Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

[Nang]

Absolutely! But watch how they/AMR&co. spin it to excude Christians.

Hebrews 6 & 10 does exclude regenerated Christians. Hebrews 10:37-39

The only permanent repentance and faith existent on this earth, is granted by God to His Elect people in the miracle of regeneration.

Regeneration precedes faith.

Never truly been raised from death to life by the power of the Holy Spirit? These warnings apply.

The churches are full of such hypocrites . . . tares amongst the wheat. . .

 

[TulipBee]

Regeneration and the exercise of faith are simultaneous.

 

[Sonnet]

This is related to the calling out of a people, the Jews, to be a witness to the One True God. This has nothing to do with salvific regeneration.

You have decided that verse 27 and following has nothing to do with the previous verses about regeneration?

Verses 10-12;24-26
and I will cause many people to live on you—yes, all of Israel. The towns will be inhabited and the ruins rebuilt. I will increase the number of people and animals living on you, and they will be fruitful and become numerous. I will settle people on you as in the past and will make you prosper more than before. Then you will know that I am the Lord. I will cause people, my people Israel, to live on you. They will possess you, and you will be their inheritance; you will never again deprive them of their children.

“ ‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

Verses 37-38
“This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Once again I will yield to Israel’s plea and do this for them: I will make their people as numerous as sheep, as numerous as the flocks for offerings at Jerusalem during her appointed festivals. So will the ruined cities be filled with flocks of people. Then they will know that I am the Lord.”

Clearly the regeneration, which though it is done for the sake of God's holy name, does follow Israel's plea and my be interpreted as faith on their part.

Re-read my response as relates to what saving faith comprises: trust, knowledge, assent. If you want to claim prevenient grace exists in fallen man, then you are taking sides with the Romanist and the Arminians who claim libertarian free will and therefore prevenient grace. I have provided much in writing that examines these views and why they are not sustainable from Scripture. If you are unable to grant the plain fact that all fallen in Adam possess no moral ability to choose wisely (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph, 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14) until God quickens them from their state of spiritual death, the discussion will go in circles. Fallen man can only sin more or sin less, not able to not sin. All are born sinners and sin because they are sinners. They are not sinners because they sin and were somehow morally neutral before they sinned.

See also:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...med-Theology&p=4661173&viewfull=1#post4661173

AMR[/FONT]

Along with Arminius I don't dispute that scripture does indeed teach original sin - but since you deny that God acts on all men in order that they might be saved, but rather only on the so called elect, then you are, de facto, asserting that some are born without any hope or recourse to be saved.

Perhaps you could provide - for any unbelievers that might be reading your words - a 'good news' response to that last sentence?

 

[Sonnet]

This makes God to be a debtor to the decisions of His creatures

You haven't actual made an argument that proves this.

Persons can exercise genuine freedom in their choices, that is to choose according to their greatest inclinations, but even when doing so there are still causal conditions (e.g., character, experiences, circumstances, etc.) which decisively incline the will to respond a certain way without indeed constraining it. The causal conditions are sufficiently strong to get the person to choose a certain option such that there are now some guarantees how the individual will freely respond, yet the person was acting according to their own wishes or desires, i.e. “without constraint[/u].” This is also known as consequent necessity. Let me explain this last part with an example:

Necessity of a hypothetical inference...
If God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter cannot refrain from sinning. (Incorrect)

The interpretation above wrongly interprets God's foreknowledge as impinging upon Peter's moral free agency. The proper understanding is:

The necessity of the consequent of the hypothetical...
Necessarily, if God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter does not refrain from sinning. (Correct)

In other words, the actions of moral free agents do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place.

As for sinful acts, while God decrees the circumstances in which we let ourselves become tempted and fall into sin, God neither tempts us nor empowers us to do evil, nor does God’s decree. Like everything we do, we do these acts in concert with our desires, and thus we do them freely (in the compatibilist sense), and what one does freely is something for which one is culpable.

AMR

Please see last sentence of previous post.

 

[Cross Reference]

Hebrews 6 & 10 does exclude regenerated Christians. Hebrews 10:37-39

The only permanent repentance and faith existent on this earth, is granted by God to His Elect people in the miracle of regeneration.

Regeneration precedes faith.

Never truly been raised from death to life by the power of the Holy Spirit? These warnings apply.

The churches are full of such hypocrites . . . tares amongst the wheat. . .

Try reading the whole of what Paul wrote for understanding against what you espouse:

"For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance. Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." Hebrews 10:34-39 (KJV)

If you can't 'see' your error it is because you don't want to 'see' it; you are content in your willful ignorance. But then, that is your choice, isn't it.

 

[Cross Reference]

You haven't actual made an argument that proves this.



Please see last sentence of previous post.

AMR & Co, makes understanding how Calvinism is a bane to all of Christendom, easy.

 

[Sonnet]

From Scripture we find the following abilities possess by all mankind:

Pre-fall -- able to not sin -- able to sin
Post-fall-- able to sin -- not able to not sin
Regenerate-- able to sin -- able to not sin
Glorified-- not able to sin -- able to not sin

Post-fall-- able to sin -- not able to not sin.

This leaves the so called non-elect without recourse to salvation. There is no good news for them. They were born in such a state - their inherited original sin ensured it.

This is unconscionable isn't it?

 

[Cross Reference]

Pre-fall -- able to not sin -- able to sin

Questions for AMR:

1. What did God present to Adam that heavily influenced his soul in a contrary way, that is still with us today?

2. What was the penalty for his allowing that contrary way, as it is spelled out in the scriptures, to be in that moment, his god?

3. Using but the scriptures, What part could Jesus, by His death and resurrection, only effect in the rectification of the issue surounding man's relationship with God that man lost by Adam's failure? In other words, what did man lose that only Jesus could rectify?

4. What part was left intact in man Jesus' death was purposed not to effect; no need to effect?

5. Again, using only the word of God, what is the difference between regeneration and being born again?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

But we can't ignore the context of Romans 10:9. Paul explicitly states the reason for their (his kinsmen's) unsaved state - that they sought to establish their own righteousness. What he does not do - but could have done if it were the case - is affirm election/reprobation. On the contrary, he actually emphasises the notion that all may saved by quoting from Deuteronomy 30. Moses says there (vv. 11-20):...

Deut. 30:11 is a favorite of those claiming free will, in the libertarian sense, is being taught in the verse and what follows, arguing that Moses here declares the precepts of the Law not to be above our reach. This is a classic error of reading presuppositions into the text. Does Moses state that the keeping of the precepts of the law is within the compass of our strength? No. The words convey nothing of the sort; neither can this sense be elicited from them, if his intention be duly weighed.

Moses merely encourages the Jews, and commands them to be diligent disciples of the Law, because they will easily understand whatever is enjoined by God therein. But the power of performance is a very different thing from understanding. Further, Paul, with very good reason, accommodates this passage to the Gospel, (Romans 10:8) because it would profit nothing to comprehend the doctrine itself in the mind, unless reverence and a serious disposition to obey be superadded. Paul takes it for granted, that to have a good will is so far from being in our own power, that we are not even competent to think correctly. It therefore follows, that what is here stated by Paul falls to the ground as frivolous, and spoken to no purpose, if it be applied simply to the Law.

Paul also considers another thing; that because the Law requires a perfect righteousness, it cannot be received by any man fruitfully; for however any man may study to obey God, yet he will still be far from perfection; and, therefore, it is necessary to come to the Gospel, wherein that rigorous requirement is relaxed, because, through the interposition of pardon, the will to obey is pleasing to God instead of perfect obedience. For Paul insists in the later verse, "The word is nigh in the mouth, and in the heart, that the people may do it."

It is clear from Scripture that men's hearts are strongly and obstinately opposed to the Law; and that in the Law itself is contained only a dead and deadly letter; how then could the literal doctrine have a place in the heart? Yet if God, by the Spirit of regeneration, corrects the depravity of the heart and softens its hardness, this is not the property of the Law, but of the Gospel.

Because in the children of God, even after they are regenerated, there will always abide the remainders of carnal desires, no person will be found who can perform the Law. But in the Gospel God receives, with fatherly indulgence, what is not absolutely perfect. Therefore the word of God does not begin to penetrate into the heart, and to produce its proper fruit in the lips, until Christ shines upon us with His Spirit and gratuitous pardon. Accordingly, Paul most rightly concludes that this is the word of faith which is preached in the Gospel; both because the Law does not efficaciously lead men to God, and because the keeping of it is impossible, on account of its extreme rigor. Yet this is the peculiar blessing of the new covenant, that the Law is written on men's hearts, and engraved on their inward parts; while that severe requirement of perfect obedience is relaxed, so that the vices under which believers still labor are no fatal obstacle to their partial and imperfect obedience being pleasant to God.

In the passage from Deuteronomy in question, Moses provides a solemn injunction, similar to the foregoing ones, that the Israelites should consider how inestimable a blessing it was that God should have condescended to deposit His Law with them; and that if they did not receive it with reverence, the punishments for such foul ingratitude would be by no means light. For, in order to deprive them of the pretext of error, He separates them from the heathen nations, which through ignorance of the right way vacillated, as in uncertainty, between life and death. The passage is about Israel's special calling out to keep that which was deposited with them. The passage is not about libertarian free will.

Regarding Romans 8:28-30 - the predestination is in being conformed to the image of Christ - just as Paul says in Ephesians 1:4-5 ('adoption to sonship'). It's those 'foreknown' (different word to predestined - and we know Paul wouldn't engage in tautology) that are predestined to such conforming. Those predestined, called, justified and glorified are those foreknown.

Nothing precludes inferring that those foreknown are those God has always known (outside of time of course) would exercise faith.

Romans 11:7 - would be a reference to those reserved in v.4 and it explicitly states that they would not bow the knee to Baal.

Eph. 1:10-11 - the predestination is stated in v.5 - adoption to sonship, and it's 'us in him' who are thus predestined.

2 Thess. 2:13-14 - 'saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.'

2 Cor. 3:3,6 - not sure why you have cited these scriptures.

See:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?118289-Rebuttal-of-the-dreadful-doctrine-of-reprobation&p=4760969&viewfull=1#post4760969

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?118289-Rebuttal-of-the-dreadful-doctrine-of-reprobation&p=4760984&viewfull=1#post4760984

Don't know why you cite the first and last. The Corinthians one is a message for the mature in Christ.

Acts 26:18, 1 Cor. 2:10,12, and Eph. 1:17-18 speak to the enlightening of the minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God by those regenerated. See exposition of the section of the WCF that I have quoted to which you are responding here.

37 “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Once again I will yield to Israel’s plea and do this for them: I will make their people as numerous as sheep, 38 as numerous as the flocks for offerings at Jerusalem during her appointed festivals. So will the ruined cities be filled with flocks of people. Then they will know that I am the Lord.”

Try not to confuse prophecy (Ezekiel) with history (Deuteronomy). You cannot grab up verses here and there and cobble them together to make an argument unless you have considered the genres and contexts. And why run all the way to the NIV for Eze. 36:37? Again this is not related to libertarian free will at all. It is about a called out people in the prophecy of Ezekiel: the Israel of God.

Eph. 1:19 - why have you cited this?

The effectual drawing of the saints to Jesus Christ is done by the power of God alone, said power the very reason that the saints will believe. As in John 6:44-45, those that believe have had their minds opened to know, assent, and trust; learned from that power. Again see exposition of the section of the WCF that I have quoted to which you are responding here.

Certainly we must come freely.

We do. When we are called. Those so called come of their own liberty of spontaneity, their free will. Those not called will never come, for their freedom is but freedom to sin more or sin less.

Judas was told by Jesus:

Matthew 13:10-17
The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Note:
Matthew 13:12 "...but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath."

Indeed it frequently happens that the reprobate (Judas) are endued with eminent gifts, even gifts granted by God for His own purposes, and appear to resemble the children of God: but there is nothing of real value about them; for their mind is destitute of piety, and has only the glitter of an empty show. Matthew is therefore justified in saying that they have nothing; for what they have is of no value in the sight of God, and has no permanency within. All who have been given over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28) do voluntarily, and from inward malice, blind and harden themselves. All whom God does not enlighten with the Spirit of adoption are men of unsound mind; and that, while they are more and more blinded by the word of God, the blame rests wholly on themselves, because this blindness is voluntary

In Matthew 13:16 Our Lord does not mean any kind of hearing, or the mere beholding of the flesh, but pronounces their eyes to be blessed, because they perceive in Him a glory which is worthy of the only-begotten Son of God, so as to acknowledge Him as the Redeemer. They perceive shining in Him the lively image of God, by which they obtain salvation and perfect happiness and because in them is fulfilled what had been spoken by the Prophets, that those who have been truly and perfectly taught by the Lord (Isaiah 54:13) do not need to learn every man from his neighbor (Jeremiah 31:34).

That the passage relates to the parable of the sower is instructive here, for Judas, if he was present, would be spoken about in the parable (all the outward trappings of faith that never takes root).

Your fundamental issue is that you assume whatever our Lord commands in Scripture necessarily implies man possesses the power to do of his own accord. Ought does not imply can. See here.

I think Stephen is referring to the leaders: 'Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute?'

Acts 7:54 is directed to the audience, primarily composed of leaders, but why is this an issue? The point is that the unregenerate hates God and gnashes his teeth at Him if always, if and until regenerated.

But you haven't proven that the Holy Spirit, which you admit is resisted and so does act on all, cannot synergistically lead to faith.

The Holy Spirit is often resisted, by believers and unbelievers alike. Hence the word full of the deeds of evil done by both groups in which we live. The common grace bestowed upon everyone serves to restrain evil, else all our streets would be running with blood. This is not efficacious saving grace, however, which cannot be resisted and is such that when bestowed changes the unbeliever into a free willing believer.

As I have noted here, if you will never be open to seeing the moral inability of all those lost in Adam, then we will have little to discuss. It is fundamental doctrine and departure from it is the stuff of present day Romanism and Arminianism.

Yep - but if faith is morally neutral then we need not be concerned about having to be good in order to do so (have faith).

If I have ever implied that faith is morally neutral then I beg forgiveness for my poor communication skills. Nothing can be further from the truth. Faith is not morally neutral, for it is a moral agent (one bestowed with that sense of oughtness) that willingly chooses to believe.

That verse, in mentioning the resurrection, is directly linked with Christ's crucifixion which scripture explicitly states was for all men.

1 John 2:2, John 1:29, John 3:14-16, Hebrews 2:9, 1 Timothy 2:4-6, Titus 2:11

The appeal to the "all" or the "world" verses absent context and full counsel of Scripture is a rookie mistake. These worlds only mean literally each and every person only to those who desperately want them to mean this:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?115269-The-True-Gospel-of-Jesus-Christ-and-the-False-Gospel-of-John-Calvin&p=4568222&viewfull=1#post4568222

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Please explain why you accept that notion as scriptural and not mere attempt at wording to death another convoluted idea?

Scripture would disagree with you.

What is faith in Jesus Christ?

A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation as he is offered to us in the gospel.
(Q. 86 Westminster Shorter Catechism)

What is true faith?

A. True faith is not only a knowledge and conviction that everything God reveals in His Word is true; it is also a deep-rooted assurance, created in me by the Holy Spirit through the gospel that, out of sheer grace earned for us by Christ, not only others, but I too, have had my sins forgiven, have been made forever right with God, and have been granted salvation. (Q. 21 The Heidelberg Catechism)

Saving faith requires knowledge, assent, and trust.

Knowledge, a cognitive function, is the foundation of saving faith. Men must “love the truth in order that they may be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10). “Faith” that is devoid of knowledge is “believing the lie” that ultimately condemns (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12).

Certainly, a person does not need to be a highly trained theologian to be saved. The Holy Spirit draws both adults and young children to a saving knowledge of Christ. Yet when children are converted to Christ, they may not know every nuance of the faith, or even a detailed understanding of the atonement—merely that Christ died for our sins. However, I believe it would be true to say that a truly saved person, although they may not be able to articulate the content of the Gospel at length, will not reject it when they do hear it. I believe that's a very important point to make. Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish.” (John 10: 27, 28) Christ's true sheep instinctively know the Shepherd's voice and follow Him. The regenerate person humbly submits to the faithful teaching of Scripture when hearing it (Scripture being the Shepherd's voice), unlike those who are still in the flesh who remain completely incapable of doing so (Romans 8:7, 8).

Assent cognitively provides the conviction that the knowledge so acquired about Christ is indeed true and one’s spiritual needs are actually (not merely experientially) met by the provisions of Christ’s gospel. The unsaved can know the gospel’s propositions, and clearly comprehend how these propositions play their part in the Good News, yet still not believe in their factual truth or that they meet his or her needs spiritually. For example, see Matthew 21:25; Mark 11:31; Luke 1:20; John 2:22; Acts 8:12; Romans 4:3, and much more.

Trust, can be viewed as Clark relates it to assent: “as assent is cognition passed into conviction, so trust (fiducia) is conviction passed into confidence” (Religion, Reason, and Revelation, Gordon H. Clark). Confidence is the most characteristic act of saving faith, for the sinner transfers reliance for pardon, cleansing, righteousness in complete abandonment to Christ—joyfully received and rested upon for his salvation. This is an essential component of faith, otherwise a person’s “faith” is just the same as those of demons (James 2:19 and Matthew 8:29), who possess no cognitive love for Christ—instead they cognitively hate Christ—refusing to trust Him.

Matthew 24:10, Matthew 24:12; 1 Timothy 1:19; 1 Timothy 4:1; 1 Timothy 4:10, Hebrews 6:4-6; 2 Peter 2:20-22 all teach that “temporary faith” exists, and it is not true faith in Christ as described above. Just as in Matthew:

Mat 13:20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy,

Mat 13:21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while [endures = proskairos = temporary], and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away.

Likewise, as in 2 Peter 2:20-22, we find the Scriptures teaching that it is quite possible to have exhilarating and uplifting experiences of the power of the gospel, to have close contact with forces operating in the kingdom of God’s grace, such that the effects produced in a person are indistinguishable from those produced by true regenerating and sanctifying grace. Yet these experiences do not partake of Christ nor are its experiencers heirs to eternal life. These persons who have this temporary faith were never one of the elect of God, were never regenerated, and thus are not true believers. The prima facie evidence of their temporary faith is that they fall away from the faith, as John so rightly states in 1 John 2:19.

It is not enough to have one million dollars in the bank, or to assent that the million dollars is in the bank if you live like a pauper. You need to draw on what is in your account or you live and die a beggar.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Hebrews 6 and 10 are pretty clear that one can fall away.

For example, see:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-to-Catholic&p=4352207&viewfull=1#post4352207

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...RUST-IN-OSAS&p=4581989&viewfull=1#post4581989

The warning verses serve to stir up the faithful, as the means used by God to achieve His ends: our perseverance of the faith.

AMR

 

[Nang]

Clark dismisses the third definition of faith as "trust" (fiducia) as already being sufficiently integral and incorporated in the first two definitions. Why? Fiducia has been defined and reconstituted by the FV and other religions as being a necessary and evidential "work"
inordinately and necessarily added to the first two, in order to qualify and assure an original saving faith.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Along with Arminius I don't dispute that scripture does indeed teach original sin - but since you deny that God acts on all men in order that they might be saved, but rather only on the so called elect, then you are, de facto, asserting that some are born without any hope or recourse to be saved.
Perhaps you could provide - for any unbelievers that might be reading your words - a 'good news' response to that last sentence?

You have asked me this before and my response will not change. The promiscuous gospel to be given to all is that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved and not lost to Him. The man who feels himself to be reprobate is free to take God at His word and call upon the Lord. That will determine the sincerity of his request, for if he is sincerely doing so the promise given will be the promise fulfilled. That the reprobate does not and will never call upon the name of the Lord to be saved is not a fault that rests with God. God owes no one fallen in Adam mercy, only justice. Attempting to import the secret will of God into the Gospel is error.

Anyone running around complaining that he or she cannot be saved because they may be reprobated by God is a fool who assumes to know the secret will of God. Said person may very well be so, but the promise is extended to anyone who does their duty and calls upon the name of the Lord. Let no man make God to be a liar.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You haven't actual made an argument that proves this.

The proof is in God's own words: Romans 11:35 (see Job 41:11, all of Job for that matter). If before creation God is merely peeking down the corridors of time to see who will choose wisely and then rubber-stamping their decision, declaring them "elected" from their own choice, then God is contingent upon His creation. In effect these persons have elected themselves to eternal life.

Finite creatures should never try to put the infinite God into a place where He is required to make a fair requital. That is an attempt to put what is infinite on equal footing with what is finite. God does not have to "settle up" with any man.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Post-fall-- able to sin -- not able to not sin.

This leaves the so called non-elect without recourse to salvation. There is no good news for them. They were born in such a state - their inherited original sin ensured it.

This is unconscionable isn't it?

No. It is the just state of all in Adam. The miracle is that God deems to extend mercy to a great many no man can number and save them.

Why are you ascending to the heavens to sit down next to He who made you and place Him in the dock to given an answer to how He disposes of those He created? This is manifest hubris. Job's friends tried the same thing, no? What was God's answer to them? Only Job understood that God giveth and God taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord. Will you adopt the wife of Job's command: "Curse God and die?"

AMR

 

[Sonnet]

You have asked me this before and my response will not change. The promiscuous gospel to be given to all is that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved and not lost to Him. The man who feels himself to be reprobate is free to take God at His word and call upon the Lord. That will determine the sincerity of his request, for if he is sincerely doing so the promise given will be the promise fulfilled. That the reprobate does not and will never call upon the name of the Lord to be saved is not a fault that rests with God. God owes no one fallen in Adam mercy, only justice. Attempting to import the secret will of God into the Gospel is error.

Anyone running around complaining that he or she cannot be saved because they may be reprobated by God is a fool who assumes to know the secret will of God. Said person may very well be so, but the promise is extended to anyone who does their duty and calls upon the name of the Lord. Let no man make God to be a liar.

AMR

You say that, 'God owes no one fallen in Adam mercy,' but since you have also said:

'In short, the doctrine of original sin means that we are all born sinners and sin because we are sinners. The non-Reformed generally will argue, no, we are sinners because we sin, claiming that no one is born in a state of moral corruption.'

then how will you defend against the charge that, because you also ascribe your doctrine of election/reprobation to God, then God is holding men accountable for what they have inherited (original sin) and which they cannot not inherit. We sin, as you say, 'because we are sinners,' which affirms the root to be our original sin such that, as you also say, 'Post-fall-- able to sin -- not able to not sin.'

Thus, we cannot avoid inheriting original sin and because of that inheritance we are not able to not sin.

How will you defend against this charge?

More responses to follow.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Pre-fall -- able to not sin -- able to sin (per AMR)

1. What did God present to Adam that heavily influenced his soul in a contrary way, that is still with us today?

Nothing. Adam was made upright, but mutable. How sin entered into him is not revealed. We know who tempted Adam, but we do not know how Adam's inclinations changed towards sin. While being made upright, Adam was not confirmed upright. He was made with the possibility of sinning. Therefore no new inclination was introduced in order to "move" him to sin. Free agency chose to receive the error of the serpent and subsequently to partake of the forbidden fruit. There is nothing libertarian about this because God did not create Adam with a "necessity" to obey.

The remainder of your questions are too obtuse for me to try and answer. Dial things down a notch and state your questions more clearly. If you have an agenda behind them, don't make me fish for it. State what is on your mind.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You say that, 'God owes no one fallen in Adam mercy,' but since you have also said:

'In short, the doctrine of original sin means that we are all born sinners and sin because we are sinners. The non-Reformed generally will argue, no, we are sinners because we sin, claiming that no one is born in a state of moral corruption.'

then how will you defend against the charge that, because you also ascribe your doctrine of election/reprobation to God, then God is holding men accountable for what they have inherited (original sin) and which they cannot not inherit. We sin, as you say, 'because we are sinners,' which affirms the root to be our original sin such that, as you also say, 'Post-fall-- able to sin -- not able to not sin.'

Thus, we cannot avoid inheriting original sin and because of that inheritance we are not able to not sin.

How will you defend against this charge?

No one but our Lord avoids being born in Adam. We were all there with Adam when he sinned in the sense that Adam was our appointed federal representative. What Adam did in the failure of his probation, we all did. What is the "charge"? The decree of God contemplated humanity as fallen, freely fallen by Adam's representation. Explain.

AMR

 

[Sonnet]

No one but our Lord avoids being born in Adam. We were all there with Adam when he sinned in the sense that Adam was our appointed federal representative. What Adam did in the failure of his probation, we all did. What is the "charge"? The decree of God contemplated humanity as fallen, freely fallen by Adam's representation. Explain.

AMR

I'm not quite following you. The charge I put to you only remains warranted if one upholds Calvinism. As I have said, I agree that scripture teaches Original Sin.

 

[Sonnet]

If Jesus' death provided all with recourse to salvation then our condemnation through original sin need not have the final say as it does for reprobates under Calvinism where Jesus did not die for all.