Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

[WrathAndRdmpt.NIG]

Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

What you mean whose ? Read my threads.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your threads are error ridden. They speak a false gospel.

Whose? That is the mystery.

Is Rose Writer a follower of Jesus and does she believe Jesus was sent by the Father?

Yes.

Does Rose Writer speak with a Loving Spirit?

Yes.

Mystery Solved... [emoji846]


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

Same Questions towards Beloved57

And again, a Yes.

Mystery Solved


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

 

[WrathAndRdmpt.NIG]

Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

My comment was directed to B57 and the gospel he preaches. It's a 'mystery' gospel.

I solved your mystery.

How about a biblical curve ball?

Do you have any?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wi8Fv0AJA4


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

 

[WrathAndRdmpt.NIG]

Your threads are error ridden. They speak a false gospel.

I have one for you CR.

You know this is Nameless. I'm not tying to be sly. [emoji6]

According to the doctrine of Reprobation, who does the Reprobation?


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

 

[Crucible]

I have one for you CR.

You know this is Nameless. I'm not tying to be sly. [emoji6]

According to the doctrine of Reprobation, who does the Reprobation?


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

For one, way to be Cloud from FF7

Also,
Reprobation is simply the acknowledgement of the undisciplined who pretend to be Godly but are not.

 

[Cross Reference]

For one, way to be Cloud from FF7

Also,
Reprobation is simply the acknowledgement of the undisciplined who pretend to be Godly but are not.

Do you understand that reprobation is without remedy, it can't reversed? Relationship is permanently broken. . . . and it is God who decrees this.

 

[LightSon]

Do you understand that reprobation is without remedy, it can't reversed? Relationship is permanently broken. . . . and it is God who decrees this.

Where has God made this decree?

 

[Crucible]

Do you understand that reprobation is without remedy, it can't reversed? Relationship is permanently broken. . . . and it is God who decrees this.

Yes.

And that is the way it is.

I'm going to cut you some slack because I'm almost certain you've never spoken to a real Reformed Christian really. We do not hold to contemporary bias.
We are old school- we believe in a sovereignty of God that the world today frankly cannot agree to, because it is so far gone that it cannot comprehend much of anything that isn't convenient to itself.

 

[Sonnet]

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.

AMR, I didn't tear it away - we were discussing Mat. 13; I have no problem with including it though.

Certainly, Dort was wrong to use the Matthew verse to support reprobation because Judas (whom Calvinist's have as reprobate) is included in the elect group. Just look at Dort's 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:.......“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).

Dort explicitly claims that v.11 identifies the elect as those 'given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven' and the reprobates as the rest ('but to them it has not been given').

Judas is explicitly placed in the former:

Mark 4:10-12
When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, “ ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”

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.

You seem to be missing the central point - Dort explicitly employs Mat.13:11 to substantiate election / reprobation - that the 'those given' are the elect. You are actually contradicting Dort since you are affirming that such knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven isn't necessarily enough. They are saying it's enough.

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?

I'm not quite following you.

Romans 9:18
Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

It's obvious to me that all men are hardened. What is your point? The mercy spoken of is God's decision to elect Christ. The focus of Romans 9 is the repeated argument that Paul makes about affirming the error of those that seek to attain righteousness through their works rather than faith in Christ.

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.

Ok - I will endeavour to do so.

 

[Crucible]

AMR, I didn't tear it away - we were discussing Mat. 13; I have no problem with including it though.

Certainly, Dort was wrong to use the Matthew verse to support reprobation because Judas (whom Calvinist's have as reprobate) is included in the elect group.

The fall of Judas is similar to that of Satan- they are tragedies, and therefore something that most do not speak about often.

Satan was ordained by God to test man. The issue is that he went rogue- Satan is a duality, you see, created for his aderversarial nature, but damned by his insidious will.

Judas had a weakness for money, and he sold out Jesus for it. But then, he throws the money back. He goes and becomes taunted by demons just to be judged by you, who are only saved ultimately because of his acts.

 

[Sonnet]

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.

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.

WCF
III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6]

[6] GEN 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 2:16 AND THE LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. ACT 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation. ROM 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 1CO 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

None of the scriptures the WCF cite explicitly say that we are born guilty of sin. Certainly, though, we are born into a world of sin and we have inherited the sentence imposed on Adam - that of death. Indeed, to cite Romans 5:18 to substantiate OS actualy implies that the atonement wasn't limited...'even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.'

WCF is merely affirming that we all inherit the sentence of death and a propensity to sin.

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.

You make them guilty at birth and exclude some from Christ's provision. You leave them without hope or recourse.

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.

Paul merely affirms man's inability to attain righteousness through his works. Only such pride remonstrates with God as you cite - 'why did you make me like this?'

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

I often call out to Christ...even with all the natural doubts one carries.

 

[Sonnet]

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?

God holds you responsible for Adam's fall - as if you were present? How is that okay?

You assert that God's glory would not have been made manifest if Adam had been created without the ability to sin yet somehow God's glory is made manifest even though you say all subsequent humans are unable to not sin?

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.

Yes, He may do as he wishes but scripture explicitly teaches that He sent Christ to die for all. Your faith in a God which your_theology makes loathsome is incredible.

 

[Sonnet]

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

Death isn't the end though, right?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

How is He not Love?

Where have I denied this particular attribute of God? :idunno:

My quibble is with your seeming elevation of this one attribute above all others. To do so is error and leads to many exegetical gymnastics attempting to overcome clearly didactic passages such as Romans 2:3-5, and Romans 9:13. We are not encouraged even by Johannine theology to infer from the statement "God is love" that God relates to individuals only in terms of love. I recommend you review this: http://goo.gl/nqSrJn

Please go back and review my response and all of its content:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=4775251#post4775251

See also: goo.gl/NpLJzb

And since you are quoting Calvin, let's not overlook the full corpus of the man's writings. Calvin's Institutes began in 1536 as a very short work when he was but under twenty-five years of age. By the time he finished revising the work in 1559 (over twenty years later as he grew in his walk of faith and from thousands of sermons delivered) very near his death it was a much enlarged work.

For example, there is a sermon on Deuteronomy which spells out the theological contours of Calvin's thought on this. In that sermon, Calvin says (Sermons on Deuteronomy, 1189)...

"God then doth love all people. Yea, but not in comparison of his Church. And why? For all the children of Adam are enemies unto God by reason of the corruption that is in them. True it is that God loveth them as his creatures: but yet he must needes hate them, because they be perverted and given to all evil. And that is the cause why the Scripture telleth us that God repented him that he ever made man, considering that man is so marred."

So for Calvin, man stands in one relation to God as creature and another relation as sinner. One must be careful to distinguish the sense in which God bears a love to all men. It must be restricted to their creatureliness and to what might be called the original pattern of creation. Superimposed upon that is another layer relative to the fall. And superimposed upon that is yet another layer with respect to redemption.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I often call out to Christ...even with all the natural doubts one carries.

What does this mean exactly? Do you claim to be a born-again believer or not?

As for quoting the WCF, please avail yourself of its careful exposition:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/shaw/

Your conclusions are corrected therein and I see no need to explain things explanatory therein.

AMR

 

[Crucible]

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

Better than a false gospel that will walk people right into Hell.

The gate is narrow, or is that made obsolete by your grand insight?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God holds you responsible for Adam's fall - as if you were present? How is that okay?

It is the plain teachings of the federal theology of Scripture (see Paul's discussion of the First and the Second Adam in Scripture). Adam was all mankind's chosen representative. How much better for us to have God choosing our representative than relying upon the ballot box? Surely God is able to make the best representative of us all, no? Your "how is that okay" implies you assume you could have done better than Adam in his probationary period of existence. Sigh.

You assert that God's glory would not have been made manifest if Adam had been created without the ability to sin yet somehow God's glory is made manifest even though you say all subsequent humans are unable to not sin?

God's glory is manifested to its greatest possible extent when all of God's attributes are displayed, including His holiness and thusly His mercy and His justice. God has a morally sufficient purpose for the existence of sin. Think about it and it will come to you.

Yes, He may do as he wishes but scripture explicitly teaches that He sent Christ to die for all. Your faith in a God which your_theology makes loathsome is incredible.

If Our Lord paid the debt for each and every person through His active and passive obedience, then the wrath of God has been propitiated for each and every person. Accordingly, per your view, Hell is empty, but for the fallen angels. If even one man is in Hell then that man is being punished via pernicous double-jeopardy. Scripture contradicts such a conclusion. Our Lord's sacrifice was not something potential, but something very actual.

On the contrary, a view that makes the atonement less than what the word actually means, is something incredibly loathsome.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Death isn't the end though, right?

No, it is not. Don't be coy. Are you hinting that while the slaughter of entire nations is one thing, those so slaughtered all went to be with the Lord as if God was doing them a favor, especially the little ones who might have lived on and became as odious as their pagan parents?

AMR

 

[chrysostom]

The doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation would seem to be the most awful case of discrimination we as humans could ever conceive of. God predetermines who will be saved and who will be passed by and Man has absolutely no say in the matter. It's dreadfulness needs no further explanation.

amen
-tulip is nonsense, pure and simple

 

[Sonnet]

amen
-tulip is nonsense, pure and simple

So we have something in common...we both don't believe...........in the gospel...according to John Calvin...

 

[chrysostom]

So we have something in common...we both don't believe...........in the gospel...according to John Calvin...

there is only one gospel
-Jesus suffered and died so we might be saved
-this I believe