Are there any Calvinists on this forum?

[sandusky]

StCsDavid:

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned…unless you believe in Calvinism in which case you better hope you’re part of the elect, too.

Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”…unless you’re a Calvanist in which case let me check and see if you’re part of the elect.

John 3:17 For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him…unless you’e a Calvanist in which case you need to be among the elect as well.

None of the verses you cite say anything about God saving all men. That was the question that I asked.

Jn 3:16 comes close, but raises some questions: Why in Jn 17:6-9, does Jesus say specifically that His prayer is for those whom the Father had given Him out of the world? Also notice in v6 that the ones Jesus is praying for are said to have been the Father’s, and that the Father gave them to Jesus; that supports the statements that I made earlier concerning Jn 6:37ff. Also, in v8, Jesus says that He gave the words of the Father only to those specific people who were the Father’s and that had been given Him by the Father. In v9 Jesus specifically says that He is praying for those given Him, and not for the world. In Jn 3:16, “world,” cannot mean every person without exception. Paul also in 2 Tim 2:10 says, quite pointedly, that he labors for the sake of the elect. He does not labor for the world.

StCsDavid:

IMHO, you take these passages out of context for the time and audience for whom they were written. Who will discern and ultimatly deem you as one of the elect? Do you do this yourself? Your pastor? Or is it just high hopes on your part? It’s certainly not in your sacraments as they are only symbols of grace you believe to be already present. How do you know?

So then, you believe that only the Romans, and the Ephesians are predestined? Do you think that we should just discard God’s word, because it was written to only those people who were alive at the time of its writing?

StCsDavid:

Verse 37 clearly implies that people will come to Christ and not be cast out…yet in a Calvanist way of thinking…that’s not enough…you have to be part of the elect.

I agree. Jesus clearly says that those who come to Him, He will not cast out. It is my position, that only the elect will come to Him. That is the necessity of election. Without election, no one would come.

StCsDavid:

Did I quote scripture here? Clearly that was one my less humble opinions. But in your line of thinking, mercy has very little to do with it. It’s all about being presdestined as one of the elect.

Why is it that you do not see predestination as merciful? Is it because God does not predestine everyone?

StCsDavid:

Agree with you 100% here. My point was you Calvanists don’t allow for the possibility of redemption. The kid didn’t reject Christ…he was never chosen to be with Christ from the beginning, He wasn’t part of the elect.

I do not believe that rejection is final until one dies. As long as the kid is breathing, I would be praying for Him, and, I would be communicating with him, if he was willing to talk.

StCsDavid:

The arrogance lies in presuming God’s judgement. The lack of humility is presuming that you or anyone is part of the elect.

Do you believe that God revealed Himself and His plan, to keep the elect in the dark? Are they supposed to spend their lives guessing as to whether or not they are saved? That is not the Gospel of peace and reconciliation proclaimed by Jesus, and the apostles. John wrote his Gospel, and first epistle, with the specific intent of communicating to the believer that he could know that he was saved.

StCsDavid:

If that is the case…whom did Christ come to save? Those who have predestined as part of the elect, have already been saved.

He came to save His people from their sin. Those who were the Father’s, and given to the Son. Being predestined, must be realized in time. Christ’s death is of no value to the elect, until they believe. And, according to the Father, and the Son, all of the elect will believe.

 

[El_Catolico]

Predestination is not peculiar to Calvinists. All Christian churches have some take on predestination. Frankly, I don’t understand the hostility here.

Catholics generally arent very sympathetic to Calvinism because:

1. It often leads to double predestination (God positively declaring a person is destined for Hell regardless of merit)
2. It often leads to the belief that free will is an illusion (rather than harmonizing free will and grace, as St. Augustine and all the other Doctors did).

With that said, I think that there are some Catholics who do overreact to Calvinism, and deny that there is any form of predestination whatsoever. Of course, Catholics may hold a wide range of belief on this particular topic. Often we just accept it as the incomprehensible mystery that it is. When St. Anthony of Egypt was worrying about Predestination and Free Will, a voice came to him and said, “Anthony, attend to yourself; for these are the judgments of God, and it is not for you to know them.”

The problem with Calvinism is that it offers a very simplistic answer to an extremely mysterious doctrine- and then its members proceed to anathematize other Christians for not holding the same position. It sees anything that isn’t monergistic Calvinism to be Pelagianism or Arminianism.

 

[Michael_Paul]

norwester:

Well, if I mirsread your post I apologize. If I didn’t cover everything I meant too in my post, I do sometimes have trouble collecting my thoughts. The topic is so broad it is hard to get to every nuance.

As to your last example that would be really, really gross, because I am a woman.

But as to the rest, I am content to let it lie.

Yes, that would be really bad. Sorry about that I shouldn’t assume. However, you would want a man who was free to love you rather than one who was forced to do so. Correct?

MP

 

[Michael_Paul]

norwester:

Well, if I mirsread your post I apologize. If I didn’t cover everything I meant too in my post, I do sometimes have trouble collecting my thoughts. The topic is so broad it is hard to get to every nuance.

As to your last example that would be really, really gross, because I am a woman.

But as to the rest, I am content to let it lie.

Yes, that would be really bad. Sorry about that I shouldn’t assume. However, you would want a man who was free to love you rather than one who was forced to do so. Correct?

MP

 

[StCsDavid]

sandusky:

None of the verses you cite say anything about God saving all men. That was the question that I asked.

The problem I have with your position, friend, is this notion that God created most people with the intent of sending them to Hell and that they have not hope of attaining salvation regardless of their belief in Christ. That just really seems to be an egocentric position. Maybe I’m missing something. Do you posit that only the elect have this belief in Christ? So if you weren’t one of the elect you wouldn’t believe in Christ in the first place? Help me understand. Would a bushman in Africa who never hears the Gospel likely be one of the elect? Or is he a child of a lessor God?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Michael Paul:

From what I have been told a Calvinist believes that a person is either elect or non elect and they have no control over the issue. I conclude that no one would become a Calvinist unless they assumed they were elect because why join a group where you knew you were going to hell no matter what? My question is, how do Calvinists know that they are elect?

MP

Now where did you hear a thing like that? (its true by the way)

 

[mark_a]

norwester:

Hi! Well, I’m a Calvinist. This is my first post, so be gentle with me! I trust that I am elect because I desire Christ (which the “natural man” does not), I seek to live a holy life and I want to have communion with Christ. I do not live a completely sinless life, but when I do sin I have remorse and I pray for forgiveness and desire to be reconciled.

I believe that there are elect who are Catholic, and Catholic who are not elect. I believe the same of any Protestant church too. Only God knows for sure who are His. I don’t know anything about the authors you mention, but as you Catholics say, we Protestants are a mixed bag!

“To deny that a man has free will is to deny that a man has a human nature. The truth is that human beings are not totally depraved meat robots. Non-Christians have the freedom to avoid committing acts of total depravity. It is obvious that not every non-Christian is a serial killer or a child molesting Satan worshipper.”

I think there is a misconception here. Calvinists hold that man has “total depravity” but that is not “utter depravity”. We do hold that man has some free will, but not total free will. Natural man can chose a lot of things, but with out God’s drawing grace, he cannot chose Christ. That is different from saying that he can never chose to do anything “good”.

Man!! That’s complex!!

 

[Lazerlike42]

From what I have been told a Calvinist believes that a person is either elect or non elect and they have no control over the issue. I conclude that no one would become a Calvinist unless they assumed they were elect because why join a group where you knew you were going to hell no matter what? My question is, how do Calvinists know that they are elect?

MP

Along the same lines, I have been looking for a Calvanist to explain how being a Calvanist does not at least border on some sort of pride or arrogance assuming you are some especially beloved child of God. I’m not accusing, btw, it just comes off like that.

 

[norwester]

“Along the same lines, I have been looking for a Calvanist to explain how being a Calvanist does not at least border on some sort of pride or arrogance assuming you are some especially beloved child of God. I’m not accusing, btw, it just comes off like that.”

It would be arrogant if I believed that I had earned it somehow, or that there was something special about me that God chose me above someone else, but I don’t. And I don’t think what the perceived pride of a group holding a view really can do to prove that view false or true. After all, some also could say Catholics are arrogant for believing their church is the one true church.

“Yes, that would be really bad. Sorry about that I shouldn’t assume. However, you would want a man who was free to love you rather than one who was forced to do so. Correct?” MP

I don’t blame you for your assumption, I guess it is a pretty neutral handle.

This is usually the arguement I hear. However the marriage analogy assumes at least somewhat of equal terms between the 2 parties. But God is infinately more wise and all knowing than even the greatest among us. So, I would look at it more in parent/child terms, at least for our life here on earth. If I as a parent knew that the guy my kid wanted to go to the movies with was a known child molester would I be a loving parent if I said “Well honey, I love you, and I want you to love me too, but it is up to you. You decide.” ?

Both Catholics and Protestants believe that Adams desicion to disobey God in the garden of Eden has somehow flawed us. But God will leave the most important desicion we make up to our flawed selves that are so given to deception and sin?

"The problem with Calvinism is that it offers a very simplistic answer to an extremely mysterious doctrine- and then its members proceed to anathematize other Christians for not holding the same position. It sees anything that isn’t monergistic Calvinism to be Pelagianism or Arminianism."El Catalico

Well, I can give you that. At least that some Calvinists do seem to think that if you hold to other views you must not be saved, but I don’t. I don’t think anyone in my church does. But it isn’t just with religion that the most opinionated tend to be the loudest. And as to being a simplistic answer, that may be, I don’t know. Simplicity doesn’t prove or disprove.

But say I dump Calvinism and take the other most dominant view of predestination-that God looks down through the corridors of time and knows in advance who will chose Him. That still doesn’t answer why He would make those people who He does know will be in hell someday. He still made those people up. He created everything about them. I don’t know why. Couldn’t He have tweeked Hitle’rs make up just a little bit and make him a nicer guy? Or at least not given him skillfull speaking skills? I don’t know why I am in a country where I could hear the gospel and feed my children and put them to bed in reasonable safety and others aren’t. I don’t know why we couldn’t just skip all this and all of us go to heaven! But however I look at it I still have to believe that God is good, and that I will understand it someday.

 

[Lazerlike42]

norwester:

But say I dump Calvinism and take the other most dominant view of predestination-that God looks down through the corridors of time and knows in advance who will chose Him. That still doesn’t answer why He would make those people who He does know will be in hell someday. He still made those people up. He created everything about them. I don’t know why. Couldn’t He have tweeked Hitle’rs make up just a little bit and make him a nicer guy? Or at least not given him skillfull speaking skills? I don’t know why I am in a country where I could hear the gospel and feed my children and put them to bed in reasonable safety and others aren’t. I don’t know why we couldn’t just skip all this and all of us go to heaven! But however I look at it I still have to believe that God is good, and that I will understand it someday.

I think when a person accepts free will the answer to these questions starts to make sense.

It’s sortof the same idea as this:

Nowadays, we either can or are pretty close to being able to tell if your kid is gonna be born with all sorts of different diseases. In fact, we see tons of these stories on 20/20 and stuff about parents who happen to know their kids are gonna die by the time they’re 5. Do these parents choose to abort the child? Why have it if it’s just gonna die? Or what if it’s gonna have some horrible, painful ailment and then die at 5. Do the parents still have it? Yes, because they love their children unconditionally and want the, to have life.

God loves us even more, even Hitler.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Michael Paul:

From what I have been told a Calvinist believes that a person is either elect or non elect and they have no control over the issue. I conclude that no one would become a Calvinist unless they assumed they were elect because why join a group where you knew you were going to hell no matter what? My question is, how do Calvinists know that they are elect?

MP

Jesus Christ is the reason for joining a Christian group - its theology is secondary to this (see I Corinthians 13) and joining as a means to escape Hell is even less important.​

It’s not that they have no control - Calvinism is not fatalistic - but rather that they can have unlimited confidence in the power and Providence of God. Total independence from God is the only way of being in complete control of one’s existence, and the devil chose precisely that. Only obedience to God in love gives true freedom - and it involves admitting that one is not superior to, equal to or comparable with God: it involves admitting one does not have all the answers to life, one’s own or others: IOW, it involves admitting one is inferior to God. Which is exactly how we should behave, if we are Christians in any sense at all. Total indepedence of God is neither possible nor desirable for creatures. The more we realised that God is alone Lord, and that we are not, the more truly happy we would be.

Calvin himself always insists on the importance of the glory of God, and that all glory must be rendered to Him - “what’s in it for me” is far less important; man does not occupy centre-stage in Calvinism. This is bracing anfd austere outlook, but it has the great advantage of stopping us whining. With such an outlook, people are unlikely to become Calvinists in order to save their own hides - they’ll be more concerned with emphasising the greatness and glory of God, instead of indulging in egocentric whimpering about not being the centre of attention. Everything does not revolve around man - and thank God that someone has made that so clear.

Election is important - it is after all a theme of the Bible - but it has meaning only in relation to God Who elects man in Christ for His righteous good pleasure.

Do Calvinists know they are elect ? As they see it, is something that can be known, but this does not in the least mean that it is known soon by one who is elect. Besides, there are others things which are more important, such as living holily and faithfully as a Christian who has been ransomed from death by the blood of Christ. ##

 

[Catholic_Dude]

## Do Calvinists know they are elect ? As they see it, is something that can be known, but this does not in the least mean that it is known soon by one who is elect. Besides, there are others things which are more important, such as living holily and faithfully as a Christian who has been ransomed from death by the blood of Christ. ##

$$Thats just it though, would you even care about “giving all glory to God” if you knew He was sending you to hell and nothing you could do could stop it?$$

$$How can there be something more important? Why work all those years to do your best and then on the day of judgement see God shaking his finger at you because you were never “elect”? The truth is all people have the same chance at election, and that includes people like Hitler$$

$$Living a life holily and faithfully as a Christian who has been ransomend means NOTHING unless your elect, if a person doesnt know if they are elect then how can they say Christ died for them? (they could be wrong)$$

 

[norwester]

$$Thats just it though, would you even care about “giving all glory to God” if you knew He was sending you to hell and nothing you could do could stop it?$

there is something that you can do to stop it-repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. It isn’t as if there are all these people who desire God and are being turned away-the desire for God IS a sign of election in itself! Apart from God there is no desire for Him because we are fallen creatures.

It almost seems to me that you are afraid God will make some awful desicion and that it’s best left up to fallen man.

And really, I think some of you should at least make some attempt to try to understand Calvinism before you try to critique it!

 

[El_Catolico]

And really, I think some of you should at least make some attempt to try to understand Calvinism before you try to critique it!

I agree with Norwester here. Its not that Calvinists believe that God sends people to Hell against their will, its that repentance is itself a sign of election.

 

[Matt16_18]

dts:

As a former Calvinist, I can say that they are wrongly maligned on many points. Calvinism is probably the only Protestant system of belief that is intellectually comprehensive and rigorous.

I hardly see Calvinism as a belief system that is “intellectually comprehensive and rigorous.” Calvinism is full of contradictory beliefs, and because of that, it is an anything but rigorous, or intellectual.

Let us look at just a few of the quotes that you gave from the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q. 12. What are the decrees of God?
A. God’s decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will, whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass in time, especially concerning angels and men.

Q. 13. What hath God especially decreed concerning angels and men?
A. God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory; and in Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof: and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will (whereby he extendeth or withholdeth favor as he pleaseth), hath passed by and foreordained the rest to dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice.

Q. 24. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.

Q. 12 asserts that God has “unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass in time.” That means God is both the source of all good and the source of all evil in the world, since neither good nor evil comes into existence unless God wills it.

The assertion that God is the source of all evil in the world is outrageous blasphemy against God! “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1John 1:5).

Q. 13 contains a contradiction. The God of Calvinism is both the source of all good AND the source of all evil, since NOTHING whatsoever (good or evil) comes to pass in time unless God wills it. Q. 13 states that God has foreordained some men to eternal damnation for their sins. But if every evil that comes to pass in the world is because God has foreordained that evil, then the sin cannot be attributed to men. Sin must be attributed to God, since God has foreordained that these sins be committed. To be “rigorous”, the Calvinists would have to assert that God has foreordained some men to eternal damnation merely because some men have been obedient to the will of God.

But then the Westminster Larger Catechism contradicts itself once again when it asserts that sin is a transgression against the law of God. How can a man be said to be committing a “transgression” against the law of God if all men, both good and evil, are merely being obedient to what God has willed to foreordain? It is utter nonsense to assert God is just in eternally punishing men for doing what God has foreordained.

The God of Calvinism is an arbitrary and capricious monster that sends men to eternal damnation for merely living as God has willed to foreordain!

 

[dts]

sandusky:

Show me clearly in the Scripture the delivery of grace through sacraments, and I will reconsider my position.

Calvin believed grace is delivered through the Sacraments:

“Therefore, let it be regarded as a settled principle that the sacraments have the same office as the Word of God: to offer and set forth Christ to us, and in him the treaures of heavenly grace. But they avail and profit nothing unless received in faith.”
Institutes, Book IV, Ch. XIV, § 17 citing Augustine’s Commentary on John’s Gospel; see also § 14 et. seq.

Calvin denied that the sacraments, in and of themselves, bestow grace. He held that they must be received in faith. However, he still held that God works through them to give grace. This is very different from the view held by most modern evangelicals and even some who call themselves Calvinists which holds that the sacraments are purely symbolic.

Catholics believe that their is intrinsic grace in the sacrament itself, apart from the faith of the recipient. Yet, the recipient must exercise faith to benefit from the sacrament. Tthe Sacrament presupposes faith. CCC § 1122 et. seq.

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect1chpt1art2.htm

 

[dts]

Matt16_18:

I hardly see Calvinism as a belief system that is “intellectually comprehensive and rigorous.” Calvinism is full of contradictory beliefs, and because of that, it is an anything but rigorous, or intellectual.

Let us look at just a few of the quotes that you gave from the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q. 12 asserts that God has “unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass in time.” That means God is both the source of all good and the source of all evil in the world, since neither good nor evil comes into existence unless God wills it.

The assertion that God is the source of all evil in the world is outrageous blasphemy against God! “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1John 1:5).

Q. 13 contains a contradiction. The God of Calvinism is both the source of all good AND the source of all evil, since NOTHING whatsoever (good or evil) comes to pass in time unless God wills it. Q. 13 states that God has foreordained some men to eternal damnation for their sins. But if every evil that comes to pass in the world is because God has foreordained that evil, then the sin cannot be attributed to men. Sin must be attributed to God, since God has foreordained that these sins be committed. To be “rigorous”, the Calvinists would have to assert that God has foreordained some men to eternal damnation merely because some men have been obedient to the will of God.

But then the Westminster Larger Catechism contradicts itself once again when it asserts that sin is a transgression against the law of God. How can a man be said to be committing a “transgression” against the law of God if all men, both good and evil, are merely being obedient to what God has willed to foreordain? It is utter nonsense to assert God is just in eternally punishing men for doing what God has foreordained.

The God of Calvinism is an arbitrary and capricious monster that sends men to eternal damnation for merely living as God has willed to foreordain!

I don’t really care to debate this point, because little is to be gained from it. Suffice it to say that most scholarly Catholics admit and history demonstrates that Calvinism offers a rigorous and comprehensive intellectual system.

Catholics also admit that God is in control over all things. Otherwise, he would not be God. However, Catholics make distinctions about the nature of God’s will. E.g., his providential will versus his moral will etc. . . . These kinds of distinctions become important when having this kind of discussion. As you note, it is also important to get correct definitions of evil and its relationship to God.

I think the language of Calvinism does lead to some of the problems you suggest. However, the substance of what they believe when considered in the larger context of their theology is not so abhorrent as it is made out to be. I say this as a Catholic who was a Calvinist having spent a fair amount of time studying both points of view.

Regarding the alleged contradictions in the Westminster Catechism’s definition of sin, the answer goes back to the distinctions in the different forms of God’s will. His providential will includes everything that has ever occured and ever will occur. His moral will does not. In the end, we arrive at a mystery. It is a mystery for all, even Catholics.

 

[Matt16_18]

“To deny that a man has free will is to deny that a man has a human nature. The truth is that human beings are not totally depraved meat robots. Non-Christians have the freedom to avoid committing acts of total depravity. It is obvious that not every non-Christian is a serial killer or a child molesting Satan worshipper.”

norwester:

I think there is a misconception here. Calvinists hold that man has “total depravity” but that is not “utter depravity”. We do hold that man has some free will, but not total free will. Natural man can chose a lot of things, but with out God’s drawing grace, he cannot chose Christ. That is different from saying that he can never chose to do anything “good” …

The difference between total depravity and utter depravity-maybe that is a wrong choice of words. Let me try to make myself clearer. If you refer to the original quote I was discussing, it is about that all men who are not saved are not as absolutely bad as they could be. I see a confusion here. The idea is that human beings have NO free will. Calvinists do not hold that man has NO free will-that they are compelled to act as sinfully as they can in any given situation. We hold that man does not have TOTAL free will. That man can not respond to God apart from God’s drawing him. Actually, it would seem to me that we agree on this point. The point we would disagree is whether God’s drawing is always effectual.

Calvinists are indeed using the wrong choice of words if what they mean by total depravity isn’t total depravity. How about “semi-depravity”?

If all you are saying is that the non-Chrisian lacks the freedom to love perfectly because of the effects of the Fall, then the Catholic Church agrees with you. And certainly the Catholic Church teaches that we need grace to break the bonds of sin in which men are born so that we can love perfectly. The Catholic Church also agrees with you that the bondage to sin in which the non-Christian dwells is not such that the non-Christians “are compelled to act as sinfully as they can in any given situation.”

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

403** … the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted …

407 … By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free …

1739 Freedom and sin. Man’s freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God’s plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom.

1741 Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. “For freedom Christ has set us free.” In him we have communion with the “truth that makes us free.” The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” Already we glory in the “liberty of the children of God.”

 

[Matt16_18]

dts:

I think the language of Calvinism does lead to some of the problems you suggest.

Of course it does. If God foreordains something, it must come to pass. It is blasphemous heresy to assert that God foreordains EVERYTHING that comes to pass, the good as well as the evil. God is not the source and font of evil!

God did not foreordain that Adam and Eve would be disobedient to his commandment to not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God’s will cannot be in conflict with his will – God can’t will that Adam and Eve be obedient and disobedient at the same time.

God is omniscient - God had foreknowledge that Adam and Eve would be disobedient. There is a very great difference between asserting that God foreknew that Adam and Eve would be disobedient, and asserting that God foreordained that Adam and Eve would be disobedient.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

$$Thats just it though, would you even care about “giving all glory to God” if you knew He was sending you to hell and nothing you could do could stop it?$

** there is something that you can do to stop it-repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.** It isn’t as if there are all these people who desire God and are being turned away-the desire for God IS a sign of election in itself! Apart from God there is no desire for Him because we are fallen creatures.

It almost seems to me that you are afraid God will make some awful desicion and that it’s best left up to fallen man.

And really, I think some of you should at least make some attempt to try to understand Calvinism before you try to critique it!

Its not up to man to change his fate, you cant say to yourself “I want to be saved so I will repent”, if your non elect that will never come to pass. You can think your believing, but if your non elect then that faith is dead.