it or not.

We are not saved because we have decided to follow Jesus (no turning back). The last thing we need to do is wait to make an informed decision. We are saved because we come as little children. Little children are carried. Carry your little children to the font.

[Carolyn]

I appreciate your wisdom on this subject and applaud the careful way you are handling it with your children!

[Daron]

Baptism does not create faith, but is received by faith; it has no effect on those to whom God does not grant faith, and He may have granted said faith to the infant in the womb.

Martin Luther on baptism:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-13a.html

Thus we do also in infant baptism. We bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believes, and we pray that God may grant it faith; but we do not baptize it upon that, but solely upon the command of God. Thus, Baptism can be wrongly received and effect nothing.
...
Therefore the external sign [water baptism] is appointed not only for a powerful effect, but also for a signification. Where, therefore, faith flourishes with its fruits, there it has no empty signification, but the work [of mortifying the flesh] accompanies it; but where faith is wanting, it remains a mere unfruitful sign.
...
Lastly, we must also know what Baptism signifies, and why God has ordained just such external sign and ceremony for the Sacrament by which we are first received into the Christian Church. But the act or ceremony is this, that we are sunk under the water, which passes over us, and afterwards are drawn out again....
a truly Christian life is nothing else than a daily baptism, once begun and ever to be continued. For this must be practised without ceasing, that we ever keep purging away whatever is of the old Adam, and that that which belongs to the new man come forth. ...
This is the true use of Baptism among Christians, as signified by baptizing with water.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-13a.html

[Cog]

Wisdomlover,

If I baptize my infant is my infant then one of the "elect"?

I don't think I am understanding you correctly.....

[WisdomLover]

Cog-

I'm a Lutheran. By my confession, the set of elect individuals currently alive is not the same as the set of individuals currently in possession of saving faith. Nor is the latter set a subset of the former. The reason for this is that you can have real saving faith and then walk away from it. If you do, and you never return, then you were not of the elect, though you were among those with saving faith at some point in your life.

What I mean by "saving faith" is not "faith that does save", but "faith that would save were you to abide in it."

This differs from the Calvinist view. I think a pithy way of putting the difference (that probably makes neither side happy, but that I think is true nonetheless) is this: The Lutheran says you can know you have saving faith, but you can't know you'll keep it. The Calvinist says you can know you'll keep saving faith if you have it, but you can't know that you have it.

I suppose that we're really talking about two different things. The Lutheran and the Calvinist are not using the phrase "saving faith" in the same way. There is some scriptural basis for both uses. For starters, there are all the exhortations to remain in the faith, which implies a capacity on our part to walk. Apostates once had saving faith, but they were never elect. On the other hand, the Bible often speaks of those who have faith as, right now, having eternal life, and this implies that those with saving faith are of the elect.

It's clear enough that Paul and James use the term "faith" in an equivocal way. Paul seems to use the term to refer to something demons do not have (knowledge, assent and trust), but James uses the term to refer to something demons do have (knowledge and assent). And, "Salvation" is also used in different ways. On the one hand, from an objective perspective Christ saved the world, on the other hand, as a practical matter, some are not saved.

So when you put these ideas together to talk about "saving faith", it's really no surprise that there are different senses of that phrase.

I don't think that any of these senses are necessarily wrong. The important thing is to be clear on which sense is being used at any given moment.

[WisdomLover]

Daron-

The web site seems to be eating my comments. I put one in for you earlier, but I don't see it now.

Thanks for the Luther.

I certainly did not mean to suggest that Baptism saved by the work itself. It saves because it is connected to God's promise. I think that's what Peter meant too.

Similar remarks go on creating faith and all the reset. No means of Grace (Baptism, Communion, Confession/Absolution and the Preaching of the Word) confers its benefits ex opere operato.

Sorry if anything I said gave that impression.

I still stand by baptismal regeneration and infant faith. I don't see how to read the passages without baptismal regeneration. What more do you need after "Baptism Now Saves You"?

But there can be no salvation without faith. So in Baptism God must give what He demands. And I can't see any reason to exclude infants from this gift. Indeed, if Jesus said that we must come to him in the way a little child comes (and the Greek term he uses, "paidion", includes infants in its scope), then it certainly can't count against a little child that it is a little child. Thus I'm driven to infant faith.

[Daron]

"Thus I'm driven to infant faith."

Me too.

Sorry for the eaten comment. I am slowly, but not surely, starting to remember to protect my longer ones.

[cog]

Wisdomlover,

Thanks for the reply clarifying your views.

Your view preserves a straightforward interpretation of the warning verses in Hebrews in a way that Calvinism does not.

[Daron]

There are verses that straightforwardly lead to the doctrine of perseverance.
http://www.prca.org/fivepoints/chapter5.html

[Brad B]

I recommend S. Joel Garvers paper on "ex opere operato" and his balanced inspection of different views of sacramental [baptismal] efficacy.

I think his words here describe the Reformed position well, since Covenant Theology is practically synonomous with Reformed.

Other Franciscans, following Duns Scotus and others, saw the sacramental rite as having an "occasional causality" so that the rite causes grace not because of anything done by those who perform or receive it, but because God has made a solemn promise (pactum) to give grace on those occasions when Christians do particular actions. (It is within this kind of theology in its later developments, by the way, that theologians such as Gabriel Biel emerged; this theology also equally serves as the medieval predecessor for Reformed covenant theology).

By the way W/L, If you've not heard or read Joel Garver, he's considered[and been called] by some pastors and other trained theologians "a national treasure". He's a philosophy professor at La Salle University, where he teaches theology and philosophy--check out his site, I think you'll find it interesting. I first heard of him and interacted with him on some reformed open forums around 7-8 years ago[back when "blog" was some strange new word :~)]

Dare I ask Cog, what verses do you refer to? What does "Calvinism" teach about them? Can you elaborate please...uh no strawmen btw...thanks.

[Daron]

Great quote, BradB. Off to see the paper. Thanks very much.

[Daron]

BTW,
Piper just blogged on one of my favourites, Chesterton and his Orthodoxy.
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/the-sovereign-god-of-elfland-why-chestertons-anti-calvinism-doesnt-put-me-off

[Daron]

Thanks again, Brad. Here's Garver directly on baptism.
http://www.joelgarver.com/writ/sacr/efficacy.htm

[Brad B]

Hi Daron, that's a good distillation of what the Bible has to say about baptism. I'll probably be going back to that one again since it's so loaded with footnotes by notables on the topic.

I kinda skimmed through until the heading "baptismal efficacy", but see that a foundational part of the case he's making is on Jesus' baptism. I didn't have time to be thorough in getting all he said there so it will be on my "to do list".

[cog]

Brad B.

For a treatment on the warning verses of Hebrews, see all the posts in the series, starting with:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/12/07/calvinism-my-history-2/

As far as what you teach about them, I would think it would be better if you elaborated on them rather than me.

Set up your own straw men.

[Daron]

On perseverance and the Hebrews:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/perseverance-saints-kelly/

[Daron]

Straightforward interpretation of the Bible:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/safe-and-secure/

[WisdomLover]

Daron-

I love the Elfland of Chesterton's Orthodoxy as well. I love it when he says that water flows downhill because it is bewitched. It so beautifully captures what the laws of nature really are. I regularly and shamelessly crib that expression.

Thanks for the link.

[Brad B]

Hi Daron, I know thar RC believes that assurance is a natural disposition for believers who are making regular and diligent use of the means of grace. I kinda let go what W/L said about Calvinists knowing/doubting their election for now, but there are some scriptures that would prove that we can know. One that comes to mind is in 2 Cor. 13 where the apostle Paul says "examine yourselves". From there one only has to look at the golden chain, Jesus' promise and to recognize that Christians are to rest on His faithfulness while we struggle to make our calling and election sure.

Christians would do well to consider this a fatally certain end that cannot fail and realize the futility of living life for our own end. Afterall, we are not our own, we've been bought with a price.

[WisdomLover]

Brad-

The 2 Corinthians 13 passage appears to be about examining yourself to see whether you are in the faith. Not whether you are elect. The passage does not seem to make works the linchpin of that examination. In fact, that seems to be denied. Paul says, at least, that he is not approved as an apostle because they, his converts, do good works. Instead works are commanded for the sake of doing what is right.

So I think some other kind of examination, apart from works, is being recommended. In my opinion you can examine your faith pretty easily: Do you have enough faith to open your mouth for bread and wine/body and blood?

Then you pass.

But there are people who thought they passed that test, who later ended up in apostasy and died there.

What do we say? That they thought they passed the test, but they turned out to be mistaken?

Well, that just gives rise to the question: Am I mistaken? I don't see how I can answer that one way or the other while living.

It seems truer to say that the apostates did, at one time, pass the test, they lost their faith (which they themselves would say) and they now fail the test.

In my own case, then, there is no question of whether I'm mistaken about whether I pass the test and whether I'm in the faith. But because I can't foreknow all the chances in my life, I can't know that I will always pass that test.

I pray, of course, that I will. That God will keep me in the faith. And as long as I keep praying that, I trust that He will. But I am simultaneously sinner and saint, and, on this side of glory, there will always be that part of me that hates my new master and loves my old one. God won't let anyone steal me away, but the calling of the Holy Spirit is not irresistible, and I can walk.

[Brad B]

Hi WisdomLover, I dont have a lot of time to go through a full defense of my point, but do have an interest in fleshing this out with you and anyone else interested.

You said:

"So I think some other kind of examination, apart from works, is being recommended. In my opinion you can examine your faith pretty easily:"

I dont think the examination is referring to works at all, in fact one of the Apostle's recurring points through all of the epistles is "dont you realize who you are?". His point is that your works are not reflective of who you now are, inciting us to take hold of the truth of who we are in Christ.

Here is the scripture reference:

"Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?

Notice that Paul is making a similar point, "dont you recognize this about yourselves". He's equating "in the faith" with what? What is the test to show{?}, that Jesus is in you. This isn't just a participant in the outward church, this is a born again saint, someone who IS Christ's. The fruit of the spirit is measurable, Peter give a list, Jesus remarks about it, and of course Paul does. Paul even makes a point that others can see it also, although self examination is trustworthy even in the case of the self deceived.

[Brad B]

Hi W/L, finished dinner, wanted to make a few points. As we consider that the apostle Paul is associating having faith with Christ in you, we'd have no problem seeing this theme multiple locations. In particular, in very similar language, in Romans 8 where he sets those who "have the spirit" against those who do not:

"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."

Interestingly, one test for someone to "examine themselves" is found in this chapter of Romans. Here it is:

"Rom 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. Rom 8:15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" Rom 8:16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,"

But how do we know that these genuine believers, those who have the spirit, will persevere or that some who are in the covenant community and participating in the benefits of the faith are not counted with the true believer? I"m sure you are familiar with the "golden chain" in the latter part of this chapter 8 in Romans. Well, the latter portion of chapter 8 describes the impossibility of Christ failing to deliver.

About the covenant participants, those who hear the Word preached in law and gospel, see and participate in the living Word at the table of the Lord, and have taken the sign of baptism, without having the seal of authenticity marking them as Christs', Jesus says

"Mat 7:23 Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' Mat 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS

.

Jesus: "I never knew you". Even with outward, visible works, Jesus never knew them.

We have poor witness done by true believers, and good witness done by reprobates, the test cannot be done with "works as evidence.

[WisdomLover]

Brad-

I was not arguing for works as evidence for being in the faith.

The way I look at it, if I can't just tell by thinking about it whether I have a certain belief or trust in a certain person, then I don't know how I would ever come to know. But the problem is that belief and trust that I know about in that way is belief and trust that can change. (And has changed in other individuals).

If it's real, you say, it won't go away.

Great.

How can I tell that it is, in fact, real?

Talk of the Spirit testifying to my spirit is just a (non-verifiable) explanation of how I came to have (real) faith. It does nothing to show me that I really do have (real) faith. It just pushes the question back... How do I know that the Spirit really is testifying to my spirit?

Others have said that the Spirit testified to their spirit that they are saved, and have later apostasized. If the answer is that the apostates never had faith, then, since, lacking foreknowledge, I not only do not, but cannot know that I won't apostasize, I also do not, and cannot know that I have faith. I might only mistakenly believe that I do (like the apostates).

What's more, since we've driven a wedge between real and apparent faith, it's now clear that I might have an apparent, but unreal faith. And even if I never forsake that apparent faith, I might still not be saved. Jesus might say to me "I never knew you".

And talk of the golden chain is similar. The golden chain certainly implies that God knows whether or not I am in the (real) faith. It does not imply the I know.

[Daron]

I posted a link to the last time we kicked this around, with links to R.C. Sproul, Ligonier, and Calvin on he issue of assurance.
That comment is lost, but here is the thread:
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2011/03/am-i-not-elect-video.html#comments

[Daron]

Here is some of it, with an intro that I would like to reaffirm:

Hi Wisdom Lover,
As always, I like your posts and your thought process.

...

This doctrine is Biblically derived and is not at all unique to Reformed or Calvinist traditions.
Biblically we see that if you believe in Christ you have eternal life. Eternal life is just that and cannot be revoked. If it could be it was not eternal.
I don't see how this doctrine causes the problems you refer to, nor how denying it can avoid them.
If, as you have mentioned, people can truly believe and be saved but then fall away then so can you, regardless of your feelings and regardless of the doctrine of election or perseverance. So you, being sure of your faith, have no more security that the poor fellow who is not sure of his faith. You can fall just as he might not be elect.

But we know that God will complete His good works, that He predestinates His saints to their glorification, that they will stand because He makes them to stand and that Jesus will not lose any whom the Father has given to Him and whose salvation He protects. So, regardless of the fears discussed above, we know that the saints will be preserved.
From there we can move to assurance.

Posted by: Daron | March 07, 2011 at 09:47 PM

A thought on perseverance.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/means-persevering-grace/

Posted by: Daron | March 08, 2011 at 12:18 AM

As well as
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/more-conquerors/

Posted by: Daron | March 08, 2011 at 12:23 AM

[Daron]

Hi WL,
Regarding epistemology, we know that in your view even if you are assured that you have faith at this moment you do not know that you will have it in the next, or upon your death. So your assurance is gone.

But how do you know that you have the appropriate faith in this moment? You say it is by this test:

"Do you have enough faith to open your mouth for bread and wine/body and blood?"

But I am sure you are not claiming that no unbeliever can open his mouth for the bread and wine.
Since an unbeliever can pass this test it seems to me that your next statement does not follow:

"It seems truer to say that the apostates did, at one time, pass the test, they lost their faith (which they themselves would say) and they now fail the test."

Since apostates, and unbelievers themselves, can attend church weekly and take communion it does not seem to me more likely that a person really passed the test and then really lost his salvation because this test does not actually prove that he had salvation.

"God won't let anyone steal me away, but the calling of the Holy Spirit is not irresistible, and I can walk."

But if you are saved you can't walk, for you, too, are a created being.
Romans 8

38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[k] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

----

I not only do not, but cannot know that I won't apostasize, I also do not, and cannot know that I have faith. I might only mistakenly believe that I do (like the apostates).

You also can't know that passing your test actually means you have faith because unbelievers can pass the test as well.

Others have said that the Spirit testified to their spirit that they are saved, and have later apostasized.

You can use the human claims and human experience to trump Scripture. Jesus says if you believe in Him you have Eternal Life. He will not let you go. All the Father gave Him He will keep. Paul tells us that he is assured of his own faith and of that of others. He knows Jesus can keep for him what has been entrusted to Him. Peter makes our assurance a duty.

If you have faith that Jesus is Who He says He is, you have faith in the Gospel, and you have faith in the power of God then you have your assurance. How can you trust the promises and not be assured?

My questions from before remain:
How can you have Eternal life that is not eternal?
How can you be saved from ever being separated from God and then be separated?
How can you be reborn, then unborn, then reborn again?

[Daron]

One typo (at least):
You CAN'T use the human claims and human experience to trump Scripture.

[Daron]

When I discuss perseverance I think it is useful to look at it from back to front.
Some are finally saved and have Eternal Life.
Those are the elect. They are the only ones saved, glorified, sanctified, justified, elect, predestined and foreknown. They are the ones who have persevered and have been preserved.
Any others, not matter their journey, do not fit this description and are not the elect.

So the only way we can get an apostate in there is to insert him somewhere. Perhaps we can say he was justified, but fell away. But those who are justified will be glorified, and they are also foreknown. But those Jesus sends away had no right to call Him "Lord, Lord" for He did not know them: they were no foreknown. And the justified are predestined to glory, but an apostate is not. So it can not be that they were justified. Therefore, they can not have had the faith by which justification comes and can not have lost it.

[Daron]

Sorry if this feels like an over-killing bombardment, but here are some passages I marked when when reading through the NT a few times ago.
If they are irritating to you all at least they will be useful to me when I come looking for a collection again:

1 Thessalonians 5:23 May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 The one who calls you is faithful, and he will do it.

[Perseverance and assurance]

John 1:1027 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

Hebrews 3:14 We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end.

[We share in Christ only if we persevere. Those who do not persevere did not and had not shared in Christ.]

Ephesians 14 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
...
 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

[Paul here is assured not only of his own salvation, but also of the salvation of "us" and "you". Assurance is possible. And the seal and promise of assurance, the Holy Spirit, is highlighted here as well.]

John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Philippians 1:6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

[Paul is assured of the faith of others.]

1 Peter 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, 5 who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In all this you greatly rejoice,
...
23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

[The inheritance can not perish. The born-again can not perish. And they can know this and rejoice in it.]

1 John 3:
14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

1 john 2:
3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God[a] is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

1 John 5: 13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

[The John passages I highlight because of the knowledge of salvation - the assurance.]

2 John 1:To the lady chosen by God and to her children, whom I love in the truth—and not I only, but also all who know the truth— 2 because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever:

[The truth lives in us forever, not until our falling away.]

[WisdomLover]

Daron-

Thanks for the comments. High quality as usual.

I'm afraid that right now I don't have the time to deal with all of the passages you present. Thanks for them though. Mostly, I'm afraid, I'm just going to clarify my position a little more.

I was, perhaps, a little too abbreviated in expressing that test.

When I asked whether you can open your mouth to receive bread and wine/body and blood. I meant to be asking whether you can open your mouth to receive the bread and wine believing that they are the very body and blood of Chirst broken and shed for the remission of all of your sin. If you can do that, then you pass the test.

Unbelievers, obviously, cannot do that.

But how do I know that I really do believe that about the means of grace?

The belief itself is quite ordinary. You can know that you believe it in just the way that you know you have most beliefs. Just by thinking about it. You do not have to know whether you will believe it tomorrow or thirty years hence.

I understand your point about connecting faith to eternal life. The Bible does do this at places as you extensive quotations show, and that seems to suggest that at least one Biblical sense of "saving faith" is "faith that in fact saves". Well, if it in fact saves, then it's the faith held only by the elect. Given that they are elect, it follows that their faith will not lapse, or if it does, it will return.

At the same time the Bible does at places treat apostasy as a real phenomenon. That suggests that "saving faith" may have another sense as well. To wit, "faith that would save you if you were to die right now". Even "salvation" could be said to have another sense. To wit, "were you to die right now, you would go to heaven". That can be true, it seems, even of the reprobate. Why, because they don't die right now, they live long enough to fall away.

It is only this latter faith that we can really know without doubt that we have. To know that we have the former faith, we'd have to know the future (which we don't).

Now, as for all the passages that say that God will not let anyone/any creature separate us from Him, it seems that such assurances are, at a minimum, ambiguous. They may implicitly exclude the person being assured. When I promise my wife that no woman will separate me from her, I'm promising fidelity and unfailing love, I'm not not including her even though she is a woman. I'm leaving her free to walk away if she so chooses. I'm not taking her prisoner.

In the end, we have to account for all the passages. It seems to me that the best way to do this is to recognize that the Bible sometimes speaks from an eternal point of view, speaking of what God accomplishes from all eternity, and it sometimes speaks about His relationship moment-by-moment to us (time-bound creatures that we are).

[JWilliam]

"..... if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven....."

[Daron]

Thanks, JWilliams for that reminder from Spurgeon's defence of Calvinism. He is always a model of how brothers should disagree on issues - especially these non-essentials.

-----------

Hi Wisdom Lover,
Thanks for your gracious attitude. I would look at those long posts and roll my eyes at the obnoxious sender. Fortunately, one glance can tell you most of it is for resource purpose and not necessarily begging response.

When I asked whether you can open your mouth to receive bread and wine/body and blood. I meant to be asking whether you can open your mouth to receive the bread and wine believing that they are the very body and blood of Chirst broken and shed for the remission of all of your sin. If you can do that, then you pass the test.

:)
I know, but you are using your introspection here. Do you really believe they are the body and blood of Christ? Or are you like the unbeliever who eats and drinks? If we can say the apostate never truly believed in the previous cases we can say it just as easily in your case.
How is this any different than your concern that you can't really know you have true faith because some people have fallen away when they said they had?
If you can introspectively assess your belief in the body and blood why can't you introspectively assess your belief in the promise?
(I wrote that before I read where you called it "ordinary belief" but I think it still stands...)

So what's happened here is that you seem to be using the eucharist for a test but the elements are irrelevant to the test; all you need to discuss is the belief.
You've said it is ordinary belief, but there is no reason to think that is any more ordinary than the belief that saves. Many people have had this belief in the elements, partaken of the meal, and fallen away.
What you are saying is if I can keep saying I have this belief throughout life then I can say I am saved at any of those times throughout said life.
But at some point I might not be saved because at some point I might not believe.
The eucharist is superfluous to the discussion at this point. I will say if you ate and drank believing and then one day were to truly apostatize then you were never truly in the faith and were eating and drinking unworthily. You will say you lost your faith.
I will say you didn't.
Saying the belief is ordinary does not help because you still require an introspective look at a faith that you will say was legitimate and the Calvinist will say wasn't.

This all depends, of course, our hypothetical ability to determine that the apostate truly is apostate and will not die in faith - a leap I can't make in real life.

[Daron]

BTW,
I agree with most of what you say further, about "faith" not necessarily being unequivocal, especially.
And I agree with this, of course:

Well, if it in fact saves, then it's the faith held only by the elect. Given that they are elect, it follows that their faith will not lapse, or if it does, it will return.

---

In the end, we have to account for all the passages. It seems to me that the best way to do this is to recognize that the Bible sometimes speaks from an eternal point of view, speaking of what God accomplishes from all eternity, and it sometimes speaks about His relationship moment-by-moment to us (time-bound creatures that we are).

Agreed. And as it speaks from our perspective at times it also provides means of our salvation. The passages that seem to be warnings about apostasy can be warnings which are, then, one of the means by which we are kept in the faith. Be careful not to apostatize, it says. And the elect, those with true faith, are careful and do not apostatize. As one of my links above says, most of the warnings are trumped by John, saying "those who went out were not truly of us".

Saint Augustine concurs:

Let the inquirer still go on, and say, “Why is it that to some who have in good faith worshipped Him He has not given to persevere to the end?”

Why except because he does not speak falsely who says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, doubtless they would have continued with us.”  Are there, then, two natures of men? By no means. If there were two natures there would not be any grace, for there would be given a gratuitous deliverance to none if it were paid as a debt to nature. But, it seems to men that all who appear good believers ought to receive perseverance to the end. But God has judged it to be better to mingle some who would not persevere with a certain number of His saints, so that those for whom security from temptation in this life is not desirable may not be secure. For that which the apostle says, checks many from mischievous elation: “Wherefore let him who seems to stand take heed lest he fall.” But he who falls, falls by his own will, and he who stands, stands by God's will. “For God is able to make him stand;” therefore he is not able to make himself stand, but God.
            -Augustine, On the Gift of Perseverance 19

[Brad B]

I have to admit up front, that I have only "skimmed" everything since my posts last evening except W/L's first response after them, so if I'm addressing something covered by Daron W/L, or JWilliams , my bad.

W/L, I want to discuss your opening few comments in response to my last few. Here's the first:

The way I look at it, if I can't just tell by thinking about it whether I have a certain belief or trust in a certain person, then I don't know how I would ever come to know. But the problem is that belief and trust that I know about in that way is belief and trust that can change. (And has changed in other individuals).

If it's real, you say, it won't go away.

I think I have a lot to say about this, but I want to take it in small steps so that the conversation doesn't stray.

I hope you'll see that this is putting the duty of salvation on the individual not on Christ and His promise. No one can have assurance resting on this kind of foundation. It is His faithfulness that is trustworthy, not our fickel emotions and confused minds that often deceive us[Satan is the accuser, do we believe him?... sadly yes, sometimes]. The only solid foundation is Jesus. If someone is truly regenerated[in the protestant sense] and then has doubts about their condition, it is sin. I want to leave this for now, because it needs prior proof but I wanted you to consider if your rest is found in your own belief and trust, it's on shaky ground.

Next you said this:

"Great.
How can I tell that it is, in fact, real?

Talk of the Spirit testifying to my spirit is just a (non-verifiable) explanation of how I came to have (real) faith. It does nothing to show me that I really do have (real) faith. It just pushes the question back... How do I know that the Spirit really is testifying to my spirit?

Once again, I think this is founded on or from the experience of man, not propositional knowledge of God's promise as Gods Word. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, this is the Sprit testifying to your spirit. If you believe the propositional truth that Jesus said such and such a thing[like when He said "before Abraham was I Am"], man didn't reveal this, the Holy Spirit did. Jesus promised to not lose one of the sheep that the Father gave Him. The truth of this statement isn't dependant on the hearers opinion. My immature wavering understanding has no effect on Jesus' promise or the infinite truth of it.

Do you love the Word of God, Jesus, the saints now and of old? Do you in fact believe the biblical revelation is what it claims to be, and that even where knowledge fails to understand it, you trust it? Do you discern the body and the blood? Well, the Bible says that these are marks of true belief. Now as to perseverance/assurance, Daron said quite a bit about this.

In closing this [lengthy post], here's WCF Chapter 18, par's 1&2

"I. Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation (which hope of theirs shall perish): yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.

II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption."

[JWilliams]

Brad B,

Excellent comments. I'm torn between all of you. You seem to be saying that W.L. is implying that should a man have or experience some flavor of internal questioning, then "that" is shakey ground in W.L.'s sort of faith b/c W.L.'s sort of faith is based on one's own internal experience ALONE. I'm not sure W.L. is saying that, though. He is merely injecting a very real truth and mixing it into a conversation which must include "all the elements" of "faith" and ONE of those elements IS our own internal "experience". You seem, to me, or maybe Daron seems to be, to me, to be unwilling to "call that part of our experience" as either real, or important. Your "definition" is ingnoring something we all journey through; a growing, morphing, changing, maturing experience with our Savior. Peter denies Christ. We all do, on some level, somewhere. Yet, I do not think that W.L. is calling "that" the ENTIRE story of how he defines faith or what "faith is". But he IS calling it a PART of our journey and therefore important in how we all talk about "what faith is". Peter denies Christ. And is saved. We can waver; doubt, struggle. Even sin. But "that part" of our internal experience is not the WHOLE definition, but it is a REAL part. I agree with much of Daron's comments and yours, but I think W.L.'s definition of "what faith is" or of "what faith is like" not only embraces your definition, but embraces your defintion "and more". Our faith and relationship and experience of our walk with the living God is not a monotone, static reality. We grow. And, I would add, "our faith grows, even matures". But, you will say, "Yes, but our Salvation IS static." I agree. But I do not think that W.L. is saying that our salvation is "maturing", but rather he is merely INCLUDING the very experience we all share in our walk with God. Which is this: we deny Christ three times before the morning dawn. Yet, our Savior saves us. I find that description more honest, or at least more inclusive, somehow.

If there ever were a person wondering about Christ, and were to read your defintion of the seemingly unwavering faith / salvation, that person would, upon his first struggle with doubt, walk away.

[WisdomLover]

Let me put my point a little differently.

1. The Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God.
2. It is a sufficient guide for all matters of faith and practice.
3. God is One.
4. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God.
5. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are, nonetheless, distinct from each other.
6. God created Man in a state of communion with Him
7. This state persisted until Man disobeyed God and thereby brought Sin into the world and brought a Divine curse down upon himself and all creation, subjecting it, and himself, to frustration and death
8. The Son took on human flesh making himself fully human and being born of the Virgin Mary while remaining fully God.
9. During His earthly ministry, the God-Man and Messiah of Israel, Jesus of Nazareth, died a death sufficient for the remission of all the Sin of every sinner.
10. Etc.

It is the truth of these things that is the basis of salvation.

This salvation is for me if I believe them (at least some of them...I don't think, for example that you have to be an inerrantist to be saved).

I have no power to believe them unless the Holy Spirit calls, enlightens and empowers me to do so.

So my salvation is all about stuff that God is and does. The only contribution I make is my sin and resistance.

********************************

OK...I think we're all, more or less, on the same page up to this point.

********************************

I am of the opinion that I do believe these things having been called, enlightened and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

How do I know that this opinion of mine, that I believe, is true?

It's no good pointing out that the Holy Spirit has called me...don't I trust the Holy Spirit?

My answer is "Yes, I do trust the Holy Spirit, and it's just because He gave it to me to trust Him".

But other men are in Hell who would have been able to say all these things, not only to others, but inwardly to themselves.

Why are they in hell?

Because they fell away.

What do we say to that?

Notice first that this question is orthogonal to the question of the basis of our faith. I'm not claiming that I'll be saved only if I know that I have faith. Nor do I need faith in my faith to be saved. My salvation does not depend on my faith that way. I need faith in Christ to be saved. And that faith is given to me.

We'll all be singing praises to God forever alongside people who had no knowledge of and little belief in their own faith. They might even have harbored terrifying doubts for their entire earthly lives on the subject. But the fact is that they did have faith in Christ...and that ends up being all that matters.

So I agree with much (and probably all) of what both of you are saying, Brad and Daron, about the basis and object of our faith.

But the question remains. What do we say about the apostate? And it's answers can have implications even about what we say about the faithful.

One possibility is to deny the phenomenon altogether. To say that everyone who has said all these things but who is still in hell was consciously prevaricating the whole time. The Augustine quote comes close to saying this, I think.

I don't find this answer very likely.

It's one thing for John to say that the apostates he is describing were never really one of us, and it's another thing to say that they never truly believed. To say that they were never truly one of us is to say that they were not of the elect and never were. At least, I don't think the passage warrants any stronger claim than that. And if it does, its that those particular guys were liars.

And later on (v24) John exhorts his readers to let their faith abide in them that they had from the beginning, and promises that if they do so, they will abide in Christ. The passage makes it looks as though falling away from real faith is a real possibility.

But your answer, Brad and Daron, seems to be that the Apostates were fooling not only other, but even themselves, all along. They weren't shameless liars, but still, they never believed all (or, possibly, any) of that. Not really. Had they really believed, then it would not be possible for them to permanently forsake those beliefs. This is because the call of the Holy Spirit is irresistible.

That, at least, is my poor gleaning from your remarks here and from the articles you've linked.

In contrast, my answer is that the apostates were right, they did believe all those things. But they stopped believing them. Their still squirming zombie-like old man wanted them to forsake Christ all along. In the end, that old man got the upper hand. This is possible because the call of the Holy Spirit is resistible.

These views both have costs it seems. My view has the cost that even if my faith is real, and even though I do know that God won't take it away from me, I don't know that I will always have it.

There's obviously more for of us to say here, but this post is already too long. So I'm going to leave it for now. I'll let you guys think it over. I'd like to get closer to clarity on what the difference is between those two answers in terms of the character of the belief that Christians have vs. the character of the (on your view merely apparent and on my view real) belief of the apostate.

[John]

Irresistible and resistible. Or maybe as some put it something along the lines of choosing.

I think you've hit on it W.L. and we may be safe in saying that the Calvinist may never embrace choice as most people mean choice, while the non-Calvinist may never embrace irresistible as only the Calvinist means it.

In that regard, even this discussion can only end in an agreement to kindly disagree. But then, even Calvin himself reminds us that the non-Calvinists are in heaven.

And, of course, dear Calvinist, surely you see that W.L. has no choice in believing in, and trusting in, his particular brand? If he did, and yet refused your brand, then he would be right and you wrong. If he does not, and is irresistibly held at arms length when it comes to this choice of brands, then you are right and he wrong, but he is wrong by God's hand, and this you ought to call a good and wonderful thing. Either you are wrong, or, you ought to rejoice that God's desire, and no other, is being done in W.L.’s life.

This discussion can only end in an agreement to kindly disagree; but it is helpful that we understand each other’s views. I do not see any common ground here, really. Except for Christ.

[Brad B]

Hi W/L, I am working today and have only a short time to check in and read quickly through all of the comments from you, JWilliams, and John. Well thought out responses all. I ask this one thing in the time I have and maybe you can expound some.

"I have no power to believe them unless the Holy Spirit calls, enlightens and empowers me to do so."

[hypothetically] Did the Holy Spirit then changs His disposition toward you? In other words, is Christ the author and finisher of your salvation?

"Heb. 2:10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.
Hbr 2:11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren,"

[hypothetically] Did He begin a good work in you but change from where He first intended?

"Phl 1:3 I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, Phl 1:4 always offering prayer with joy in my every prayer for you all, Phl 1:5 in view of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now. Phl 1:6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. Phl 1:7 For it is only right for me to feel this way about you all, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me."

You can see where I'm going, I think that the nature of God has to have some bearing on how we treat the OSAS issue.[thats once saved always saved]

[Brad B]

Hi John, you said:

"This discussion can only end in an agreement to kindly disagree; but it is helpful that we understand each other’s views. I do not see any common ground here, really. Except for Christ."

Not necessarily, unless you believe that the biblical revelation is not discernable or clear enough to state an objective position in this. Just because we men have muddied the waters with our attempts at understanding the depths of the revelation, and in the process convinced many on both sides of the issue of their respective positions, the Bible cannot affirm both--niether maybe, but not both. Evem so, if biblical warrant and the conviction of the spirit inside compells the internal conscience one may be convinced to change a position or "keep on reforming". We all ought to be prepared to challenge our long held beliefs to see if they stand on solid ground.

BTW, I appreciate your post and you should know that my respect for W/L and Daron couldn't be higher as I've interacted with them on this blog. I wouldn't be a true brother if I didn't truthfully question things with them--if history is any guide, there's a good chance I'm the one in error;~)

[John]

Brad is of course right: God is faithful to complete His work. And able. That's stated clearly. But then so too is the issue of the role of man's, as well as God's, will in outcomes. Not every outcome. But many.

God is faithful: We agree.

God grants agency, or choice, or some other term for what we all know we mean by that: We disagree.

We colabor: perhaps we agree, perhaps not. We can take that phrase and drive it into either brand I think.

We must be careful not to really think the Calvinist and non-Calvinist will ever concede here. At least not to the point of overlap. But, Christ is our common overlap. And, Calvin reminds us that the Calvinist approach is not needed to enter heaven, as there are several non-Calvinists in its ranks, according to him. And, of course, there are a multitude of Calvinists in its ranks too. Perhaps then we will all go by "I use to be a...." titles. But not for now.

God grants W.L. the where with all (ALL which that includes) to see and choose, including the agency to not merely see, but choose. And W.L. then chooses a brand, a side, a view, a God. Or, God makes him choose this or that. Either the Calvinist is wrong, or, the Calvinist ought to rejoice that God's desire, and no other, is being done in W.L.’s life.

I think we need to move slowly, and resist believing, or expecting, that after all these years the Calvinist and non-Calvinist will ever really find a happy overlap here. Except for Christ.

[John]

Brad,

How long has it been since Calvin? And still the various camps our strong. People do change though. You are right in that. We learn, and then we change. Or, maybe a better way to say it is that God changes us so that we can learn, and then He teaches us, and then we change.

But then, may I change?

Whatever choice I make, it will be God's desire that I make it, and further, I will not be able to resist His desire. Whether I choose hell or Christ. If I am wrong, and the Calvinist is right, and I choose hell, then the Calvinist ought to rejoice that God's desire for my life, and no other, is being done in my life.

All I can do is state that; and appreciate your defense of another view. But is there really any happy overlap here?

Yes. It is Christ.

As for change of views; is that really up to me?

[Daron]

Hi WL,
Thanks for your continued good efforts here. I don't know that we really need to discuss these issues, as I alluded to earlier, and as my lack of participation early indicates. But here we are.

But your answer, Brad and Daron, seems to be that the Apostates were fooling not only other, but even themselves, all along. Indeed. There they are saying "Lord, Lord". But Jesus never knew them. They do not have the intimate relationship that allows them to say Lord, Lord (as Jesus did: Martha, Martha; Jerusalem, Jerusalem; Abraham, Abraham...). But they seem to have come to Him in the last day thinking otherwise.

This is because the call of the Holy Spirit is irresistible.

Finally effective, yes. Saying the Spirit is irresistible implies to some that nobody can resist Him. But they can. They can run and hide as Lewis did, but if it is God's will that they be converted they will be converted. God does not fail.

In contrast, my answer is that the apostates were right, they did believe all those things. But they stopped believing them.

I think this is pretty good evidence that, regardless of what they will say, they never had the faith. Did they really believe in the One the Father sent, hear the Father and learn from Him, die to their old self, take up their cross for Jesus, obey His commands, live as He did, prepare to die for other brothers, trust that God is greater than their condemning hearts, continue in His teaching, that He had sealed and guaranteed them ... ? Even though we do not look to our own performance and ability to see if we are saved, and even though none of us will claim to be perfected in the above (not even Paul) I think the falling away is a good indicator that this true faith was not present.

1 Jphn 5:18 We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them.

[Daron]

Another "coincidental" viewing.
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/i-have-other-sheep-that-are-not-of-this-fold--2

[Brad B]

Hi JWilliams, I wanted to respond to this:

"If there ever were a person wondering about Christ, and were to read your defintion of the seemingly unwavering faith / salvation, that person would, upon his first struggle with doubt, walk away."

All that you said up to and including this last point indicates to me that my point is being misunderstood. In your "if/then" scenario, you haven't represented my concern for W/L's assurance as well as anyone who seeks assurance in anything but Gods faithfulness to His promise. I'd instruct the person "wondering" about Christ, that his only hope is in Jesus, not his ability to believe or perform or stay true--as if he could do any of these without the Holy Spirit. Faith is a gift of God, not of ourselves. I'd instruct him/her that the very turning toward Christ is evidence that they are truly Christs'--if the turning is true. People dont choose to be born again, they discover that it has happened.

I'm not concerned for W/L's disposition, I just hope he and others are able to rest in Gods faithfulness to deliver him home in Heaven as was promised. I dont have unwavering faith in any way when it comes to my determination to cling to Christ, to love Him with all my heart mind soul at any given time. I do have belief that Jesus begun a work in me and that alone seals my future in Him forever. I hope this clarifies what my intent was.

[Brad B]

In this scripture quote, there are several elements of things said on this thread. I hope it gives some insight.

"2Pe 3:13But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. 2Pe 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 2Pe 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 2Pe 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
2Pe 3:18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. "

This scripture talks about trusting in His promises, about unstable men who distort the scriptures, and being on guard while growing in grace and knowledge.

Trust is to be in His promise, unstable men[most likely members of the covenant community who profess faith] are on the road to destruction, and believers are to be diligent to make use of the means of grace and become perfect[mature] in knowledge.[Eph 4:11-13]

Hope you all have a great Lords Day tomorrow.

[John]

"People dont choose to be born again, they discover that it has happened."

And there is the programming.

Man does not choose to do or to embrace or to reject anything. He only wakes up in heaven, or in hell, or in jail for murder, or in a bar stabbing someone, and simply discovers what God's desire, which he cannot resist, has been, all along, for him to play upon the stage. Everything that happens happens becasue God first desired it, and then set out to make it happen, and then made it happen.

I see little common ground for the non-Calvinist and the Calvinist; but for Christ. But then we knew this.

The Calvinist may never embrace choice and permitted agency as most people mean choice and permitted agency, while the non-Calvinist may never embrace irresistible programming as only the Calvinist means it.

In that regard, even this discussion can only end in an agreement to kindly disagree.

The Calvinist seeks to proof-text his way to a convincing argument. He can do it in Greek and Hebrew and untie every knot the non-Calvinist ties. But, unfortunately, the non-Calvinist too can proof-text to no end, in Greek, and in Hebrew, and untie every neat, tidy knot which the Calvinist ties.

I do not see the point.

The will of man is in disagreement. Christ is in agreement. That will have to be enough.

[Daron]

Hi John,

I do not see the point.

Then why do you keep repeating it?
What do you hope to accomplish, given your claims?

[Daron]

Although the dissenters who frequent this blog will call this idea illogical and self-contradictory the statements come from one of the greatest philosophers and logicians who ever lived. He saw no contradiction.

[Daron]

Looks like I've lost the comment with the reference, I will try again, breaking it in two.

I said ....

Previously, when I shared this on sovereignty and free will it was called word-salad, gibberish, and too-old. Still, I think it addresses these questions nicely.

Predestination most certainly and infallibly takes effect; yet it does not impose any necessity, so that, namely, its effect should take place from necessity. For it was said above (Article 1), that predestination is a part of providence. But not all things subject to providence are necessary; some things happening from contingency, according to the nature of the proximate causes, which divine providence has ordained for such effects. Yet the order of providence is infallible, as was shown above (Question 22, Article 4). So also the order of predestination is certain; yet free-will is not destroyed; whence the effect of predestination has its contingency. Moreover all that has been said about the divine knowledge and will (14, 13; 19, 4) must also be taken into consideration; since they do not destroy contingency in things, although they themselves are most certain and infallible. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article6

[Daron]

It's gone again ... one more try ....

Looks like I've lost the comment with the reference, I will try again, breaking it in two.

I said ....

Previously, when I shared this on sovereignty and free will it was called word-salad, gibberish, and too-old. Still, I think it addresses these questions nicely.

Predestination most certainly and infallibly takes effect; yet it does not impose any necessity, so that, namely, its effect should take place from necessity. For it was said above (Article 1), that predestination is a part of providence. But not all things subject to providence are necessary; some things happening from contingency, according to the nature of the proximate causes, which divine providence has ordained for such effects. Yet the order of providence is infallible, as was shown above (Question 22, Article 4). So also the order of predestination is certain; yet free-will is not destroyed; whence the effect of predestination has its contingency. Moreover all that has been said about the divine knowledge and will (14, 13; 19, 4) must also be taken into consideration; since they do not destroy contingency in things, although they themselves are most certain and infallible. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article6