Depravity and Assurance of Salvation

[A New Dawn]

Just catching up on some of the responses here.

HeyMikey makes provides a great answer to the question, "How does a Calvinist know that Jesus died for him?"

His answer is,

So, there you have it folks. Assurance that Jesus died for you is all wrapped up in your thinking that you have relied in him! --Straight from the mouth of a good Calvinist, I presume.

Of course, since we all suffer from depravity, maybe we deceive ourselves into thinking that we have faith.

I would never rest assured in something so important as to whether Jesus died for me on the basis of my own faith.

Rather, I get my assurance that Jesus died for me from the Bible which teaches that Jesus gave himself as a ransome for all men.

Helloooooo ................ I believe I answered your question in post #18.

I rest assured because He said He died so the elect might live in Him, eternally.

 

[heymikey80]

Paul gives clear, umistakable reasons that a person can know they are saved and elected in 1Thess. 1:4-10:
1Th 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
1Th 1:5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.
1Th 1:6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost:
1Th 1:7 So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia.
1Th 1:8 For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing.
1Th 1:9 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God;
1Th 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

I think you have a great point. I focused heavily on the actual question. I think your focus on the assurance delivered is wonderful.

There's assurance, there's awareness of that assurance, and there's appreciation of that awareness by understanding where you stand with God. There are Scriptures that deal with each.

For me arminianism didn't even get out of the starting gate of salvation; yet Scripture provides countless answers about how we may know our election, know we know Christ, and know we are saved. Yet Scripture intends that knowledge to be directed at believers. It beggars my imagination that arminians want to know how nonbelievers are assured of their salvation by Scripture ...!

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

So I would wonder, BR: you asked a question that really didn't establish what it said it was going to. That makes it essentially a rhetorical question. I was just wondering, did you realize the point wasn't "more sovereign" than Calvinism's when you asked it? Did you just not take it to its logical conclusion?

 

[mlqurgw]

I think you have a great point. I focused heavily on the actual question. I think your focus on the assurance delivered is wonderful.

There's assurance, there's awareness of that assurance, and there's appreciation of that awareness by understanding where you stand with God. There are Scriptures that deal with each.


For me arminianism didn't even get out of the starting gate of salvation; yet Scripture provides countless answers about how we may know our election, know we know Christ, and know we are saved. Yet Scripture intends that knowledge to be directed at believers. It beggars my imagination that arminians want to know how nonbelievers are assured of their salvation by Scripture ...!

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

So I would wonder, BR: you asked a question that really didn't establish what it said it was going to. That makes it essentially a rhetorical question. I was just wondering, did you realize the point wasn't "more sovereign" than Calvinism's when you asked it? Did you just not take it to its logical conclusion?

I don't think he has. If he had he wouldn't have asked the questions in either thread as he did. That is the problem with Arminian theology for the most part. They haven't taken their doctrines to their logical conclusion.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

I realize that Arminians believe in the possibility that they could neglect so great a salvation so as to make shipwreck of their faith. And I realize that they take seriously the apostolic warnings to their Christian brothers to hold fast to faith lest they turn away from the living God and trample the blood of the Son of God underfoot--after having received the knowledge of the truth. And so, I own all those charges made above that Arminians fear the possibility of apostasy and therefore have no absolute assurance of their final salvation.

All this is a given. I don't deny your accusations on this matter. And I know that we Arminians believe that Jesus' death doesn't save anyone who is not united with Christ by faith. I own all this—no point in reminding me.

I'm just saying Calvinists have a different problem with assurance. A Calvinist just doesn't seem capable of absolute assurance that Jesus died for him. Now to be sure, they can assure themselves on the basis of Scripture that Jesus died for the elect (as New Dawn stated in post #18).

But after that, Calvinistic assurance that Jesus died for them gets fuzzy. They have to say, "Well, I think I'm a believer, and if so, I must be elect, and so therefore, Christ must have died for me."

But then, assurance that Jesus died for him is based penultimately on the fact (or mis-fact based on depraved misperception) that he is a believer. Calvinistic assurance all comes unhinged if the person is mistaken as to whether he truly is a believer.

Moreover, the Calvinist minister who wishes to encourage the regenerate person who starts wavering on assurance cannot make an absolute statement, "Brother Joe, I know Jesus died for your sins" since the minister cannot actually know for sure that the person, in fact, was regenerate

So, pick your poison. Be an Arminian with assurance that you will be saved only if you continue to the end in faith, or be a Calvinist without the assurance that Jesus died for you.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

HeyMikey, in commenting about Ron's assurance texts, wrote,

For me arminianism didn't even get out of the starting gate of salvation; yet Scripture provides countless answers about how we may know our election, know we know Christ, and know we are saved. Yet Scripture intends that knowledge to be directed at believers. It beggars my imagination that arminians want to know how nonbelievers are assured of their salvation by Scripture ...!

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

So I would wonder, BR: you asked a question that really didn't establish what it said it was going to. That makes it essentially a rhetorical question.

I was just wondering, did you realize the point wasn't "more sovereign" than Calvinism's when you asked it? Did you just not take it to its logical conclusion?

All this sounds intriguing, but I'm not exactly sure about what is being asked. Perhaps one thing or another is being assumed, or perhaps I'm not following what comment is being directed to me or to Ron. At any rate, if heyMikey would like to unpackage the thought with a little more clarity for my sake, I'll try to respond.

Thanks.

 

[heymikey80]

I'm just saying Calvinists have a different problem with assurance. A Calvinist just doesn't seem capable of absolute assurance that Jesus died for him. Now to be sure, they can assure themselves on the basis of Scripture that Jesus died for the elect (as New Dawn stated in post #18).

But after that, Calvinistic assurance that Jesus died for them gets fuzzy. They have to say, "Well, I think I'm a believer, and if so, I must be elect, and so therefore, Christ must have died for me."

But then, assurance that Jesus died for him is based penultimately on the fact (or mis-fact based on depraved misperception) that he is a believer. Calvinistic assurance all comes unhinged if the person is mistaken as to whether he truly is a believer.

Moreover, the Calvinist minister who wishes to encourage the regenerate person who starts wavering on assurance cannot make an absolute statement, "Brother Joe, I know Jesus died for your sins" since the minister cannot actually know for sure that the person, in fact, was regenerate

So, pick your poison. Be an Arminian with assurance that you will be saved only if you continue to the end in faith, or be a Calvinist without the assurance that Jesus died for you.

The poison at the point you describe is equivalent, and I'm surprised you're continuing to say it's different. The Arminian has exactly the same issue: "Do I really believe?"

Without the person's faith there's no assurance of salvation. This argument is simply playing semantic games with Christ's Blood at that point. What indeed does Hebrews 10:26ff say about that?

Yet the Arminian has to be conscious continually, "While I don't believe, then I'm out. While I do believe, I'm in." And even that "ping-pong" effect of faith & salvation is contradicted by Heb 6:4-6 and Heb 10:26ff. Were these verses applied as stated by Arminians, the Arminian must continue in his own independent faith, first to last (cf Heb 3:17ff). Once lost, he is assuredly lost: he has recrucified Christ Jesus (Heb 6:6) and exposed Him to open shame. He has crucified Jesus again. Do you think Jesus' second crucifixion would be to pay for his sins again? Why? How does that fit into the Apostle's advice, "Don't try to regain his repentance"?

With the Calvinist it is, "Have I relied on Christ?" Because Christ assures me, once I have turned to rely on Christ, my failures mean nothing. He keeps me, even through my lack of faith.

 

[heymikey80]

All this sounds intriguing, but I'm not exactly sure about what is being asked. Perhaps one thing or another is being assumed, or perhaps I'm not following what comment is being directed to me or to Ron. At any rate, if heyMikey would like to unpackage the thought with a little more clarity for my sake, I'll try to respond.

What's being pointed out, I should say it plainly, is that you're posing a false dilemma trying to separate faith from Scripture and faith from spirituality.

A man deprived of faith in God would be suspicious of words from God -- there would be no absolute assurance. And a man without the Spirit of God would never be able to rely on Christ as his Lord.

So your thought that his assurance is somehow greater when he's not believing, is self-inconsistent. The promise can only be communicated to those with faith. Faith remains (as you've so clearly admitted) required for assurance, anyway, even in your system.

The result can be no better for assurance. And under the scrutiny of Arminian interpretations of Heb 6 and 10, it's likely to be far worse. And in point of fact it's also absurd. Do you really think that an unbeliever is supposed to have more assurance from God in his unbelief? How can someone have assurance in your view without belief? You certainly haven't said anything of the sort in answering the questions. How do you propose to put assurance into someone that has no belief in even the facts of the Atonement -- much less the personal offer?

In the absence of faith, is there any assurance?

There isn't. Your own words have made the same qualification: "Be an Arminian with assurance that you will be saved only if you continue to the end in faith"

 

[mlqurgw]

I realize that Arminians believe in the possibility that they could neglect so great a salvation so as to make shipwreck of their faith. And I realize that they take seriously the apostolic warnings to their Christian brothers to hold fast to faith lest they turn away from the living God and trample the blood of the Son of God underfoot--after having received the knowledge of the truth. And so, I own all those charges made above that Arminians fear the possibility of apostasy and therefore have no absolute assurance of their final salvation.

All this is a given. I don't deny your accusations on this matter. And I know that we Arminians believe that Jesus' death doesn't save anyone who is not united with Christ by faith. I own all this—no point in reminding me.

I'm just saying Calvinists have a different problem with assurance. A Calvinist just doesn't seem capable of absolute assurance that Jesus died for him. Now to be sure, they can assure themselves on the basis of Scripture that Jesus died for the elect (as New Dawn stated in post #18).

But after that, Calvinistic assurance that Jesus died for them gets fuzzy. They have to say, "Well, I think I'm a believer, and if so, I must be elect, and so therefore, Christ must have died for me."

But then, assurance that Jesus died for him is based penultimately on the fact (or mis-fact based on depraved misperception) that he is a believer. Calvinistic assurance all comes unhinged if the person is mistaken as to whether he truly is a believer.

Moreover, the Calvinist minister who wishes to encourage the regenerate person who starts wavering on assurance cannot make an absolute statement, "Brother Joe, I know Jesus died for your sins" since the minister cannot actually know for sure that the person, in fact, was regenerate

So, pick your poison. Be an Arminian with assurance that you will be saved only if you continue to the end in faith, or be a Calvinist without the assurance that Jesus died for you.

If I in the end am not one of the elect and am not saved then I will die as never a man has ever before. One who bows to the Lord of Glory begging mercy and not finding it. One who has laid all his hope on Christ alone with nothing from himself. Who recognizes that it is up to Him to either send me to everlasting destruction or not and bowing to His sovereign right to do either. It is to be one who will lift up his voice in Hell crying you are right Lord.
My assurance isn't based in anything in me at all. It is totally grounded in the faithfullness of God. I do know that I am one of the elect and that Christ died for me because He has shed abroad in my heart His love for me. Rom. 5:5

 

[A New Dawn]

I realize that Arminians believe in the possibility that they could neglect so great a salvation so as to make shipwreck of their faith. And I realize that they take seriously the apostolic warnings to their Christian brothers to hold fast to faith lest they turn away from the living God and trample the blood of the Son of God underfoot--after having received the knowledge of the truth. And so, I own all those charges made above that Arminians fear the possibility of apostasy and therefore have no absolute assurance of their final salvation.

All this is a given. I don't deny your accusations on this matter. And I know that we Arminians believe that Jesus' death doesn't save anyone who is not united with Christ by faith. I own all this—no point in reminding me.

I'm just saying Calvinists have a different problem with assurance. A Calvinist just doesn't seem capable of absolute assurance that Jesus died for him. Now to be sure, they can assure themselves on the basis of Scripture that Jesus died for the elect (as New Dawn stated in post #18).

But after that, Calvinistic assurance that Jesus died for them gets fuzzy. They have to say, "Well, I think I'm a believer, and if so, I must be elect, and so therefore, Christ must have died for me."

But then, assurance that Jesus died for him is based penultimately on the fact (or mis-fact based on depraved misperception) that he is a believer. Calvinistic assurance all comes unhinged if the person is mistaken as to whether he truly is a believer.

Moreover, the Calvinist minister who wishes to encourage the regenerate person who starts wavering on assurance cannot make an absolute statement, "Brother Joe, I know Jesus died for your sins" since the minister cannot actually know for sure that the person, in fact, was regenerate

So, pick your poison. Be an Arminian with assurance that you will be saved only if you continue to the end in faith, or be a Calvinist without the assurance that Jesus died for you.

When an Arminian's salvation is based on how well he works to hold onto the salvation he earned, how can he be assured of anything knowing he could lose it at any point along the way if he just isn't valiant enough? Because I know that Christ said he will save all whom the Father has given him, and I know that God has changed my heart of stone to a heart of flesh and bestowed on me the gift of faith (so that I may not boast), I know that I am saved. I am really sorry that you cannot know that assurance.

John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

 

[wnwall]

But after that, Calvinistic assurance that Jesus died for them gets fuzzy.

Alright, good, we can close this thread now, since all you were trying to do was tell us something we were already aware of and all we've been able to tell you is something you were already aware of. No need to continue this "debate".

And I haven't read through this whole thread, so I'm unsure if my Reformed brothers mentioned we struggle with doubt just as Arminians do, so we never have 100% assurance of salvation.

So there we are. Neither an Arminian nor a Calvinist can be completely certain he is truly born again. However, what assurance the Calvinist does have rests in God's promise to see the good work he began in us to completion, while the Arminian's assurance rests in his own ability. I wonder if Arminians believe they could sin in heaven? If so, you're going to have to trust in your own ability for all eternity to keep from falling from grace. What a terrifying thought. Adam didn't even make it long enough to have a child born in the garden.

 

[UMP]

If I in the end am not one of the elect and am not saved then I will die as never a man has ever before. One who bows to the Lord of Glory begging mercy and not finding it. One who has laid all his hope on Christ alone with nothing from himself. Who recognizes that it is up to Him to either send me to everlasting destruction or not and bowing to His sovereign right to do either. It is to be one who will lift up his voice in Hell crying you are right Lord.
My assurance isn't based in anything in me at all. It is totally grounded in the faithfullness of God. I do know that I am one of the elect and that Christ died for me because He has shed abroad in my heart His love for me. Rom. 5:5

Show pity, Lord, O Lord, forgive,
Let a repenting rebel live:
Are not Thy mercies large and free?
May not a sinner trust in Thee?

My crimes are great, but not surpass
The power and glory of Thy grace:
Great God, Thy nature hath no bound,
So let Thy pardoning love be found.

O wash my soul from every sin,
And make my guilty conscience clean;
Here on my heart the burden lies,
And past offenses pain my eyes.

My lips with shame my sins confess
Against Thy law, against Thy grace:
Lord, should Thy judgment grow severe,
I am condemned, but Thou art clear.

Should sudden vengeance seize my breath,
I must pronounce Thee just in death;
And if my soul were sent to hell,
Thy righteous law approves it well.

Yet save a trembling sinner, Lord,
Whose hope, still hovering round Thy Word,
Would light on some sweet promise there,
Some sure support against despair.

Watts.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

HeyMikey wrote,

The poison at the point you describe is equivalent, and I'm surprised you're continuing to say it's different. The Arminian has exactly the same issue: "Do I really believe?"

Without the person's faith there's no assurance of salvation.

But, the issue which I have attempted to press throughout all this is not assurance of salvation, but rather, assurance that Jesus died for me.

In this case, the Arminian's assurance is not dependent upon his faith. Rather, the Arminian's assurance rests upon God's word which, repeatedly and without reservation speaks of Jesus tasting death for every man, etc.

It is only when the Calvinist tries to persuade the Arminian that the Bible doesn't teach universal atonement that the Arminian might start to doubt that Jesus died for him.

And so, once again, we see that Calvinist indeed have a problem with assurance. The difference between Calvinists and Arminians on this issue, then, is that Arminians recognize that they have a problem with it!

But, of course, this is not a problem for Arminians, because they feel that, in light of the so many scriptures which urge continuance in faith to the end, that there really is a danger that a person might make shipwreck of his faith--like Hymeneus and Alexander actually did in 1 Tim 2:18-20.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

Ron writes,

[I know Jesus died for me...]because He has shed abroad in my heart His love for me.

This is assurance of Christ having died for you based on your personal experience. In your own understanding, you have come to the conclusion that you have experienced some event which you describe as God having shed his love in your heart.

Can't you just admit for a moment that, given total depravity, that you could possibly be entirely mistaken about your experience?

Or, if you can't admit that for yourself, could you at least admit the possibility that some other person in your church is deluded about having God's love in his heart?

I appreciate the effort to explain how you know that Jesus died for you. But it's not convincing.

Let me just say that my assurance that Jesus died for all of you is entirely based upon his Word--not some experience--but on God's Word which cannot fail.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

I've not been posting on this thread mostly because it has become little more than people telling me that Arminians don't have assurance of salvation.

Well, I freely admit that my assurance of salvation is contingent upon holding firmly till the end the confidence we had at first (Heb 3:14), so there's no point in casting accusations at me for things I freely admit.

But if Calvinists would like to give me an argument for their assurance that Jesus died for them which is not based upon their subjective personal experience (which is so subject to the distorions of total depravity), then I'll get back to you eventually.

 

[wnwall]

.deleted.

 

[mlqurgw]

Ron writes,

[I know Jesus died for me...]because He has shed abroad in my heart His love for me.

This is assurance of Christ having died for you based on your personal experience. In your own understanding, you have come to the conclusion that you have experienced some event which you describe as God having shed his love in your heart.

Can't you just admit for a moment that, given total depravity, that you could possibly be entirely mistaken about your experience?

Or, if you can't admit that for yourself, could you at least admit the possibility that some other person in your church is deluded about having God's love in his heart?

I appreciate the effort to explain how you know that Jesus died for you. But it's not convincing.

Let me just say that my assurance that Jesus died for all of you is entirely based upon his Word--not some experience--but on God's Word which cannot fail.

That is only a portion of what I said and out of context. If you are going to accuse me of something be sure you do so by dealing honestly with the whole context of my statements. I showed by Scripture that Paul believed there was evidence of election from 1Thess.1:4-10 which you have ignored. And I also said that if I am deceived, which I admit is a possibility( upon further reflection it isn't possible for Christ would have to be a liar for that to happen), then I would be the first sinner ever to come to Christ begging mercy and not finding it. My assurance isn't based on experience, though I have experienced grace, it is based on the faithfulness of Christ to His word. The statement which you chose to jump on while ignoring the entire point of my post was simply a statement of truth according to Scripture. If my assurance was based on experience then I could never have it. My experience is one of constant failings and fallings. Yet I am assured that Christ died for all those who look to Him alone for acceptance wth God. It doesn't say great faith but simple faith. When I am at my worst I do trust Him, though not as I should. When I am at my best I trust Him though not as I ought to. I know that He saved me because He said He did and will not go back on His Word. I know it even when I don't feel it. Though I may constantly doubt myself I never doubt Him.

 

[bradfordl]

Ron answered your assertion very well, and I will add nothing to it. I would just note that this argument:

Can't you just admit for a moment that, given total depravity, that you could possibly be entirely mistaken about your experience?

Turns as darkly upon the arminian as it does the calvinist. Without reliance upon the promises of our Redeemer, there is no assurance. You say we rely on personal experience for assurance (not true as Ron explained so well), I claim that you rely on an errant eisegesis of scripture for yours. You deviate context to come to an offer made to all humanity that then is determined by the decisions of individuals. That is attractive to men because it "puts them in the driver's seat" so to speak. And it is all arrogant hogwash.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

I thought I'd check back on this thread to find out if any one had actually attempted to explain to me how they knew for a fact that Christ had died for them.

Since so many posts were being made without addressing this issue, I didn't feel compelled to check back very often.

But having just checked, I wanted to apologize to Ron for making it look like the only thing he said about his certain knowledge of Christ having died for him was his personal experience of God's love being shed in his heart.

I realize he discussed a great deal of scripture which talked about the love of God and God's faithfulness prior to his statement that his experience was proof.

But all the discussion about God's faithfulness was predicated upon a Calvinist model which teaches that Jesus didn't die for everyone. And when it comes right down to it, the only thing which I could see as Ron's basis for a certain knowledge that he was one of the few for whom Christ died, was this appeal to experience.

In regard to 1 Thes 1, the same thing applies. By all means, the gospel changes people from the inside out so that they turn away from idols to serve the living God. But we also know that there are wolves in sheep's clothing. And we know that people can fool themselves into thinking they're saved, and even turn over a new leaf. The seed falls upon different kinds of soils, and some of those seeds germinate and look impressive to begin with.

Consequently, I doubt we can say with all assurance, "Joe, I know that Christ died for you because you act better now than you used to." Likewise, I'd hate to predicate Christ's death on the cross upon my own unverifiable personal experience.

But we can say, "On the assurance of God's testimony in his Holy Word, I affirm to you that Jesus died for your sins."

There is a joy in sharing this good news to everyone without having to worry in the back of my head that maybe they might not be one of the elect.

 

[mlqurgw]

I thought I'd check back on this thread to find out if any one had actually attempted to explain to me how they knew for a fact that Christ had died for them.

Since so many posts were being made without addressing this issue, I didn't feel compelled to check back very often.

But having just checked, I wanted to apologize to Ron for making it look like the only thing he said about his certain knowledge of Christ having died for him was his personal experience of God's love being shed in his heart.

I realize he discussed a great deal of scripture which talked about the love of God and God's faithfulness prior to his statement that his experience was proof.

But all the discussion about God's faithfulness was predicated upon a Calvinist model which teaches that Jesus didn't die for everyone. And when it comes right down to it, the only thing which I could see as Ron's basis for a certain knowledge that he was one of the few for whom Christ died, was this appeal to experience.

In regard to 1 Thes 1, the same thing applies. By all means, the gospel changes people from the inside out so that they turn away from idols to serve the living God. But we also know that there are wolves in sheep's clothing. And we know that people can fool themselves into thinking they're saved, and even turn over a new leaf. The seed falls upon different kinds of soils, and some of those seeds germinate and look impressive to begin with.

Consequently, I doubt we can say with all assurance, "Joe, I know that Christ died for you because you act better now than you used to." Likewise, I'd hate to predicate Christ's death on the cross upon my own unverifiable personal experience.

But we can say, "On the assurance of God's testimony in his Holy Word, I affirm to you that Jesus died for your sins."

There is a joy in sharing this good news to everyone without having to worry in the back of my head that maybe they might not be one of the elect.

Apology accepted. The wolves in sheep's clothing passage is speaking of preachers. Their fruit is what they preach and teach. As for the seed springing up and then withering it doesn't mean that they were saved but that they had an experience but never really trusted Christ. It doesn't take anything but a little self control to reform your life and act as though you are a believer but those who actually do look to Christ alone instead of themselves are believers and are saved. Their assurance doesn't come from experience it comes from the reliance that is itself a gift from God in the faithfulness of Christ to His word.
As I said in another thread, there is no good news to a dead, God-hating, rebellious in every thought word and deed sinner to tell him that Christ died for him and will save him if he only does something. It doesn't matter how small that something may be he can't and will not do it. The good news of the Gospel is that Christ has saved by His substitutionary sacrifice and imputed righteousness. He has actually reconciled someone to God. They are called sinners. If you are a sinner you can hope in Him. We have no worry in the back of our minds that maybe one of the elect might not hear or that any who come might not find mercy. We preach the Gospel to all because we don't know who the elect are, they are normally those who we would think aren't, and because we sincerely desire that all men come to know Him who is salvation. God knows whom He loves and has saved but that doesn't mean that we do. I can proclaim the Gospel to all because I am just like them, a sinner who rightfully deserves the just and holy wrath of God. If God makes His word to bear fruit in their heart I can rejoice with them and if He doesn't I can bow to His sovereign right to withhold His grace from whomever He wills. I can actually preach with more confidence because I know that there are some whom God will cause to hear and believe. The best you can hope for is that your appeal will be good enough.

 

[heymikey80]

There is a joy in sharing this good news to everyone without having to worry in the back of my head that maybe they might not be one of the elect.

To me it's just that the good news is that Christ Jesus reigns righteously over the whole universe and offers salvation to all those who rely on Him. I don't have to worry in the back of my head because Scripture tells me God wants me to go on the evidence, not on what I can't see.

God is infallible. But He's never told me to be.