Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

[Cross Reference]

Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
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.

And if God doesn't then you would have to conclude that He is a respecter of persons and His Grace isn't unmerited, which it isn't since He gives grace to the humble and resists the proud. . . right? Why don't you do that little thing in your next post?

Why does God hate those who hate Him and love those who love Him? That is easily answerable. Clue: Why was David called by God to be a man after His own heart?

 

[Sonnet]

What does this mean exactly?

I'm not clear as to your query.

Do you claim to be a born-again believer or not?

I don't claim that, no.

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.

I made an argument against their take on original sin and am confused as to why you haven't responded.

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

And if God doesn't then you would have to conclude that He is a respecter of persons and His Grace isn't unmerited, which it isn't since He gives grace to the humble and resists the proud. . . right?

Why does God hate those who hate Him and love those who love Him? That is easily answerable. Clue: Why was David called by God to be a man after His own heart?

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.

[emoji846]

This is the beginning of the irrefutable spiritual ammunition. [emoji118]link here

This is indeed the theological error of the doctrine discussed.

The counter doctrine has been formed of many passages of scripture.

It is now scripturally irrefutable.

You have what you came for Sonnet.

Time to break out the Cross References, Brother.


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

 

[Sonnet]

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.


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.

We're going round in circles AMR.

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 pernicious double-jeopardy. Scripture contradicts such a conclusion. Our Lord's sacrifice was not something potential, but something very actual.

Shoe-horning in your substitutionary view of the atonement will naturally lead to an anomaly - so I need not address this.

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

AMR

We know the explicit scriptures that teach provision for all. John 1:29;3:14-16, 1 Tim 2:3-6, Titus 2:11, Hebrews 2:11, 1 John 2:2.

 

[Sonnet]

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

I don't presume to know their fate - but their death does not affirm their reprobation necessarily. Mat. 11:20ff may give an insight.

 

[Sonnet]

sonnet said you dont

the bit that says "according to John Calvin..." was hidden.

 

[Sonnet]

This is indeed the theological error of the doctrine discussed.

The counter doctrine has been formed of many passages of scripture.

It is now scripturally irrefutable.

You have what you came for Sonnet.

Time to break out the Cross References, Brother.


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

??

You once asked me if this discussion was over.

We can continue discussion,

However,

And if God doesn't then you would have to conclude that He is a respecter of persons and His Grace isn't unmerited, which it isn't since He gives grace to the humble and resists the proud. . . right?

Why does God hate those who hate Him and love those who love Him? That is easily answerable. Clue: Why was David called by God to be a man after His own heart?

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.

[emoji846]

This is the beginning of the irrefutable spiritual ammunition. [emoji118] link here

This is indeed the theological error of the doctrine discussed.

The counter doctrine has been formed of many passages of scripture. [emoji118]

It is now scripturally irrefutable.

You have what you came for Sonnet. [emoji118]

Time to break out the Cross References, [emoji118] Brother.

Acts 10:34

Then Peter began to speak: "Now I really understand that God doesn't show favoritism,

Acts 10:34 Cross Reference

It's over. The core scripture that refutes that God favors a "so called" elect is now manifest.

Scripturally cross reference the revealed verses from the verses in this post and you can now sustain your rebuttals with a written counter doctrine. Ensure to contextually quote. DO NOT use Snippets of verses. Lies are made of such.

Build scriptures in context of chapters and complete exegesis of the biblical books entire thrust.

You did it!

It's over. You have what you came for!

Do you understand this?

You now have home work! [emoji6]

Not bad for an "agnostic". [emoji106][emoji85][emoji43]


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

 

[Rosenritter]

Both? I don't think so as written.



That would be a problem, wouldn't it, if that one unwilling remained unwilling?



No broken spirit I see in what I posited.



Judgment???? God did that by administering His death sentence. Argue Rom 1:28 KJV with Him. Tell Him he did wrongly. Then tack the words from Proverbs, "without remedy", on the end of it.

Within the passage posted, destruction was without remedy for certain, unless one wants to argue that the destruction has remedy. That means that the "without remedy" cannot be dogmatically assigned to "reprobation" from that passage.

Past that please do not argue unnecessarily. I did not limit God's ability to judge, rather I cautioned that we should not judge as that right belongs to God alone.

As individuals we may repent of wrongness, and with that "broken and contrite spirit" that scripture posits as a possibility we should know that God will not reject. Likewise when we preach the gospel of repentance others should know that God will not reject sincere repentance.

I don't see any reason for objection.

 

[Sonnet]

Perhaps a Calvinist other than AMR can explain how, if (as AMR avers) we are born guilty of sin and are unable to not sin - then if (as AMR also avers) some of these are left in such a condition (ie reprobated) - how can it be said that such folk have any option whatsoever to extricate themselves from their apparent inevitable fate? And how can it be argued that God isn't discriminatory?

Remember, it's averred that they are born like it, will continue like it and are left like it.
And they have no say in it.

 

[Sonnet]

You once asked me if this discussion was over.

We can continue discussion,

However,







This is the beginning of the irrefutable spiritual ammunition. [emoji118] link here

This is indeed the theological error of the doctrine discussed.

The counter doctrine has been formed of many passages of scripture. [emoji118]

It is now scripturally irrefutable.

You have what you came for Sonnet. [emoji118]

Time to break out the Cross References, [emoji118] Brother.

Acts 10:34

Then Peter began to speak: "Now I really understand that God doesn't show favoritism,


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




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

Indeed - the contrast could not be clearer:

James 2:9

The Arminian reasons incorrectly that this is the Gospel presentation—that God loves all mankind equally and gives no preference to anyone. (AMR)

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

Indeed - the contrast could not be clearer:

James 2:9

The Arminian reasons incorrectly that this is the Gospel presentation—that God loves all mankind equally and gives no preference to anyone. (AMR)

I added a bit more to it.

I'm neither Armenian, nor reform. But I know the Rock and He knows me, for His Glorious Hand of Correction guides my life, and His teachings are my hope and life's calling.

Will you please go back to the post link here [emoji118] you just quoted and note that I have been a demanding friend and assigned you HomeWork.

Get cracking! Your labor has been vindicated.

Can I expect a counter doctrine from you?

This is your baby after all.

It should simply be "The Doctrine of the Rebuttal to Calvinistic Reprobation." [emoji846]


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

 

[beloved57]

Gods Grace is manifested through reprobation, that is His Sovereign Grace, He saves whom He will by His Discriminating Grace, and punishes whom He will in His Justice. God made the reprobate, the vessels of wrath, to be justly punished for their sins, and He made the vessels of mercy to be saved from their sins !

 

[Rosenritter]

Gods Grace is manifested through reprobation, that is His Sovereign Grace, He saves whom He will by His Discriminating Grace, and punishes whom He will in His Justice. God made the reprobate, the vessels of wrath, to be justly punished for their sins, and He made the vessels of mercy to be saved from their sins !

Why? If the vessels of mercy have no choice or options in this matter, do they really need examples of vessels of wrath to drive them to repentance? To clarify my question, presuming your statement above to be true, why are there vessels of wrath?

As a second question, why would God be wrathful, if these vessels are simply doing what God intended for them to do? As you describe above, it isn't as if they have any other option than to do as they have been formed.

 

[beloved57]

Why? If the vessels of mercy have no choice or options in this matter, do they really need examples of vessels of wrath to drive them to repentance? To clarify my question, presuming your statement above to be true, why are there vessels of wrath?

I dont know what you talking about !

 

[TulipBee]

the bit that says "according to John Calvin..." was hidden.

Are you slaughtering people again?

Those who labor for self-justification strive like oxen in the yoke only to be slaughtered -Samuel Bolton

 

[TulipBee]

 

[Cross Reference]

This is the beginning of the irrefutable spiritual ammunition. [emoji118]link here

This is indeed the theological error of the doctrine discussed.

The counter doctrine has been formed of many passages of scripture.

It is now scripturally irrefutable.

You have what you came for Sonnet.

Time to break out the Cross References, Brother.


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

But first and foremost you have know what you are talking about. There must be a foundation upon which you build for understanding, what the issues are and what is at stake if there is none. Like I said, you are all over the map and need to come to grips with regards to your spiritual understanding..

 

[Cross Reference]

Within the passage posted, destruction was without remedy for certain, unless one wants to argue that the destruction has remedy. That means that the "without remedy" cannot be dogmatically assigned to "reprobation" from that passage.

It isn't as you think it from the passages. It is QUITE CLEAR to be as written and easily understood as written.

Past that please do not argue unnecessarily. I did not limit God's ability to judge, rather I cautioned that we should not judge as that right belongs to God alone.

Which I never inferred.

A

s individuals we may repent of wrongness, and with that "broken and contrite spirit" that scripture posits as a possibility we should know that God will not reject. Likewise when we preach the gospel of repentance others should know that God will not reject sincere repentance.

If we can do that then we aren't reprobates, are we? That is the whole of the understnding of Roman 1:28 KJV. "They didn't want to", therefore God "turned them over". Right??

 

[Rosenritter]

It isn't as you think it from the passages. It is QUITE CLEAR to be as written and easily understood as written.

If we can do that then we aren't reprobates, are we? That is the whole of the understanding of Roman 1:28 KJV. "They didn't want to", therefore God "turned them over". Right??

It seems to me that if it were "quite clear" then we wouldn't disagree about the reading. If one tries to force one version of a reading and call it proof of doctrine, then that becomes an example of eisigesis. Meaning should flow naturally from the text, rather than being forced upon it.

You are asking me about my whole understanding of Romans 1:28. Seems to me that it is saying that when people are evil and do not care, God just gives them up to themselves.

Romans 1:28 KJV
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


That does not mean that an individual (or individuals) from that group of reprobate mind might not come face to face with themselves and seek God while he can still be found. At that point they would not longer be in that group called "reprobate."

It wasn't a question of whether they "could" retain God in their knowledge, it was a question of whether they "liked" to retain God in their knowledge. Read the passage again.

Romans 1:28 KJV
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Whose mind did he give them over to? Their own mind. They still have their own mind, and God gives them over to themselves.

Why did he give them over? Because they "did not like" to retain God in their knowledge. Not because they couldn't, but because they chose not to.

That's actually what it says if one looks closely enough.