Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

[Tambora]

I have been on these forums long enough to realize most are authored by Calvinists and no one in disagreement with them has a prayer of participating; are excoriated.

Except at TOL.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have been on these forums long enough to realize most are authored by Calvinists and no one in disagreement with them has a prayer of participating; are excoriated.

What are "these forums"? TOL? Then you would be very mistaken. Or do you mean bible/theology discussion sites in general? If so, you need to back that assertion up with evidence or admit you mostly participate in forums run by Calvinists (which are very few on the internet when compared to the large numbers of said sites). As your statement stands, you have not made the case at all. Rather you are just making sweeping generalizations to appeal to the crowd.

AMR

 

[Crucible]

This was interesting:

And Calvinists are only allowed to use the forum by the thin hair of their chinny chin chin (for some don't consider them Christians, though we do share some core beliefs).

Calvinism is the crown jewel of Protestant doctrine- if a person doesn't consider it Christian, then one is either Catholic or so lost in an arbitrary mashup of conflicting notions and error that they don't know proper Christianity when they see it.

I never said anything bad of non-catholics until I realized the sheer stupidity of people going after the one communion that rebuked Christian heresy in the first place.

Why don't you stop acting like a hurt school girl and get on with it already- you're the one who chose the side you thought was superior and it came back on you. So deal with it, seriously. I've had enough with you all attacking the Reformed tradition as a means to get some back pats around here.

 

[Cross Reference]

@Nameless.In.Grace
Lots of word salad in that post of yours. We need to be more specific.

You have asked for scholarly vindication of your view. I am happy to oblige your request. So how about we review some things more specific?

Take this test...

Trinity:
https://challies.typeform.com/to/I1ntTT

How did you do?

Next, review the following:

Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second subsistence of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused. One can best understand this mystical union (together united in one distinguishable subsistence) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.

The mystical union of the divine and human natures of Our Lord is not:]

"Mystical union" with God is what the new birth from above is all about for the Christian who is and by divine-natural conception Jesus was, right AMR? Think about it the next you sin.

 

[Sonnet]

Calvinism is the crown jewel of Protestant doctrine- if a person doesn't consider it Christian, then one is either Catholic or so lost in an arbitrary mashup of conflicting notions and error that they don't know proper Christianity when they see it.

I never said anything bad of non-catholics until I realized the sheer stupidity of people going after the one communion that revolted heresy in the first place.

Why don't you stop acting like a hurt school girl and get on with it already- you're the one who chose the side you thought was superior and it came back on you. So deal with it, seriously. I've had enough with you all's ridiculous attitude on the Reformed tradition.

You might want to take this up with Tambora.

The fact that you are unable to actually deal with the OP would suggest your theology is untenable.

 

[Cross Reference]

Calvinism is the crown jewel of Protestant doctrine- if a person doesn't consider it Christian, then one is either Catholic or so lost in an arbitrary mashup of conflicting notions and error that they don't know proper Christianity when they see it.

Darn! And all along I thought there were other options open to us.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Why don't you stop acting like a hurt school girl and get on with it already- you're the one who chose the side you thought was superior and it came back on you.

The plain facts are that Sonnet denies the faith, admitting he is not a believer. That is his side and that alone should set the stage for anything he has to say.

Unfortunately, not a few think there is some sort of common ground between those that hate God (all unbelievers) and those that love God (all believers). Until one can get the non-believer to see how they are borrowing from the intellectual capital of the believer, there really isn't anything worth discussing. All their plaintive appeals related to what the Bible says or what God says, necessarily presumes God is. If God does not exist, per the claim of the non-believer, speaking about what God's special revelation (the BIble) has to say is quite pointless, for the only truths of the non-believer are relative truths, chimeras related to whatever locale or society from within which they are claimed.

If a person claims to not know who God is, then they are, in effect, claiming that they understand who God is and that he does not exist.

If the non-believer has both knowledge of God and a reason that God does not exist, then they believe a contradiction.

Clearly, the non-believer is lying to himself when he says that he has a reason to not believe in God, since if he had a reason to not believe in God, then he would be able to give his reason. But once he gives a reason why God does not exist, then the non-believer is giving a reason why a necessary being does not exist. But this is impossible, since a necessary being must exist.

In the final analysis, we see the irrationality of the non-believer’s position, which Paul drives home in Romans. In Romans 1:18-21, the Apostle’s language is abundantly clear. Writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul asserts all people “see” the glory of God reflected in the created order. All people “understand” its divine implications, and therefore “know” that the Creator exists (verses 19-20). In fact, Paul reinforces a form of the Greek word ginōskō (“to know” by personal experience)—in verse 19—“what may be known about God (to gnōston tou theon)—and again in verse 21—“For although they knew God” (gnontes ton theon). And in four other times, in the broader context of verses Romans 1:18-32, Paul mentions that human beings know God. The Greek here undeniably conveys the idea that all people have some authentic, objective, and accurate knowledge of God—although that understanding may be rudimentary in nature. Therefore, no one can legitimately claim the excuse I did not know that there was a God. Indeed, God has not left himself without a witness (see also Acts 14:17; 17:24-31).

All unbelief proceeds on the willful and sinful suppression of man’s innate knowledge of God (Rom. 1:18).

Lest I am to be misunderstood, I am not claiming we cannot, for the sake of argument, reason with the unbeliever on their own presuppositional grounds. But our aim should always be to show the absurdity of their worldview.

AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

What are "these forums"? TOL? Then you would be very mistaken. Or do you mean bible/theology discussion sites in general? If so, you need to back that assertion up with evidence or admit you mostly participate in forums run by Calvinists (which are very few on the internet when compared to the large numbers of said sites). As your statement stands, you have not made the case at all. Rather you are just making sweeping generalizations to appeal to the crowd.

AMR

That has been my experience for 15 yrs. TOL is has been the one exception to what I would consider the, rule. Creedish Calvinism I would consider the upper end of my experience; most radical.

 

[Cross Reference]

The plain facts are that Sonnet denies the faith, admitting he is not a believer. That is his side and that alone should set the stage for anything he has to say.

Unfortunately, not a few think there is some sort of common ground between those that hate God (all unbelievers) and those that love God (all believers). Until one can get the non-believer to see how they are borrowing from the intellectual capital of the believer, there really isn't anything worth discussing. All their plaintive appeals related to what the Bible says or what God says, necessarily presumes God is. If God does not exist, per the claim of the non-believer, speaking about what God's special revelation (the BIble) has to say is quite pointless, for the only truths of the non-believer are relative truths, chimeras related to whatever locale or society from within which they are claimed.

If a person claims to not know who God is, then they are, in effect, claiming that they understand who God is and that he does not exist.

If the non-believer has both knowledge of God and a reason that God does not exist, then they believe a contradiction.

Clearly, the non-believer is lying to himself when he says that he has a reason to not believe in God, since if he had a reason to not believe in God, then he would be able to give his reason. But once he gives a reason why God does not exist, then the non-believer is giving a reason why a necessary being does not exist. But this is impossible, since a necessary being must exist.

In the final analysis, we see the irrationality of the non-believer’s position, which Paul drives home in Romans. In Romans 1:18-21, the Apostle’s language is abundantly clear. Writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul asserts all people “see” the glory of God reflected in the created order. All people “understand” its divine implications, and therefore “know” that the Creator exists (verses 19-20). In fact, Paul reinforces a form of the Greek word ginōskō (“to know” by personal experience)—in verse 19—“what may be known about God (to gnōston tou theon)—and again in verse 21—“For although they knew God” (gnontes ton theon). And in four other times, in the broader context of verses Romans 1:18-32, Paul mentions that human beings know God. The Greek here undeniably conveys the idea that all people have some authentic, objective, and accurate knowledge of God—although that understanding may be rudimentary in nature. Therefore, no one can legitimately claim the excuse I did not know that there was a God. Indeed, God has not left himself without a witness (see also Acts 14:17; 17:24-31).

All unbelief proceeds on the willful and sinful suppression of man’s innate knowledge of God (Rom. 1:18).

Lest I am to be misunderstood, I am not claiming we cannot, for the sake of argument, reason with the unbeliever on their own presuppositional grounds. But our aim should always be to show the absurdity of their worldview.

AMR

Question: Why such strong language against one who makes more sense, has more insight than you do? I have never read him to say "God doesn't exist". Can you supply some quotes of his to support your assertion?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

"Mystical union" with God is what the new birth from above is all about for the Christian who is and by divine-natural conception Jesus was, right AMR? Think about it the next you sin.

Please try to refrain when you have no idea what is being discussed. It is embarrassing. The topic at hand in my post concerns the Incarnation, not regenerated man indwelt by the Holy Spirit in union with Our Lord. Let's try not to confuse NiG, the person to whom I was directly responding with these terrible rabbit holes of yours. :AMR:

The New Testament describes a Christian as someone who is in Christ. When Christ lived his perfect life on earth, that life was reckoned by God to be the believer's life—that is the truth of justification, which was explained in Romans 1–5. When Christ died, his death was reckoned by God to be the believer's death, so that God declares there is no longer any death for the believer to die as the penalty for their sin. This, too, is something that Paul told us in chapters 1–5. In the same way, when Christ rose from the dead, his resurrection was reckoned by God to be the believer's resurrection (Ephesians 2:5). In other words, the whole of the believer's salvation depends upon the fact of their union with Christ.

AMR

 

[Sonnet]

The plain facts are that Sonnet denies the faith, admitting he is not a believer. That is his side and that alone should set the stage for anything he has to say.

Unfortunately, not a few think there is some sort of common ground between those that hate God (all unbelievers) and those that love God (all believers). Until one can get the non-believer to see how they are borrowing from the intellectual capital of the believer, there really isn't anything worth discussing. All their plaintive appeals related to what the Bible says or what God says, necessarily presumes God is. If God does not exist, per the claim of the non-believer, speaking about what God's special revelation (the BIble) has to say is quite pointless, for the only truths of the non-believer are relative truths, chimeras related to whatever locale or society from within which they are claimed.

If a person claims to not know who God is, then they are, in effect, claiming that they understand who God is and that he does not exist.

If the non-believer has both knowledge of God and a reason that God does not exist, then they believe a contradiction.

Clearly, the non-believer is lying to himself when he says that he has a reason to not believe in God, since if he had a reason to not believe in God, then he would be able to give his reason. But once he gives a reason why God does not exist, then the non-believer is giving a reason why a necessary being does not exist. But this is impossible, since a necessary being must exist.

In the final analysis, we see the irrationality of the non-believer’s position, which Paul drives home in Romans. In Romans 1:18-21, the Apostle’s language is abundantly clear. Writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul asserts all people “see” the glory of God reflected in the created order. All people “understand” its divine implications, and therefore “know” that the Creator exists (verses 19-20). In fact, Paul reinforces a form of the Greek word ginōskō (“to know” by personal experience)—in verse 19—“what may be known about God (to gnōston tou theon)—and again in verse 21—“For although they knew God” (gnontes ton theon). And in four other times, in the broader context of verses Romans 1:18-32, Paul mentions that human beings know God. The Greek here undeniably conveys the idea that all people have some authentic, objective, and accurate knowledge of God—although that understanding may be rudimentary in nature. Therefore, no one can legitimately claim the excuse I did not know that there was a God. Indeed, God has not left himself without a witness (see also Acts 14:17; 17:24-31).

All unbelief proceeds on the willful and sinful suppression of man’s innate knowledge of God (Rom. 1:18).

Lest I am to be misunderstood, I am not claiming we cannot, for the sake of argument, reason with the unbeliever on their own presuppositional grounds. But our aim should always be to show the absurdity of their worldview.

AMR

Anything but deal with the OP which you cannot answer. Christians make the same arguments as I have regarding Romans 10 - just do a quick google.

It would appear that permission for you to post on ECT is by the skin of you chinny chin chin.

 

[Tambora]

Calvinism is the crown jewel of Protestant doctrine

Nope.

I've had enough with you all attacking the Reformed tradition as a means to get some back pats around here.

Wuss drama queen rant.
You know where the exit is.
We'll hand you a tissue on the way out.

 

[Crucible]

You might want to take this up with Tambora.

Tambora has no authority, and is just throwing around hearsay.

The fact that you are unable to actually deal with the OP would suggest your theology is untenable.

That's funny considering that I have vanquished it ten times over on here- you don't even understand Calvinism to be sitting here against it. At that, you aren't even a believer of Christianity- but watch these fools take your side if it serves their error_ It's not even really that they agree with you, only that you are going against Calvinism.

 

[Zeke]

Calvinism is the crown jewel of Protestant doctrine- if a person doesn't consider it Christian, then one is either Catholic or so lost in an arbitrary mashup of conflicting notions and error that they don't know proper Christianity when they see it.

I never said anything bad of non-catholics until I realized the sheer stupidity of people going after the one communion that rebuked Christian heresy in the first place.

Why don't you stop acting like a hurt school girl and get on with it already- you're the one who chose the side you thought was superior and it came back on you. So deal with it, seriously. I've had enough with you all attacking the Reformed tradition as a means to get some back pats around here.

Still kissing cousins with all theologies, that are outward based searches that dine on exclusion, mere talmudic nightmares stuck in a state of confusion concerning who and where I am exist.

 

[Sonnet]

That's funny considering that I have vanquished it ten times over on here-

No doubt you will furnish us all with the relevant post link. Are there 10?

you don't even understand Calvinism to be sitting here against it. At that, you aren't even a believer of Christianity- but watch these fools take your side if it serves their error_ It's not even really that they agree with you, only that you are going against Calvinism.

Mere assertion.

 

[Eagles Wings]

Tambora has no authority, and is just throwing around hearsay.

That's funny considering that I have vanquished it ten times over on here- you don't even understand Calvinism to be sitting here against it. At that, you aren't even a believer of Christianity- but watch these fools take your side if it serves their error_ It's not even really that they agree with you, only that you are going against Calvinism.

Fools is right!

 

[Cross Reference]

Please try to refrain when you have no idea what is being discussed. It is embarrassing. The topic at hand in my post concerns the Incarnation, not regenerated man indwelt by the Holy Spirit in union with Our Lord. Let's try not to confuse NiG, the person to whom I was directly responding with these terrible rabbit holes of yours. :AMR:

The New Testament describes a Christian as someone who is in Christ. When Christ lived his perfect life on earth, that life was reckoned by God to be the believer's life—that is the truth of justification, which was explained in Romans 1–5. When Christ died, his death was reckoned by God to be the believer's death, so that God declares there is no longer any death for the believer to die as the penalty for their sin. This, too, is something that Paul told us in chapters 1–5. In the same way, when Christ rose from the dead, his resurrection was reckoned by God to be the believer's resurrection (Ephesians 2:5). In other words, the whole of the believer's salvation depends upon the fact of their union with Christ.

AMR

I beg your pardon!! That which is projected to me by the indwelling of the very Word of God that indwelt Him is for me to be in union with the Father is as He was in His human flesh. If you knew your Bible, as you boast, you would read that in the scriptures. That is SALVATION and the only way John 17:3 can be performed. . .i.e., eternal everlasting life is wrapped up in that persuasion.

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." John 17:20-23 (KJV)

Get over it AMR.
.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That has been my experience for 15 yrs. TOL is has been the one exception to what I would consider the, rule. Creedish Calvinism I would consider the upper end of my experience; most radical.

I see. No real answer. Opinion sans evidence. My point is made bolstered by my nearly thirty years experience on electronic communications venues. Want to avoid all the treatment you apparently have received at the hands of meany Calvinists? Stay away from Calvinist-run sites, few that exist. Problem solved. Your problem seems to be an eristic bent so you plunge ahead where even fools fear to tread, then complain about it afterwards. Sigh.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I beg your pardon!! Which is projected to me by the indwelling of the very Word of God that indwelt Him for me to be in union with the Father as He was in His human flesh. If you knew your Bible, as you boast, you would read that in the scriptures. That is SALVATION and the only way John 17:3 can be performed. . .i.e., eternal everlasting life is wrapped up in that persuasion..

Like I said. This is embarrassing. Stop trying to paint an analogy between the Incarnation of Our Lord and man's regeneration. It will not do and only speaks to your moonbeam theological views.

AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...C4E60A384DE6E535A803C4E60A384DE6E&FORM=VRDGAR