Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Because this is what you are willfully dismissing as heresy and for your untoward religious reasoning, do not take into your thinking, i.e, the nature of the regenerated life is exampled in the life of the earth bound Jesus Christ
Like I said several times now, this is not even the topic I am trying to discuss with NiG (now: WrathAndRdmpt.NIG). Start another thread on regeneration if this is something you want to discuss and perhaps others will be inclined to participate.

The same questions I posted are there for the answering yourself, too, if you want to stay on topic:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-reprobation&p=4750928&viewfull=1#post4750928

AMR
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'm not going to take the test. What I will do is subject myself to biblical scrutiny through personal exposition and evaluation through scriptural references.

Please take the test. It offers the Scriptural support for the correct answers. Your hesitancy is worrisome. You want vindication, you asked, no pleaded for it in the Woodshed. I am answering your request. Extend me the courtesy of pressing onward. Why make this a line in the sand? In fact, your answers to the test and the answers given therein will be fruit for further discussion should you disagree with the answers and Scripture given in support.

When it comes to examining another's views in detail that have been called into question in hopes of vindicating these views or denouncing them, nearly invariably the party in question will appeal to not wanting to follow "the words of men", preferring instead some Just Me and My Bible argument. This tactic ignores the plain fact that one's very statement of what one believes is a view of a man, no matter how they would couch it behind "this is what the bible says". Such a move ignores the plain fact that others that have come before them are indwelt by that very same Spirit they themselves will claim, so ignoring what others that have been gifted by God have to say is chronological snobbery.

Let's not be afraid to stand on the backs of Godly men speaking for the church in the days when our faith was being attacked by all manner of heresy. Scripture teaches us to confess that which we hold dear according to the patterns of sound teachings contained in Scripture. We need not reinvent every doctrine that has been carefully explicated from Scripture and withstood attack for centuries each time the topic arises. The church miltant's creeds and confessions have warrant within Scripture, so trying to wave them off is acually denying the appealed to Just Me and My Bible view one would mount to the contrary.

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


Did you type this from heart, or is it a reformed theology quote?

Not a Reformed theology quote, but my own simple statement of the doctrine of the Trinity that no believer should have a problem affirming. Feel free to affirm it without taking scruples. It is the scruples that get folks into trouble, for they go off separating the two natures, or dividing them, mixing them, or confusing them and wind up in the many heresies I listed in my original post.


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.


Again, is this from heart, or is it a reformed theology quote?

Not a Reformed theology quote, but my own statement, via negativa (apopathic analysis) relying upon the caveats to not separate, divide, mix, or confuse the divine and human natures of Our Resurrected Lord, is how the faithful are to examine God the Son's assumption of a human nature in the Incarnation.

Liberally seasoning your responses with obliquely negative references to Reformed theological views is not related to the topic of the Triune Godhead. Nothing in what I have posted is particular to Reformed orthodoxy alone. Rather the content I offered is what all of orthodox Christendom declares as the faithful teachings of Scripture. If you have a problem with Reformed and/or Calvinistic views, that is the topic of another thread. You have made your concern public, but it is quite irrelevant to the doctrine of the Trinity held by all orthodox Protestants and even Romanists.

Your calls for more exposition of this or that, claiming vagueness, seems to indicate a lack of depth on the topic, for nothing in my post is beyond those that are informed on the matter of the Triune Godhead.

How about this:


The sixteen hundred year old Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as the most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century. The denunciations contained in the Definition form the basis of my original post wherein I have extracted them for ease of reading and identified the many heresies that arise from denying the things therein.

If you are having problems with my original post, review the Chalcedonian Definition and state your agreements or disagreements.

Here is a little cheat sheet to help you out as you read:
Spoiler

Council of Chalcedon - 451 A.D

Therefore, following the holy fathers,

"Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith, follow, considering the outcome of their conduct." Hebrews 13:7 (NKJV)

we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,

"These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers." Acts 1:14 (NKJV)
"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."Ephesians 4:4-6 (NKJV)

at once complete in Godhead

“looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," Titus 2:13 (NKJV)
“No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” John 1:18 (NKJV)
“But to the Son He says:“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.” Hebrews 1:8 (NKJV)
"Now when He said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground.” John 18:6 (NKJV) [note: He in the original Greek used here is the ‘unspoken name of God used in the old testament] “I and My Father are one." John 10:30 (NKJV)
"Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:16 (NKJV) "Then Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he answered and said, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’" Acts 8:37 (NKJV)

and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man,

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14 (NKJV) “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.” John 3:13 (NKJV)

consisting also of a reasonable soul and body;

“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;” Colossians 2:9 (NKJV)

of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead,

“who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,” Hebrews 1:3 (NKJV)

and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin;

"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." -Hebrews 4:15 (NKJV)

as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages,

“And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” John 17:5 (NKJV)

but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer;

“Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Luke 1:34- 35 (KJV)
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Matthew 1:18 (KJV) “But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,” Galatians 4:4 (NKJV)

one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ;

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1 (NKJV) "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hebrews 13:8 (NKJV)

even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ
himself taught us,

"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets," - Hebrews 1:1 (NKJV)

and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

"Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus." 2 Timothy 1:13 (NKJV)
"But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." 2 Timothy 3:14-15 (NKJV)

NOTE- The Council of Nicaea defined the Biblical doctrine for the Trinity by focusing on the identity of Jesus, but it was not within the scope of the council to define Jesus’ humanity and the relation of the two natures to each other. The Trinitarian doctrine had significant implications for Christology that was addressed at Chalcedon in 451 A.D. The council wrestled with how one person, Jesus, could have two natures. If Jesus is the same homoousios with the Father and is God, this must be reconciled with Jesus’ clear humanity as evidenced in the Gospels. Chalcedon was directed at the Nestorian and Eutychean heresies, which concurred with the Nicene Creed but worked out Jesus’ deity in false relation to His humanity. Nestorianism’s error was the failure to unite the two natures in one person. Each nature represented separate persons somehow possessed by the man Jesus. The other heresy, Eutycheanism, drew the opposite conclusion. In this case, the human nature was subsumed by the divine nature making a hybrid and unique kind of nature. The solution at Chalcedon was to strike a Scriptural balance. The solution sought at Chalcedon affirmed the unity of Jesus’ person and the duality of His natures, and His identity with the divine substance. Four factors need to be balanced for an accurate understanding of Jesus: deity, humanity, the unity of one person, and the distinction of the two natures. This has been called “the Chalcedonian box” that defines the boundaries of orthodoxy and within which the answer must be found. The Chalcedonian creed falls short of plumbing the depths of the full implications of this doctrine, but it lays out the essential elements of Christology and defines the boundaries of error. Shedd underscored the importance of Chalcedon, “It substantially completes the orthodox Christology of the ancient Church.” (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom , vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998, 38-39).

In summary; in A.D. 451, as a response to the monophysitism supported by the Robber Council of A.D. 449, the Emperor Marcian convoked the Council of Chalcedon. In dealing with this heresy the Council of Chalcedon set forth a new creed in which all the Christological heresies were addressed. It argued against the Docetist that Christ was "perfect in manness," against Paul of Samosata that the Logos was 'begotten of the Father before the ages' and had a "personal subsistence," against the Sabellians that the Son and the Father are distinct persons, against the Arians that the Lord was "perfect deity, truly God, and consubstantial with the Father," against Apollinarius "that Jesus had a rational soul that is a spirit," against Nestorius that Mary was theotokos, and Christ is one divine person "not parted or divided" and "whose natures are in union," and against the Eutychians that "in Christ were two natures without confusion and without change, the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one person." Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 608-9.


AMR
 
Last edited:

Cross Reference

New member
N.I.G., Don't be 'sucked in' by AMR's self-acceptance of the creeds as canon doctrine he has learnd at the feet of 'conjectured reasoning' to support his elitism. There is nothing definitive about him except his own incomplete 'salvic understanding' he has encapsulated in his mind that he foolishly protects because he believes it protects him... A semblance without substance life, at best.
 
Last edited:

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
N.I.G., Don't be 'sucked in' by AMR's self-acceptance of the creeds as canon doctrine he has learnd at the feet of 'conjectured reasoning' to support his elitism. There is nothing definitive about him except his own incomplete 'salvic understanding' he has encapsulated into his mind that he foolishly protects because he believes it protects him... A semblance without substance life, at best.

You have already denied the very doctrine he and I are discussing, so why would anyone want to take your view under consideration?

AMR
 

Cross Reference

New member

You have already denied the very doctrine he and I are discussing, so why would anyone want to take your view under consideration?

AMR

Because you are of a religion with nothing objective about you. Show where I have denied what you accuse me of without using subjective reasoning?
 
Last edited:

Sonnet

New member
Please take the test. It offers the Scriptural support for the correct answers. Your hesitancy is worrisome. You want vindication, you asked, no pleaded for it in the Woodshed. I am answering your request. Extend me the courtesy of pressing onward. Why make this a line in the sand? In fact, your answers to the test and the answers given therein will be fruit for further discussion should you disagree with the answers and Scripture given in support.

When it comes to examining another's views in detail that have been called into question in hopes of vindicating these views or denouncing them, nearly invariably the party in question will appeal to not wanting to follow "the words of men", preferring instead some Just Me and My Bible argument. This tactic ignores the plain fact that one's very statement of what one believes is a view of a man, no matter how they would couch it behind "this is what the bible says". Such a move ignores the plain fact that others that have come before them are indwelt by that very same Spirit they themselves will claim, so ignoring what others that have been gifted by God have to say is chronological snobbery.

Let's not be afraid to stand on the backs of Godly men speaking for the church in the days when our faith was being attacked by all manner of heresy. Scripture teaches us to confess that which we hold dear according to the patterns of sound teachings contained in Scripture. We need not reinvent every doctrine that has been carefully explicated from Scripture and withstood attack for centuries each time the topic arises. The church miltant's creeds and confessions have warrant within Scripture, so trying to wave them off is acually denying the appealed to Just Me and My Bible view one would mount to the contrary.



Not a Reformed theology quote, but my own simple statement of the doctrine of the Trinity that no believer should have a problem affirming. Feel free to affirm it without taking scruples. It is the scruples that get folks into trouble, for they go off separating the two natures, or dividing them, mixing them, or confusing them and wind up in the many heresies I listed in my original post.



Not a Reformed theology quote, but my own statement, via negativa (apopathic analysis) relying upon the caveats to not separate, divide, mix, or confuse the divine and human natures of Our Resurrected Lord, is how the faithful are to examine God the Son's assumption of a human nature in the Incarnation.

Liberally seasoning your responses with obliquely negative references to Reformed theological views is not related to the topic of the Triune Godhead. Nothing in what I have posted is particular to Reformed orthodoxy alone. Rather the content I offered is what all of orthodox Christendom declares as the faithful teachings of Scripture. If you have a problem with Reformed and/or Calvinistic views, that is the topic of another thread. You have made your concern public, but it is quite irrelevant to the doctrine of the Trinity held by all orthodox Protestants and even Romanists.

Your calls for more exposition of this or that, claiming vagueness, seems to indicate a lack of depth on the topic, for nothing in my post is beyond those that are informed on the matter of the Triune Godhead.

How about this:


The sixteen hundred year old Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as the most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century. The denunciations contained in the Definition form the basis of my original post wherein I have extracted them for ease of reading and identified the many heresies that arise from denying the things therein.

If you are having problems with my original post, review the Chalcedonian Definition and state your agreements or disagreements.

Here is a little cheat sheet to help you out as you read:
Spoiler

Council of Chalcedon - 451 A.D

Therefore, following the holy fathers,

"Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith, follow, considering the outcome of their conduct." Hebrews 13:7 (NKJV)

we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,

"These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers." Acts 1:14 (NKJV)
"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."Ephesians 4:4-6 (NKJV)

at once complete in Godhead

“looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," Titus 2:13 (NKJV)
“No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” John 1:18 (NKJV)
“But to the Son He says:“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.” Hebrews 1:8 (NKJV)
"Now when He said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground.” John 18:6 (NKJV) [note: He in the original Greek used here is the ‘unspoken name of God used in the old testament] “I and My Father are one." John 10:30 (NKJV)
"Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:16 (NKJV) "Then Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he answered and said, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’" Acts 8:37 (NKJV)

and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man,

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14 (NKJV) “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.” John 3:13 (NKJV)

consisting also of a reasonable soul and body;

“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;” Colossians 2:9 (NKJV)

of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead,

“who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,” Hebrews 1:3 (NKJV)

and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin;

"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." -Hebrews 4:15 (NKJV)

as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages,

“And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” John 17:5 (NKJV)

but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer;

“Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Luke 1:34- 35 (KJV)
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Matthew 1:18 (KJV) “But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,” Galatians 4:4 (NKJV)

one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ;

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1 (NKJV) "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hebrews 13:8 (NKJV)

even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ
himself taught us,

"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets," - Hebrews 1:1 (NKJV)

and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

"Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus." 2 Timothy 1:13 (NKJV)
"But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." 2 Timothy 3:14-15 (NKJV)

NOTE- The Council of Nicaea defined the Biblical doctrine for the Trinity by focusing on the identity of Jesus, but it was not within the scope of the council to define Jesus’ humanity and the relation of the two natures to each other. The Trinitarian doctrine had significant implications for Christology that was addressed at Chalcedon in 451 A.D. The council wrestled with how one person, Jesus, could have two natures. If Jesus is the same homoousios with the Father and is God, this must be reconciled with Jesus’ clear humanity as evidenced in the Gospels. Chalcedon was directed at the Nestorian and Eutychean heresies, which concurred with the Nicene Creed but worked out Jesus’ deity in false relation to His humanity. Nestorianism’s error was the failure to unite the two natures in one person. Each nature represented separate persons somehow possessed by the man Jesus. The other heresy, Eutycheanism, drew the opposite conclusion. In this case, the human nature was subsumed by the divine nature making a hybrid and unique kind of nature. The solution at Chalcedon was to strike a Scriptural balance. The solution sought at Chalcedon affirmed the unity of Jesus’ person and the duality of His natures, and His identity with the divine substance. Four factors need to be balanced for an accurate understanding of Jesus: deity, humanity, the unity of one person, and the distinction of the two natures. This has been called “the Chalcedonian box” that defines the boundaries of orthodoxy and within which the answer must be found. The Chalcedonian creed falls short of plumbing the depths of the full implications of this doctrine, but it lays out the essential elements of Christology and defines the boundaries of error. Shedd underscored the importance of Chalcedon, “It substantially completes the orthodox Christology of the ancient Church.” (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom , vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998, 38-39).

In summary; in A.D. 451, as a response to the monophysitism supported by the Robber Council of A.D. 449, the Emperor Marcian convoked the Council of Chalcedon. In dealing with this heresy the Council of Chalcedon set forth a new creed in which all the Christological heresies were addressed. It argued against the Docetist that Christ was "perfect in manness," against Paul of Samosata that the Logos was 'begotten of the Father before the ages' and had a "personal subsistence," against the Sabellians that the Son and the Father are distinct persons, against the Arians that the Lord was "perfect deity, truly God, and consubstantial with the Father," against Apollinarius "that Jesus had a rational soul that is a spirit," against Nestorius that Mary was theotokos, and Christ is one divine person "not parted or divided" and "whose natures are in union," and against the Eutychians that "in Christ were two natures without confusion and without change, the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one person." Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 608-9.


AMR

How would you say that this relates to the op?
 

Lon

Well-known member
Ok - can anyone explain to me how this discussion about the trinity relates to the OP?
Goes back to here
and a concern for you to know God, so you can love Him. There is an important connection to Christ and the narrow Way and it perhaps supersedes the specific concern you are interested in. How can we be saved without a knowledge of salvation and who provides? See the latter part of Romans 10 to further see how this relates to the thread -Lon
 

Sonnet

New member
Goes back to here
and a concern for you to know God, so you can love Him. There is an important connection to Christ and the narrow Way and it perhaps supersedes the specific concern you are interested in. How can we be saved without a knowledge of salvation and who provides? See the latter part of Romans 10 to further see how this relates to the thread -Lon

But I was asking how the intricacies of the definition of the trinity relates directly to the thread. You are talking about something else Lon. My faith or otherwise isn't the theme of the thread.
 

Cross Reference

New member
Goes back to here
and a concern for you to know God, so you can love Him. There is an important connection to Christ and the narrow Way and it perhaps supersedes the specific concern you are interested in. How can we be saved without a knowledge of salvation and who provides? See the latter part of Romans 10 to further see how this relates to the thread -Lon

Why does anyone need knowledge of salvation if they have knowledge of God and have been living a life acceptable to Him, i.e., by faith? Would they not have been included when Jesus made peace with God that would have inputed His righteousness to them?
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Catholic-Trinity-Illustration.jpg
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How would you say that this relates to the op?
Keep up. The discussion in question I have entered is between me and one other member that does not happen to be yourself. It is not all about you.:beanboy:

AMR
 
Top