Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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.

Then I am not understanding your "charge". Can you re-state in plain terms?

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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.

Our Lord did not come and die for each and every person. While His atonement was certainly sufficient for all, it was purposed for only those given to Him by God the Father. So, yes, there is a remedy for original sin and all sin for anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord. I am still not getting what you are trying to say here.

AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

Nothing. Adam was made upright, but mutable. How sin entered into him is not revealed.

Really?? "Nothing"?? Adam was innocent. He had to be subjected to something that would cause him to deliberate over the choice given him. What was it? Why did he have to deliberate? Wouldn't it seem that his relationship with God would carry the day? Who else had one as he did and was still vulnerable to failure? Any guesses?

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.

When finished His creation, if God said "everything was good" and only God is good, I think we can safely say Adam was confirmed upright, don't you?

Possibility of sinning?? OK. He was given a freewill otherwise he would never have been vulnerable. But he needed to make a choice allowed by God between to entities, one of which he would not immediatedly recognize in his choosing. Question: How could God do that in such a way that He could not accused of causing Adam to sin? The answer is easy.

Therefore no new inclination was introduced in order to "move" him to sin.

AH, but there was and as I said, "the answer is easy".

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.

Free agency as in one having a free will? Yes. That certainly is part of the "easy answer".

What God gave "up front" to Adam was all based on his obedience. Ergo, all given in "promise form". Of "necessity" that had to be so. Adam needed to be proven. Proving one is always about making the right moral choices.

God to Adam: ''ALL' this I give to you and you will always possess it and no one can take it from you nor pluck you out of My hand'. I make that promise to you contingent upon your allegiance to Me'. Interestingly here as it being a promise that was also given to Cain. No born again experience or even redemption needed. Just obedience to God. Question: Do you really believe God would demand of man what man, of himself, could not perform?

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.

Or else what, your coach will turn into a pumpkin? Surely you jest, obtuse?

I won't hold my breath, given your overall lack of knowledge, however, this might help you a little in seeing your error: "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, . . ." Romans 8:20 (KJV)

See the word, "VANITY" in there? That best describes what the "Law of the flesh" is all about' i.e., our flesh as being the worlds entrance for influencing our soul, our spirit being God’s, which is greatly enhance by the new birth or "regeneration"..

Proof? "And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." Genesis 4:6-7 (KJV)

Item: Cain was a fallen creature. Cain had free agency, a freewill.

Adam was introduced to the law of the flesh of necessity and because Adam did not seek God and **failed as the result, Adam’s progeny would be sealed to its influence and all his posterity would forever be corrupted.

Cain was the first to example the strength of its power in attacking the knowledge of God. Cain was the first human, absent any sort of indwelling "regeneration" by the Holy Spirit to be put to the test in the afterwards of Adam's failure. Actually, it would be more accurate to say Abel was, which revealed how He, by love and respect, overcame by dying to himself.

[**you will probably say he couldn't succeed because he had not yet received his special "gift of faith" from God. I hope you won't be that foolish].

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.

Adam's free agency chose vanity because it is more powerful that a promise/doctrine. Think about it because the new birth is the only power that is able to overcme such power; the enablement for the Christian to overcome it..

You know what the proving of one by God is about don't you?

 

[Sonnet]

Our Lord did not come and die for each and every person. While His atonement was certainly sufficient for all, it was purposed for only those given to Him by God the Father. So, yes, there is a remedy for original sin and all sin for anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord. I am still not getting what you are trying to say here.

AMR

Since the stillborn child is held to be guilty of original sin, then their only hope for salvation would be if Jesus died for them.

That's correct isn't it?

 

[Cross Reference]

Our Lord did not come and die for each and every person. While His atonement was certainly sufficient for all, it was purposed for only those given to Him by God the Father. So, yes, there is a remedy for original sin and all sin for anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord. I am still not getting what you are trying to say here.

AMR

And then we hear Jesus saying these words: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me". John 14:6 (KJV)

What do you do with AMR?


.

 

[Cross Reference]

Since the stillborn child is held to be guilty of original sin, then their only hope for salvation would be if Jesus died for them.

That's correct isn't it?

Sonnet, A stillborn baby is as no birth. However, a live birth is innocence. If it dies in innocence, no cross of Christ is needed because there has been no transgression.

 

[Crucible]

All the prophets and apostles were Calvinist in their theology- even St. Augustine, who is perhaps the greatest Christian edifier other than Paul, who also held to fate.

They all held to a limited atonement_

 

[Sonnet]

Sonnet, A stillborn baby is as no birth. However, a live birth is innocence. If it dies in innocence, no cross of Christ is needed because there has been no transgression.

But even if we assent to original sin, then, even though a baby would be held guilty of it, it would not matter since Jesus has provided for all.

 

[Sonnet]

All the prophets and apostles were Calvinist in their theology- even St. Augustine, who is perhaps the greatest Christian edifier other than Paul, who also held to fate.

They all held to a limited atonement_

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

The tally for explicit affirmation of LA remains zero.

 

[Crucible]

But even if we assent to original sin, then, even though a baby would be held guilty of it, it would not matter since Jesus has provided for all.

The thing you don't understand about babies is the fact that they are not 'babies' according to God- they are what becomes, you see. So you shoudn't be anywhere damned concerned about it

 

[Cross Reference]

But even if we assent to original sin, then, even though a baby would be held guilty of it, it would not matter since Jesus has provided for all.

What Jesus has done by his death was to give all mankind access to the Presence of God without the Glory of God slaying him. This same access, though a gift, can only be made effective by the resurrection life of Jesus Christ indwelling man: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 (KJV) A baby has no choice in this because he isn't able to make one.

 

[Sonnet]

The thing you don't understand about babies is the fact that they are not 'babies' according to God- they are what becomes, you see. So you shoudn't be anywhere damned concerned about it

Even if we allow that God knows the counterfactuals of what a stillborn baby would have become - the problem remains for the Calvinist to explain accountability where no recourse to salvation is available.

As AMR said, 'not able to not sin.' Quite simply, those not elect have no way out of their predetermined end.

 

[Sonnet]

So you shoudn't be anywhere damned concerned about it

I am concerned.

Why, in ur view, shouldn't I be Crucible?

 

[Sonnet]

What Jesus has done by his death was to give all mankind access to the Presence of God without the Glory of God slaying him. This same access, though a gift, can only be made effective by the resurrection life of Jesus Christ indwelling man: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 (KJV)

Ok - not sure how this relates to what I said though.

 

[Crucible]

Even if we allow that God knows the counterfactuals of what a stillborn baby would have become - the problem remains for the Calvinist to explain accountability where no recourse to salvation is available.

As AMR said, 'not able to not sin.' Quite simply, those not elect have no way out of their predetermined end.

There's nothing in your theology that counteracts Perseverance of the Saints.

 

[Sonnet]

R 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

 

[Sonnet]

There's nothing in your theology that counteracts Perseverance of the Saints.

I wrote this:

Even if we allow that God knows the counterfactuals of what a stillborn baby would have become - the problem remains for the Calvinist to explain accountability where no recourse to salvation is available.

As AMR said, 'not able to not sin.' Quite simply, those not elect have no way out of their predetermined end.

 

[Crucible]

I am concerned.

Why, in ur view, shouldn't I be Crucible?

You weren't called to 'evangelize'.
Wake up, and stop following the heresy_

 

[Sonnet]

You weren't called to 'evangelize'.
Wake up, and stop following the heresy_

I am not evangelizing...though if an unbeliever is encouraged by my posts then that's ok.

 

[Crucible]

I wrote this:

Even if we allow that God knows the counterfactuals of what a stillborn baby would have become - the problem remains for the Calvinist to explain accountability where no recourse to salvation is available.

As AMR said, 'not able to not sin.' Quite simply, those not elect have no way out of their predetermined end.