Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
beloved57
Well-known member
All I'm saying is that it doesn't say mankind ! People say that, not that scripture!
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Rosenritter
New member
1. God said, "Now I know..." That literally implies God didn't know.
2. The promise to Abraham may have been conditional, or...
3. God may have made it happen anyway in spite of shortcomings. As a physician you need to diagnose before you treat, and God has worked with people who had imperfect faith (Peter!)
Sonnet
New member
Charles Spurgeon on 1 Timothy 2:4:
"The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men."
Rosenritter
New member
Why don't you post the six scriptures that do use the word "mankind" for us? Four of those six are about sexual sin, such as this:
Leviticus 18:22 KJV
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Now we all know that "all men" is the equivalent of "all mankind" ... And you've been shown many times over. Would you give the same denial if the question was whether God created mankind?
Genesis 1:27 KJV
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
"Doesn't say that" would be your post.
beloved57
Well-known member
I don't need to do that. I Jn 2:2 says nothing about all mankind or mankind
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Sonnet
New member
Charles Spurgeon on 1 Timothy 2:4:
"The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men."
Rosenritter
New member
Acts 7:51 KJV
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did , so do ye.
I cannot figure out whether you mean that "as your fathers resisted the Holy Ghost" means that the Holy Ghost was available but resisted, the same as in the time of Acts, or if you mean it wasn't available at all. I understand it as the former.
2 Kings 2:9 KJV
And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be taken away from thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me.
I understand that spirit spoken of to be the Holy Spirit in actuality.
Acts 1:16 KJV
Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
The scripture is said to be written by that spirit, and as it moved through his prophets.
2 Peter 1:21 KJV
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Sonnet
New member
? You said:
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.
Rosenritter
New member
My Bible tells me that all men, small and great, stand before his throne on that day of destruction. It does not tell me that the wicked are required to remain wicked.
Ezekiel 33:14-16 KJV
Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; [15] If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. [16] None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.
The wicked may be created for destruction and reserved for the day of evil, but no person was created with an unavoidable destiny to remain wicked. "Wicked" is a description, not an irreversible decree.
I could boldface some words if it would help...
Sonnet
New member
You'd need an explicit scripture that said that God predetermined that they would be wicked. You don't have that.
Rosenritter
New member
I don't know whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me?
beloved57
Well-known member
The wicked were Made/Created to be reserved unto the day of destruction. That was God's purpose for making/creating them Prov 16:4
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Exercise caution when you declare another believer to have defamed God.
Of course God shows favoritism, else, for example, the choosing of Israel as the nation to bring forth the oracles of God is false. :AMR:
Indeed, the Bible is full of God bestowing His favor on some and not others. Paul reminds us that God "has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills". That's favoritism, plain and simple. And Paul's answer in Romans 9 to those that would complain is that God as sovereign Creator has a right to act as He pleases; we His creatures are not in a position to question Him about it.
On the face of it, it does not seem fair for God to choose some over others. The Bible asserts, “God does not show favoritism” (Rom. 2:11). In this passage, Paul means that God will judge each man fairly according to his works (v. 6). But is it favoritism for God to choose some men to be saved, and pass by the rest?
The answer to this question comes from a careful reading of James 2:1-9. In v. 1, James proclaims to his readers, “don't show favoritism.” In v. 9 he goes so far as to say that “if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.” Favoritism, therefore, is a sin against man and God. What sort of favoritism is James talking about? In v. 2 he describes the situation: “Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in.” Verses 3-4 he tells the church not to give a place of prominence to wealthy churchgoers. If they do, he says, they have “discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts” (v. 4). Favoritism is a sin, and therefore the members of the church must treat the poor and wealthy alike.
But notice what James says in v. 5: “Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom?” This is very important. Our question is this: is it wrong for God to “show favoritism” by choosing to save some men and reject others? The answer is no. In the same passage of Scripture where the Bible condemns showing partiality as sin, it speaks of God’s choosing some men to be “rich in faith!” It is wrong for man to choose to show importance to the rich over the poor, but it is not wrong for God to choose the poor over the rich.
When the Scriptures assert that God is impartial, we cannot take this to militate against the other verses that speak of God’s sovereign election. It is true that God will judge all men impartially according to their works, but this does not mean that God has not chosen some men “unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:8-10). There are some men to whom God has granted faith and he has ordained specific good works for them to perform. Impartiality must be defined with great precision lest it becomes a kind of twentieth-century egalitarian slogan that ends up forcing God to bless equal percentages of every class and race with identical blessings. Such a definition of “impartiality” simply does not align with the Bible’s own use of the term.
What God wants, He gets. God is not anxiously wringing His hands and pacing about hoping Bob or Jane will choose rightly. He is not impotent, nor is God a contingent being awaiting the actions of others to "elect" themselves. God's salvific grace is only bestowed upon those whom He will have it bestowed upon.
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No, you have merely stated some opinions along the lines of, "well, I do not agree that these verses teach what is being claimed". In the majority of our communications one of us us actually exegeting Scripture, or pointing to exegesis elsewhere, while the other is just waving said analysis off with statements of woe and dismay at the analysis. I think you know who is who here, too. :AMR:
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
As previously noted, mere Scripture quotation is not exegetical argumentation. A text without a context is a pretext for your prooftexting.
Worth a look:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-saved-under&p=4754205&viewfull=1#post4754205
AMR
Rosenritter
New member
Yet your interpretation of that passage, albeit consistent with Calvin, conflicts with the previously cited Ezekiel 33. My interpretation does not.
Rosenritter
New member
Yet the first shall be last and the last shall be first. Is your eye evil because his is good?