Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

[Nameless.In.Grace]

I object to "outside time" in that description. I used to think in those terms but I came to the realization that I hadn't gotten it from scripture. I had heard someone say it and repeated it; it was philosophy. I predict that assumption is at the root of further assumptions about free will.

Also could point to reference of the Holy Spirit working with saints before the cross: such as David, Elijah, and Elisha. But perhaps that detail is inconsequential for where you are going with this.... But then again, maybe not.

This is fair. I only cite the concept of the Alpha and Omega as the access to all time and understanding of God, however, this matter is somewhat trite in the light of our equal ground on free will and God's true nature.

I appreciate your perspective. [emoji846]

I tend to agree with you about ruach hakodesh, but I don't usually discuss it, because people other than a handful here are entrenched into their theological cliques and will fight up a storm over the matter. I do note that the nature of ruach hakodesh shifted, by being able to act upon man without restriction, because of God's work on the cross and resurrection....... Oh, Everything Jesus did.[emoji846]


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

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

Jesus sacrifice has covered all though. Isn't that why people preach the good news to the world? To let everyone know Jesus has blotted out their sins 2000 years ago?

Amen!!!!

No other Gospel, and again, no other way to Love self and mankind without fear.


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

 

[Rosenritter]

Those scriptures didn't say that, so your comment is invalid.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

1 Timothy 2:3-6 KJV
(3) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
(4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
(5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
(6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

2 Peter 3:9 KJV
(9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

=> It says "all men", "all", and "any" without any hint that those words should be interpreted in an unusual restrictive sense.


John 3:16 KJV
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Romans 5:8 KJV
(8) But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

1 John 2:1-2 KJV
(1) My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
(2) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

=> If God so loved the world, and he shows his love for us through the death of Christ, and then it goes on to tell us that Christ was the sacrifice for our sins, and not just our sins, but the sins of the whole world, that is used therefore in the sense of inclusion, not exclusion. We wouldn't need multiple steps here except you seem to be disputing either the meaning of the word "God" or "love" or "all" or "men" and I can't figure out which.

 

[beloved57]

1 Timothy 2:3-6 KJV
(3) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
(4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
(5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
(6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

2 Peter 3:9 KJV
(9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

=> It says "all men", "all", and "any" without any hint that those words should be interpreted in an unusual restrictive sense.


John 3:16 KJV
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Romans 5:8 KJV
(8) But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

1 John 2:1-2 KJV
(1) My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
(2) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

=> If God so loved the world, and he shows his love for us through the death of Christ, and then it goes on to tell us that Christ was the sacrifice for our sins, and not just our sins, but the sins of the whole world, that is used therefore in the sense of inclusion, not exclusion. We wouldn't need multiple steps here except you seem to be disputing either the meaning of the word "God" or "love" or "all" or "men" and I can't figure out which.

Not one of those scriptures says all mankind.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

1 Timothy 2:3-6 KJV
(3) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
(4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
(5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
(6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

2 Peter 3:9 KJV
(9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

=> It says "all men", "all", and "any" without any hint that those words should be interpreted in an unusual restrictive sense.


John 3:16 KJV
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Romans 5:8 KJV
(8) But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

1 John 2:1-2 KJV
(1) My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
(2) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

=> If God so loved the world, and he shows his love for us through the death of Christ, and then it goes on to tell us that Christ was the sacrifice for our sins, and not just our sins, but the sins of the whole world, that is used therefore in the sense of inclusion, not exclusion. We wouldn't need multiple steps here except you seem to be disputing either the meaning of the word "God" or "love" or "all" or "men" and I can't figure out which.

Not one of those scriptures says all mankind.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Perhaps if you would have bolded the parts you expected B57 to read, Rosenritter.


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

 

[Sonnet]

Not one of those scriptures says all mankind.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You quote Spurgeon in your signature yet here are his thoughts on 1 Timothy 2:4:

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

I shouldn't do this, but it is in sportsmanship of the gravity of this moment.

Not one of those scriptures says all mankind.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You quote Spurgeon in your signature yet here are his thought on 1 Timothy 2:4:

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/31430/81921632.gif


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

 

[TulipBee]

Straw man there.

easy for you to say

 

[Alaya]

I do not assume Lucifer had already been cast down in Eden. The description in Ezekiel 28 makes it seem as if that being cast down happened later.

I am however a pre-Adamic believer. He was there with God and the first man and woman, and this is why the Serpent, (Satan transformed, already into the Serpent was able to decieve them from their obedience. Ezekiel is a prophetic explanation as to how Lucifer first lost his place in the garden with God, and it is also a spiritual, cyclical event in prophecies coming to pass.

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

rose



Yes My God did. He created some people as vessels of wrath and fits them for destruction Rom 9

Prov 16:4

The Lord hath made all things for himself:
yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Is there any reason why you think He's copy righted?

Calvin © Maybe?

Sent from my HTC One M9 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[beloved57]

of course it does lol

No it doesn't

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Sonnet]

This does not mean that God can tell every decision that we will make before we make it. Some of our "decisions" were really decided long ago. I believe these can be read. But if God knew what we would decide in those moments when we have the potential to change our heart, then why would he test us?

Genesis 22:10-12 KJV
(10) And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
(11) And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
(12) And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

It might be one thing if God had said, "Now you know that you fearest God" but he said "now I know that thou fearest God." There we have at least one example of where God needed a test to know Abraham's heart. At least that's what the scripture literally says.

If God had instead decided to tell Abraham the outcome without him having to actually go through the experience then surely Abraham might harbour some self doubts that would not exist otherwise Surely Abraham had to experience it for himself? - even though God foreknew the outcome. Isn't it the case that asserting open theism raises the spectre of God not being in control?

Before God tested Abraham with Isaac, this occurred:

Genesis 12:1-3
The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

“I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

Regarding this, Peter said:

Acts 3:24-26
“Indeed, beginning with Samuel, all the prophets who have spoken have foretold these days. And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’ When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”

If God did not foreknow the outcome of Abraham's test - how could such a prophecy have been made?

 

[beloved57]

Yeah it actually says it in plain words

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

do you redefine words such as world to fit your beliefs zz

It doesn't say anything about all mankind!

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Sonnet]

Let us pause on this notion for one second.

We just took the first 3 chapters of scripture and have an absolute picture of God's Love.

He is a royal King of Love, that provided free will at the cost of His peace, joy and future fleshly life, amongst His cherished creation. God, could have created robots of religious duty, but, instead made free thinking beings and equipped them to learn and grow with the diversity of good and evil.

At this point, is God looking like a hateful tyrant, or a Loving Husband?


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

The latter - loving husband.

 

[Sonnet]

No! Freewill was part and parcel of God breathing the breath of Life into Adam and ALL his progeny that followed.How else could Adam have made his choice . . .and abel . . .and Cain. . . and anyone else including the Disciples of Jesus, adnausm?

I said 'yes' to freewill - so I'm nonplussed by this.

 

[Sonnet]

Jesus is the presence of God within time, or the flesh of God, so to speak. The Father is the very essence of God that is beyond time. or mind of God. The Holy Spirit is an analogy for the presence of God with us and that draws us to God, when we are marred by hate, pride or the spiritual like. The Holy Spirit is specifically the presence of God, after the work of the cross.

Is this fair to say in context of scripture?


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

Yes.

 

[Sonnet]

fate?

You're okay with the possibility that your 'fate' (born guilty of sin, unable to not sin and left in such a condition) might be so?

 

[Sonnet]

I object to "outside time" in that description. I used to think in those terms but I came to the realization that I hadn't gotten it from scripture. I had heard someone say it and repeated it; it was philosophy. I predict that assumption is at the root of further assumptions about free will.

Also could point to reference of the Holy Spirit working with saints before the cross: such as David, Elijah, and Elisha. But perhaps that detail is inconsequential for where you are going with this.... But then again, maybe not.

Acts 7:51

 

[Sonnet]

No it doesn't

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

#3208

 

[Sonnet]

It doesn't say anything about all mankind!

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

#3208