Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

[beloved57]

Light son

Unbelievers are under God’s wrath.

Not all of them, for some people who Christ died for are reconciled to God by His Death while they were enemies Rom 5:10!

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

Unbelievers are under God’s wrath. I’ve never heard it referred to as a “wrath of love”. Perhaps you have a different distinction in mind. I don’t suppose you’re trying to leverage the idea that, “the kindness of God leads you to repentance.” It sounds conceptually similar.

How would you characterize God’s wrath at the end of time when it manifests by launching unbelievers into the lake of fire? “Wrath of love” as a handle doesn’t quite seem to work there. Your thoughts?

Read Song of Solomon. Love is described as a consuming fire.

God is Love and He is a consuming fire.

Perhaps people are too eager to ascribe human characteristics of Hate and Revenge to God.

Jesus is God and He wrote the commandment of forgiveness and Love before the adulterous woman and the Pharisees. Whatever He wrote, it was tied to God giving the commandments of Love, In place of Moses.

All of the New Testament makes it implicit that God is Love.

Is that lake a literal lake of eternal torture, and is that fire what humanity jumps to in hopes of revenge to the wicked?


Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

Without Reprobation, There is no Salvation by Grace.

I do not agree with the doctrine of Reprobation, however in the way you used the word, I can back you.

I do this, because you lean toward grace in most of your posts. [emoji3]

Galatians 3:22

22 But the Scripture has imprisoned everything under sin’s power, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Before this faith came, we were confined under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith was revealed.


Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

 

[Crucible]

W.A.R.N.I.G. Is as defiant as the Donald's hair. [emoji1]

Rotfl

Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

Rotfl


Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That you link 'liberty' with free will here when you have already curtailed it such that there is none is grossly disingenuous.

Of course, your definition of "liberty" is different than my own (the Bible's). Your liberty is one of spontaneity, the liberty to choose according to your greatest inclinations at the moment you so choose. That is as "free" as you can be.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I'll try again:

Here's Dordt claim:
Who teach that it was not on the basis of his just will alone that God decided to leave anyone in the fall of Adam and in the common state of sin and condemnation or to pass anyone by in the imparting of grace necessary for faith and conversion.
For these words stand fast: “He has mercy on whom he wishes, and he hardens whom he wishes” (Rom. 9:18). And also: “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given” (Matt. 13:11).

So we have Matt. 13:11 employed to uphold their doctrine of election / reprobation but Jesus then including Judas with the (so called) elect. Dort obviously got it wrong.

No. Both Scripture proofs are operative in the above quote from the Canons of Dordt. Why ignore Romans 9:18, for given your illogic, then all the disciples are included in the hardening verse. Yikes! Obviously, the verses are applicable to the elect and the non-elect. You cannot have one without the other.

AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

Of course, your definition of "liberty" is different than my own (the Bible's). Your liberty is one of spontaneity, the liberty to choose according to your greatest inclinations at the moment you so choose. That is as "free" as you can be.

AMR

That is all it needs to be.

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

Of course, your definition of "liberty" is different than my own (the Bible's). Your liberty is one of spontaneity, the liberty to choose according to your greatest inclinations at the moment you so choose. That is as "free" as you can be.

AMR

AMR,

Is it genuinely right for one man to claim that their measure of the Spirit is greater than another's? I say this, because you words insinuate that your understanding is clearer than Sonnets.

Didn't you search once?

I respect you immensely. I have grown to look forward to the way you express scripture.

This is difficult for me to say, because I got out of your way, quite a ways back in this thread because of the respect you typically gave.

On this occasion I would like to point out that only ONE was ever living scripture that represented the true meaning of scripture.

Is it not presumptive to state that your stance is the "only" stance in Christ and scripture?

I assure you, John Calvin and every other Reformist fought against men proclaiming such things.
Was that not the foundation of the need for the reformation in the first place?

Men stood in place of God and didn't allow people to get to know God on their own.

For a time, even scripture was inaccessible to the poor and church dependent .

Would the man who spoke these words agree with your statement?

“True wisdom consists in two things: Knowledge of God and Knowledge of Self.”

― John Calvin

“The gospel is not a doctrine of the tongue, but of life. It cannot be grasped by reason and memory only, but it is fully understood when it possesses the whole soul and penetrates to the inner recesses of the heart.”

― John Calvin, Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life

“Man's nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols.”

― John Calvin





Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

 

[Cross Reference]

I do not agree with the doctrine of Reprobation, however in the way you used the word, I can back you.

If you knew what reprobation was and who administers it, you wouldn't.

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation


I know who used the law.

Satan is death

Oh death, where is thy sting, thy sting is in sin and the power behind sin is the law.

I specifically stated I don't agree with the doctrine.

I however agree that we are born with the propensity to sin. We excel at it.

I don't agree that any man is less reprobate then another in God's eyes.

We are all in equal need of salvation.

I believe the Love of God brought that salvation to ALL men, that the Spirit calls ALL mankind to His arms of grace and Love.

I am certain that many Hate Love and it's precepts, thus they reject the very provision of God. Love.

I further believe that God doesn't need to base salvation on religion, but on Love.

I open every human being up to the possibility of unity of God outside of their theology and understanding.

This is contrary to the doctrine of Reprobation.

Was that clear enough for you CR?


Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I find your response astonishing. You have affirmed that you consider men born already guilty of sin and unable to not sin and yet you still attempt to hold them accountable. It's got nothing to do with whether I could do better - but it's about the fact that you preclude any hope whatsoever from certain folk who are born as you claim.

This, whether you wish it so or not, becomes your Gospel - the naked truth of it anyway.

You continue to overlook the plain fact that all were contemplated as fallen in Adam in God's decree. Adam's fall sealed the deal for all mankind absent any subsequent mercy from God. Adam was all our representative, made upright, yet mutable, that is, able to sin or not to sin. Your quarrel is not with God, unless you want to whine that God should have made Adam able only to not sin.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Who is attempting to do so that you issue this reprimand?

You are when you seek to peek behind the curtain in hopes of discovering that which is not revealed to us. You argue some will never call upon the name of the Lord because God prevents them from doing so. This is incorrect. They have prevented themselves, for they were in the loins of Adam when he sinned. In other words, they sinned with Adam just as if they were really there with Adam in the Garden.

A free will that you have defined as guilty at birth and unable to not sin. Why pretend to hold out a seeming offer of salvation?

As I have noted often, if you want to deny original sin or limit its scope, then the discussion will continue to go in circles.

Sorry, but you have already affirmed guilt at birth, inability to not sin and selective regeneration.

Yes, I have. Your duty is to call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. That you do not is no fault of anyone but yourself. Are you unable to do so? Why, exactly? You cannot claim, "Well, God has made me reprobate, so I cannot." You do not know this no matter how much you strain to make it so. It is not revealed who is and who is not reprobate. So you are merely playing games with the Lord. Do your duty and leave the secret things to God alone to work out all according to His own glory.

I am called to believe but I certainly don't believe in your version of Jesus.

Yes, all are called to believe upon the name of the Lord. What prevents you from doing so? Right this minute?

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR,

Is it genuinely right for one man to claim that their measure of the Spirit is greater than another's? I say this, because you words insinuate that your understanding is clearer than Sonnets.

In this discussion with an affirmed non-believer, why does it matter? I have already informed Sonnet I may be wrong, or that the truth lies somewhere between my view and another's. Yet, for the unbeliever, there is but one plain fact: all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved and not lost to Him. Sonnet refuses to do the duty all are commanded to perform. He wants to hide behind this or that matter of his ill-conceived understandings of doctrine for refusing to do his duty. The unbeliever has no common ground with the believer, so I refuse to give common ground where none is possible (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).

It matters not what the secret will of God is for these things, rather it is His plainly revealed will that is our duty to obey. This is not a Calvinist vs. Arminian argument. It is a argument for all persons no matter what their persuasions.

That you would imply Sonnet possesses some measure of the Hoy Spirit greater than my own grieves me. Sonnet has made it plain he is not a believer. He has so stated this plain fact. Perhaps you have not been following the discussion? Do you grasp your error in such an accusation made against me? I hope so. Repent of this, brother, or get behind me. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I open every human being up to the possibility of unity of God outside of their theology and understanding.

This is contrary to the doctrine of Reprobation.

Was that clear enough for you CR?

The plain facts are that some will be saved and others will not. God is able to save all mankind, yet we know all are not saved. So unless you want to claim that God is unable to save each and every person, you must accept that it is within His will to not do so. Rather, God has stipulated the requirements for eternal life: call upon the name of the Lord. This is all mankind's duty. Those that refuse to do their duty are without excuse (see Romans 1), for they know He exists and they know what they ought to do. It is but for their vain imaginings that they have exchanged what they know for a lie.

Therefore, no matter how you want to nuance "reprobation", the plain teachings of Scripture testify to the fact that there are those in Hell right now awaiting their final judgment and eternal punishment. Does God possess the power to save them? I doubt you would deny this. Then explain why they are there such that God is somehow "off the hook" for their terrible destinies.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Were the men of Gen 4:26 saved?

The passage in question teaches us the beginning of the organization of the church, starting with familial worship. You have no idea what you are appealing to using this verse. Such is your usual Scripture cherry-picking approach.

AMR

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

The plain facts are that some will be saved and others will not. God is able to save all mankind, yet we know all are not saved. So unless you want to claim that God is unable to save each and every person, you must accept that it is within His will to not do so. Rather, God has stipulated the requirements for eternal life: call upon the name of the Lord. This is all mankind's duty. Those that refuse to do their duty are without excuse (see Romans 1), for they know He exists and they know what they ought to do. It is but for their vain imaginings that they have exchanged what they know for a lie.

Therefore, no matter how you want to nuance "reprobation", the plain teachings of Scripture testify to the fact that there are those in Hell right now awaiting their final judgment and eternal punishment. Does God possess the power to save them? I doubt you would deny this. Then explain why they are there such that God is somehow "off the hook" for their terrible destinies.

AMR

AMR,

If it is as you say, then why do all the apostles and Jesus say that Love is the deciding factor?

Paul devotes a whole write up to Love and precedes it with "let me show you THE most excellent WAY".

He throws all religion to the ground and exalts Love.

Considering that the bible says the dead know nothing and dead is a reference to what you consider unregenerated, don't the words, "If I don't have Love I am nothing" have a strong implication?

Consider 1 John 4. John 16. All of Jesus's teachings that hinge on Love.

Is this not obvious?

Is God TULIP?

Is God Armeninism?

Is God Hate?

Is not God LOVE?

Doesn't this "way" in?




Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

 

[Cross Reference]

The passage in question teaches us the beginning of the organization of the church, starting with familial worship. You have no idea what you are appealing to using this verse. Such is your usual Scripture cherry-picking approach.

AMR

You have quite an imagination, however, your theology without question, requires you to have one. So, what 'funny farm commentary' did you learn that "stretch"?

 

[Cross Reference]

I know who used the law.

Satan is death

Oh death, where is thy sting, thy sting is in sin and the power behind sin is the law.

I specifically stated I don't agree with the doctrine.

I however agree that we a born with the propensity to sin. We excel at it.

I don't agree that any man is less reprobate then another in God's eyes.

We are all in equal need of salvation.

I believe the Love of God brought that salvation to ALL men, that the Spirit calls ALL mankind to His arms of grace and Love.

I am certain that many Hate Love and it's precepts, thus they reject the very provision of God. Love.

I further believe that God doesn't need to base salvation on religion, but on Love.

I open every human being up to the possibility of unity of God outside of their theology and understanding.

This is contrary to the doctrine of Reprobation.

Was that clear enough for you CR?


Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

Clear as 'mud'. I have no clue as what you are talking about.

 

[Cross Reference]

The plain facts are that some will be saved and others will not. God is able to save all mankind, yet we know all are not saved.
AMR

In what God has purposed in Himself for having created man, in whom He has a placed a freewill with which to accomplish it, not all mankind will choose to "abide" that purpose by reason of the same freewill given them. Hence it can be correctly stated that God cannot save all mankind.