Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

[Cross Reference]

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

Anyone ever tell you you were a "legalist" . . . a "legalist" with a whole lot of Bible verses you use make fit your bent?

 

[Sonnet]

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

Why are you suggesting I ignored Romans 9:18? It formed part of the quote from Dort and we were discussing Mat.13.

'All the disciples are included in the hardening verse'? Baffling.

AMR - you have ignored the point I made about Mat.13. Please deal with it.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR,

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

No they do not say that as if to elevate one attribute of God, love, above all other attributes of God. God’s attributes are qualities that inhere in the being of God. God is His attributes. We cannot separate God from His attributes. He is a loving God, a just God, a merciful God. God's glory is manifest in the display of all His attributes. How is the mercy of God made manifest? How is the justice of God made manifest? For mercy and justice to exist, there must be objects of mercy and justice. And the mercy of God is a loving mercy. The justice of God a loving justice. Our Lord spoke more about Hell than He spoke about love or even Heaven.

It is erroneous to state that all of God’s attributes flow from His righteousness. As inferred immediately above, every positive attribute of God inheres in all positive attributes of God. When discussing how God can be righteous, loving, omnipotent, etc., we must be careful to avoid separating the divine essence and the divine attributes. We must also guard against false conceptions of the relation in which these attributes stand with each other.

Some would have us believe that unless God acts then God is not this or that, e.g., loving or just. Yet, when we consider the simplicity of God (that He is without constituent parts), we find that God and His attributes are a unified wholeness. God’s attributes are not so many parts that comprise the composition of God, as God is not composed of different parts (as are His creatures). Nor can God’s attributes be thought as something that is added to God’s being, for God is eternally perfect.

For a more thorough discussion see my:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...n-vs-Enyart)&p=1532512&viewfull=1#post1532512

The rationale being laid out in this thread by others is borne of the Arminian argument and erroneous reasoning along the lines of "How can I spread the Gospel if I can't tell a man that Jesus loves you and died for you?" The Arminian reasons incorrectly that this is the Gospel presentation—that God loves all mankind equally and gives no preference to anyone. Sigh. This is the stuff of Finneyism's altar calls underlying an egregious universalistic error that Jesus died for the sins of each and every person who ever lived and will live.

Yet when the Scriptural concept of an elect existing that God has chosen before the foundation of the world is understood, it is clear that this is contrary to the Arminian presuppositions about God’s character. Further, the Arminian usually has a defective view of the love of God rooted in a denial of the fall of man (original sin) which views grace as an entitlement. Too many Christians (and I count Arminians among them) are surprised at suffering and death rather than being surprised about efficacious grace. What I mean here is that the Arminian wrongly reasons that God is sending innocent people to eternal punishment because God made them reject Him.

To the hidden point and motivation of the arguments being presented, I challenge the view implied of what God’s love is versus what the actual Gospel presentation really teaches us. The views in this thread deny a Federal theology that is clear in Scripture of the just condemnation all mankind faces in Adam and the need for all men in the Second Adam that takes away the curse of the first Adam. The full meaning of "love" is simply being overlooked. Only when we really understand the just condemnation that all men face in Adam and their utter need for a second Adam that takes away the Curse does the term "love" take on more meaning because it's placed in the context of man's condition and God's grace toward rebel sinners.

There are only two places in the Bible that directly say "God is love," both of which are found in John's first letter to his fellow believers. John is not writing to the world or the people of the world. In his letter he makes it clear that there are those who are "in Christ" and those of the world. Those of the world have no part with the people of God, with Christ, or with the forgiveness found in Christ because they deny Christ. Therefore any hope of the love of God being the world's to obtain is unthinkable.

In 1 John 4:7-9 John is defining what the love of God means for those who are in Christ: that God has sent His only begotten into the world, that we might live through Him. He is showing believers in Christ, what manner they are to live in Christ in response to the gift of salvation that comes through Christ. He tells us that God is love, and shows us what that love looks like. He doesn't say anything about not sending the masses to hell, or allowing the wicked of the world off the hook for their wickedness. There is no reference to universalism in this passage at all, but a direct link to believers as recipients of God's love through His Son.

The broader abuse of this passage is the liberty many take by defining what God is by this verse without respect to the Bible's other claims about what and who God is. In other words, those who abuse this truth do so because they also ignore God's other attributes, like His holiness.

I know this is shocking to some, but God's holiness has far more implications for the world and non-believers than His love does. Whereas the believer is the recipient of God's special love, the non-believer is the recipient to God's special judgment. This is because God's holiness demands that sin be dealt with.

Many people have a distorted view of what love is that really does not come close to revealing what God's love is. It would be much better to say God is holy and then explaining what that means instead of this abused concept that God is loving, therefore meanthat He loves us unconditionally. The fact is that God does not love us unconditionally. The conditions of God's love are very specific and most people do not understand or simply ignore these biblical truths.

AMR

 

[Sonnet]

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

Respectfully AMR, do you not see that your stance has it that some babies are born (and let it be said that we have no say in this matter - it just occurs) guilty of sin from birth, unable to not sin...AND reprobated? It's when you add on the reprobation part that creates the problem.

You aren't denying that this is your understanding. That you cannot see that is immoral is saddening.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Why are you suggesting I ignored Romans 9:18? It formed part of the quote from Dort and we were discussing Mat.13.

'All the disciples are included in the hardening verse'? Baffling.

You claim Dordt has it all wrong appealing to the Matthew 13:11. You tore that verse away from the companion verse of Romans 9:18. Both belong to the support of the statement at Dordt. That Judas was among those given the secrets of the Kingdom is in no way supportive of your argument that Judas possessed some moral ability to do what he ought to do. While he may have been informed of the secrets of the kingdom, that simply does not speak to your claim concerning moral ability. Romans 9:18 is equally applicable, in Judas' case in particular. Accordingly, your illogic in appealing to Matthew 13:11 for Judas must then equally appeal to Romans 9:18 for all the disciples. After all, you keep appealing to the fact that Our Lord's statements were made to all of them, right? Do you see your error in your logic?

Please refrain from demanding I deal with this or that. You skim my posts too often and are quick to fire off whatever pops into your noggin before carefully considering my responses. I have dealt with the passage in question and did so previously. My response above is but a repeat because you are not taking the time to understand what I am writing.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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"?

I am not obliged to do your heavy lifting for you. Your singular purpose appears to be only cavil about Reformed views sans anything that resembles a substantive argument. Your drive-by one-liners do not an argument make. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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.

No. This nonsense ignores a willing God. That God has not saved all persons is plainly the fact that God has not willed to save all persons, for if He so willed, all would be saved. God always gets what He wants, else He is impotent. You are very confused about theology proper topics.

Suggested reading: http://goo.gl/NpLJzb

AMR

 

[Sonnet]

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.

That you hold anyone responsible for what Adam did WHILST affirming reprobation is unconscionable. Rather, surely it's the case that we are all tainted being born with a strong propensity to sin (that I do affirm) but this does not seal our fate BECAUSE God has Good News ....for ALL of us...there is a way out.

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.

I deny your particular definition especially when added to your doctrine of reprobation. You seal the fate of such folk.

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.

That you continue to 'offer' salvation to those that may be reprobated is as I have already described.

It is very clear that you have no answer for this accountability issue. You assert that it's the individual's fault yet affirm your particular definition of OS and reprobation. Why don't you just admit that it is a contradiction?

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

I have done so.

 

[Sonnet]

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

Your theology will be a reason for some to walk away from believing such a Jesus.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That you hold anyone responsible for what Adam did WHILST affirming reprobation is unconscionable. Rather, surely it's the case that we are all tainted being born with a strong propensity to sin (that I do affirm) but this does not seal our fate BECAUSE God has Good News ....for ALL of us...there is a way out.

As long as you continue to deny the teachings of Scripture about the extent of original sin and the church's affirmation of the same for over a thousand years is your own error and leads to these views you have been quibbling about so much. You have been given much content by me and pointers to others far more capable than myself. You refuse to be corrected. Our discussion is drawing to a close for this one point lies at the root of your issues.

It is very clear that you have no answer for this accountability issue. You assert that it's the individual's fault yet affirm your particular definition of OS and reprobation. Why don't you just admit that it is a contradiction?

The sin of Adam is imputed to all from birth for all were in the loins of Adam when he sinned. All are condemned from birth deserving only justice from God. Not potentially condemned, but actually under condemnation and the wrath of God (Eph. 2:3), if and only until His mercy upon an amount no man can number is made manifest. <--That is my doctrine of original sin and reprobation in case you have not understood me well enough.

The gates of Hell are effectively locked from the inside. No one is in there that does not want to be there, for if they were truly repentant they would know that they are exactly where they should be. Their "regret" is but one of their many bad choices and resentment towards God (Job 36:13; Proverbs 19:3). Indeed, they continue to gnash their teeth at God with fists raised upwards, thereby sinning eternally, hence their punishment remains eternally.

Unbelievers may try to shift the responsibility for the hardening of their hearts. They may try to blame God – "Why did you make me this way?!" (Rom. 9:20) – but the fundamental issue in this process is one of individual choice. Rejecting the truth is a choice, and God has designed the hardening process in order to preserve the right to choose according to one's inclinations. Thus hardening does not remove choice; rather, it allows the genuine inclinations of each individual to come to the fore and to be maintained in spite of the truth which echoes and resounds from every facet of the creation.

I have done so.

So you now affirm you are a believer? Then praise be to the glory of God! Or, have I misunderstood you?

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Respectfully AMR, do you not see that your stance has it that some babies are born (and let it be said that we have no say in this matter - it just occurs) guilty of sin from birth, unable to not sin...AND reprobated? It's when you add on the reprobation part that creates the problem.

You aren't denying that this is your understanding. That you cannot see that is immoral is saddening.

Immoral by whose standards? Ours? Sigh. Morality implies an objective law-giver, God. Our lachrymose views of fairness have no part in such things. Again, it comes back to exactly what Adam was all about. One man, upright, yet mutable, on probation and commanded to "do this and live", a man made to represent all men. Adam failed. Is God to be blamed? Should God have made Adam without ability to sin? How would all of God's glory be made manifest in such a scenario? What would we know of His loving mercy and loving justice? Are these attributes of God unworthy of display and praise? We are creatures made from dirt, not little gods. God is the Creator and may dispose of His creatures according to His own good purposes. That He extends mercy to some should drive us to our knees, not to our feet in protest that He does not pour out salvific mercy on all. The Lord of Heaven will do right. What is right, we may ask? What God commands, not what we think.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Your theology will be a reason for some to walk away from believing such a Jesus.

Well, if this is your view, then you should have walked away when reading in the Old Testament of the slaughter of whole nations of men, women, infants, and children at the command of God, no? Were genuine innocents slaughtered? Did God command actual murder (unlawful killing)? You are not consistent in your complaints.

AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

No. This nonsense ignores a willing God.

God desires ALL mankind to be saved! Why keep ignoring that?

That God has not saved all persons is plainly the fact that God has not willed to save all persons, for if He so willed, all would be saved.

Not if they possess a freewill . . and they do. How else can man be proven unto son-ship in the Father? How did Abraham prove it? . . . and Jesus? Was He not proven in like manner and for the same reason? Why was David called by God to be "a man after His own heart", if David did not possess a freewill?

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge, of the truth, (per John 17:3 KJV)". 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (KJV) NOTICE: "and come" is in the afterwards of the saying of any sinners prayer but for understanding John 3:3-5 KJV.

God always gets what He wants[/B], else He is impotent.

Indeed, He does and in His foreknowledge, He already possesses it. We are given to work it out through our spiritual fingers tips.

You are very confused about theology proper topics.

LOL!! You have no understanding and that makes me, in your religious eyeballs, confused. You are a piece of work, you are.

You are the one who is unstable. Your legalistic contradictions scream it!

God is getting what He wants, i.e., a people sold out to Him; 'many sons brought unto Glory, per Heb. 2:10 KJV! . . not legalistic robots, to rule and reign with Christ Jesus but, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus! There is a price one will pay for that honor, are you there yet?!

Perhaps you can give (1) verse of scripture that reads, God wills only some of righteous mankind to be saved?

Suggested reading: http://goo.gl/NpLJzb

AMR

I am not interested in reading the commentaries that have contributed to your wrong thinking about the limited saving grace of God simply because He "Wills it".

"God gives grace to the humble and resists the proud". How come, AMR, if He is no respecter of persons? How 'come if God's grace is unmerited? How' come that can be true of God unless man has a freewill to choose what god/God he will serve?

 

[Cross Reference]

Well, if this is your view, then you should have walked away when reading in the Old Testament of the slaughter of whole nations of men, women, infants, and children at the command of God, no? Were genuine innocents slaughtered? Did God command actual murder (unlawful killing)? You are not consistent in your complaints.

AMR

And you lack understanding as to why God slaughtered. Were not babies innocent, as in blameless? Is blamelessness condemned by God or perphaps, God's plan could not abide untoward leadership, of any sort, speaking into the lives of His people? And is this not a type for us to understand as a Christian must believe it is?

 

[Cross Reference]

Immoral by whose standards? Ours? Sigh. Morality implies an objective law-giver, God. Our lachrymose views of fairness have no part in such things. Again, it comes back to exactly what Adam was all about. One man, upright, yet mutable, on probation and commanded to "do this and live", a man made to represent all men. Adam failed. Is God to be blamed? Should God have made Adam without ability to sin? How would all of God's glory be made manifest in such a scenario? What would we know of His loving mercy and loving justice? Are these attributes of God unworthy of display and praise? We are creatures made from dirt, not little gods. God is the Creator and may dispose of His creatures according to His own good purposes. That He extends mercy to some should drive us to our knees, not to our feet in protest that He does not pour out salvific mercy on all. The Lord of Heaven will do right. What is right, we may ask? What God commands, not what we think.

AMR

Reprobation is a decree of God in the afterwards of men refusing to retain Him in their knowledge..<sigh> He alone administers it because of their unwillingness to abide Him.

What does that mean, AMR? What can it only mean about you, AMR? How 'bout your long awaited answer? "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." 2 Peter 2:21 (KJV) There, I just gave you a 'kick start'.

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

No they do not say that as if to elevate one attribute of God, love, above all other attributes of God. God’s attributes are qualities that inhere in the being of God. God is His attributes. We cannot separate God from His attributes. He is a loving God, a just God, a merciful God. God's glory is manifest in the display of all His attributes. How is the mercy of God made manifest? How is the justice of God made manifest? For mercy and justice to exist, there must be objects of mercy and justice. And the mercy of God is a loving mercy. The justice of God a loving justice. Our Lord spoke more about Hell than He spoke about love or even Heaven.

It is erroneous to state that all of God’s attributes flow from His righteousness. As inferred immediately above, every positive attribute of God inheres in all positive attributes of God. When discussing how God can be righteous, loving, omnipotent, etc., we must be careful to avoid separating the divine essence and the divine attributes. We must also guard against false conceptions of the relation in which these attributes stand with each other.

Some would have us believe that unless God acts then God is not this or that, e.g., loving or just. Yet, when we consider the simplicity of God (that He is without constituent parts), we find that God and His attributes are a unified wholeness. God’s attributes are not so many parts that comprise the composition of God, as God is not composed of different parts (as are His creatures). Nor can God’s attributes be thought as something that is added to God’s being, for God is eternally perfect.

For a more thorough discussion see my:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...n-vs-Enyart)&p=1532512&viewfull=1#post1532512

The rationale being laid out in this thread by others is borne of the Arminian argument and erroneous reasoning along the lines of "How can I spread the Gospel if I can't tell a man that Jesus loves you and died for you?" The Arminian reasons incorrectly that this is the Gospel presentation—that God loves all mankind equally and gives no preference to anyone. Sigh. This is the stuff of Finneyism's altar calls underlying an egregious universalistic error that Jesus died for the sins of each and every person who ever lived and will live.

Yet when the Scriptural concept of an elect existing that God has chosen before the foundation of the world is understood, it is clear that this is contrary to the Arminian presuppositions about God’s character. Further, the Arminian usually has a defective view of the love of God rooted in a denial of the fall of man (original sin) which views grace as an entitlement. Too many Christians (and I count Arminians among them) are surprised at suffering and death rather than being surprised about efficacious grace. What I mean here is that the Arminian wrongly reasons that God is sending innocent people to eternal punishment because God made them reject Him.

To the hidden point and motivation of the arguments being presented, I challenge the view implied of what God’s love is versus what the actual Gospel presentation really teaches us. The views in this thread deny a Federal theology that is clear in Scripture of the just condemnation all mankind faces in Adam and the need for all men in the Second Adam that takes away the curse of the first Adam. The full meaning of "love" is simply being overlooked. Only when we really understand the just condemnation that all men face in Adam and their utter need for a second Adam that takes away the Curse does the term "love" take on more meaning because it's placed in the context of man's condition and God's grace toward rebel sinners.

There are only two places in the Bible that directly say "God is love," both of which are found in John's first letter to his fellow believers. John is not writing to the world or the people of the world. In his letter he makes it clear that there are those who are "in Christ" and those of the world. Those of the world have no part with the people of God, with Christ, or with the forgiveness found in Christ because they deny Christ. Therefore any hope of the love of God being the world's to obtain is unthinkable.

In 1 John 4:7-9 John is defining what the love of God means for those who are in Christ: that God has sent His only begotten into the world, that we might live through Him. He is showing believers in Christ, what manner they are to live in Christ in response to the gift of salvation that comes through Christ. He tells us that God is love, and shows us what that love looks like. He doesn't say anything about not sending the masses to hell, or allowing the wicked of the world off the hook for their wickedness. There is no reference to universalism in this passage at all, but a direct link to believers as recipients of God's love through His Son.

The broader abuse of this passage is the liberty many take by defining what God is by this verse without respect to the Bible's other claims about what and who God is. In other words, those who abuse this truth do so because they also ignore God's other attributes, like His holiness.

I know this is shocking to some, but God's holiness has far more implications for the world and non-believers than His love does. Whereas the believer is the recipient of God's special love, the non-believer is the recipient to God's special judgment. This is because God's holiness demands that sin be dealt with.

Many people have a distorted view of what love is that really does not come close to revealing what God's love is. It would be much better to say God is holy and then explaining what that means instead of this abused concept that God is loving, therefore meanthat He loves us unconditionally. The fact is that God does not love us unconditionally. The conditions of God's love are very specific and most people do not understand or simply ignore these biblical truths.

AMR

AMR,

I assure you, that you are no legalist.

I see answers to your questions that are taught by Calvinism and gleaned through the scripture.

You believe in absolute Grace and you know that God poured His Wrath upon Himself through His Son in the place of all sinful humanity. You know that wrath is the wrath of the fire of Love. Like a jealous Lover that wanted union with their bride, God imputed His credit of perfection to humanity so He can approach whomever He pleases.

I don't agree with all of your scriptural gymnastics and I am not certain that you have digested that God calls Himself our groom.

AMR, how much more intimate can God's love be? Perhaps Holy is misunderstood.

He's the God that died for us! He would rather die than spend eternity without any of us? How is that not hallmark, Titanic, Unconditional Love?

He's holy, we're spiritual Whores.

Calvin called man a factory of idols and implied that about all men, including himself.

I'm not even certain that Calvin would like what his teachings have been made into.

Guess who's reading about the words of the man now?

Me.

He isn't anything like the theology he's been made into!

He is rolling over in his grave right now, or crying in heaven depending on your stance on when we are rejoined with Jesus.

Does our Groom divorce us? Nope! He Loves better than any of us can and His Mercy and Humility have exalted Him above all with a crown of Exaltation from all who have been saved by their groom of limitless Love.

God never hardens His heart to us, it is us that harden our hearts to God and mankind made in His image.

I will digress for now.

Always a pleasure.

And I can't believe you said that there are only two places that say God is Love. Does scripture have to spell it out in specific verbiage?

Show me one place in the Bible that shows that God Isn't anything but Love and I'll answer back with scripture and context that university testify differently.

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

 

[Cross Reference]

You believe in absolute Grace and you know that God poured His Wrath upon Himself through His Son in the place of all sinful humanity. You know that wrath is the wrath of the fire of Love. Like a jealous Lover that wanted union with their bride, God imputed His credit of perfection to humanity so He can approach whomever He pleases.

That is error.

God poured out His wrath upon the perfected humanity of Jesus Christ in Whom His presence was made manifest, who learned from such "intimacy" by the things He suffered. By this has Jesus become the captain of our salvation, the Author of it. . . Not God, who is the Author of our humanity.. Read Phil.2

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

That is error.

God poured out His wrath upon the perfected humanity of Jesus Christ in Whom His presence was made manifest, who learned from such "intimacy" by the things He suffered. By this has Jesus become the captain of our salvation, the Author of it. . . Not God, who is the Author of our humanity..

JESUS IS GOD!!!

This is your greatest theological error.

You don't get it!

God died in our place.

You are straining gnats and gulping the hugest camel down.

Insult me all you want, but strip Jesus of His divinity and we have a problem.

I have skirted around your smugness enough.


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

That is error.

God poured out His wrath upon the perfected humanity of Jesus Christ in Whom His presence was made manifest, who learned from such "intimacy" by the things He suffered. By this has Jesus become the captain of our salvation, the Author of it. . . Not God, who is the Author of our humanity.. Read Phil.2

Why don't you read all of Phil and the rest of the bible while your at it.

Step to me when you get the most important part right.

He said the entire scriptures testify of Him.

Who is the bible about Cross Reference?

Let me put this into perspective for your smugness.

What if I said;

Cross Reference, the entire bible is about me?

Who am I claiming to be?

Wait, I've got another one for you.

If you've seen me you've seen God.

What am I saying if I say, you've seen God because you've seen nameless?

Loony bin time.

Look, Jesus was killed!

Why?

Because He told the Sanhedrin He was God!!!!!!!!!

Do you even read the Old Testament and understand the significance of Coming down on clouds and being within the glory of God?


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

That is error.

God poured out His wrath upon the perfected humanity of Jesus Christ in Whom His presence was made manifest, who learned from such "intimacy" by the things He suffered. By this has Jesus become the captain of our salvation, the Author of it. . . Not God, who is the Author of our humanity..

Who is this about Cross Reference?

Jesus is the image or idol of God we worship.

He is God in flesh!!!!!!!

Psalm 97 (HCSB)

Psalm 97

The Majestic King

1 The Lord reigns! Let the earth rejoice;
let the many coasts and islands be glad.
2 Clouds and thick darkness surround Him;
righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne.
3 Fire goes before Him
and burns up His foes on every side.
4 His lightning lights up the world;
the earth sees and trembles.
5 The mountains melt like wax
at the presence of the Lord—
at the presence of the Lord of all the earth.
6 The heavens proclaim His righteousness;
all the peoples see His glory.
7 All who serve carved images,
those who boast in idols, will be put to shame.
All the gods must worship Him.
8 Zion hears and is glad,
and the towns of Judah rejoice
because of Your judgments, Lord.
9 For You, Lord,
are the Most High over all the earth;
You are exalted above all the gods.
10 You who love the Lord, hate evil!
He protects the lives of His godly ones;
He rescues them from the power of the wicked.
11 Light dawns for the righteous,
gladness for the upright in heart.
12 Be glad in Yahweh, you righteous ones,
and praise His holy name.


What is the evil God Hates?

It's Hate!!!!

God Hates when His children fight and mistreat one another! God IS Love.

Fathers don't torture, they correct.

Fathers don't banish children, they embrace them.

How can such basic concepts in scripture be missed by proclaimed scholars?


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