Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

[nikolai_42]

Nic. I really don't like anyone putting words on paper and calling them mine. Get my drift? Why not start over with your opinion absent such words as "wicked" that my reply will be something I might otherwise enjoy giving you? Thank you.

I didn't call any of my words yours - I used the word "If" for a specific reason. These were your words to which I was responding :

And "fruit" you say? What fruit? Calvinism? Calvinism has been a bane to all of Christendom; the church of today being an institution of dead doctrine.

Did not God say He could and would use anyone to bring about His purposes. So, being witness to somethng of God is no guarantee the man who seems to bringing it in the Name Jesus is, of himself, of Jesus.

What else am I supposed to draw from that? Either the Reformation was just generally a bad thing all round (and all those involved then cast under suspicion by association) or the Reformation was a good thing executed by evil, unregenerate men (i.e. NOT of Jesus). The denial that Knox was in any way Pentecostal (even in the most general sense) and the all but saying Spurgeon's words of knowledge were not of God lead me to the conclusion that you don't believe they had (nor indeed were operating in the power of) the Holy Spirit. Isn't that your understanding of "Pentecostal" (all immediate effects of receiving the Holy Spirit aside)? If I'm wrong, please tell me where and I will reassess.

 

[nikolai_42]

Denied what? They did not - as you indicate - deny the power. They simply denied that they held a position where they were to prophesy. What Spurgeon described as prophecy ironically (I think) denied to call it that. But he said it was of God, admitted its accuracy and simply said he was used of God. That's not denying the power - just the label. No biblical issue that I see with that. God can correct him if so needed.

While openly acknowledged God, they nevertheless denied His Power by making excuses in their in performing what might be otherwise called a Pentecostal happening. . . . which they have to deny as being possible and therefore must be of some other means God chooses by a "sovereign" act to perform.

Again, it seems to me you are ignoring the possibility that they would simply acknowledge themselves to be God's instrument at the time and not want to put themselves in any spotlight or make any claim as to what God was doing (or why). Not denying the power - just their own ability and leaving God to act as He will.

 

[Cross Reference]

NIK> Don't obfuscate. OK? You used the word "wicked" and then began to build your case.

 

[nikolai_42]

Nic. I really don't like anyone putting words on paper and calling them mine. Get my drift? Why not start over with your opinion absent such words as "wicked" that my reply will be something I might otherwise enjoy giving you? Thank you.

Let me repeat a question that I asked earlier - the answer to which may help clarify (to me) what you believe. To whom was Spurgeon praying when he prayed for healing?

 

[nikolai_42]

NIK> Don't obfuscate. OK? You used the word "wicked" and then began to build your case.

What should I say? Misguided? Well-meaning but unregenerate? Regenerate but blind? In Christ but not working for Him? If they were unregenerate men of the RCC who just wanted to create their own church and call it Christ's (when it clearly wasn't), that would be - I would say - wicked. But one of the motivations of the whole Reformation was to bring the people back to scripture from man's tradition. These were praying men - not (primarily) scholastics with ambition. If you believe these men were in Christ (which you seemed to imply per your quote that they weren't) then I agree - wicked is not correct. But if they weren't and they wanted to do these things in God's name but not as His own...aren't they called workers of iniquity by the Lord Himself?

 

[Cross Reference]

Again, it seems to me you are ignoring the possibility that they would simply acknowledge themselves to be God's instrument at the time and not want to put themselves in any spotlight or make any claim as to what God was doing (or why). Not denying the power - just their own ability and leaving God to act as He will.

With no credit open;y going to the Holy Spirit outside their "feelings" in the matter, which leaves it all open for unbelief to advance on schedule, they are denying God and in the process are heaping the glory on themselves. . . . which no doubt the reason Spurgeon is known for nothing more than being a great preacher with only one message.. .Well, maybe two.

 

[Cross Reference]

What should I say? Misguided? Well-meaning but unregenerate? Regenerate but blind? In Christ but not working for Him? If they were unregenerate men of the RCC who just wanted to create their own church and call it Christ's (when it clearly wasn't), that would be - I would say - wicked. But one of the motivations of the whole Reformation was to bring the people back to scripture from man's tradition. These were praying men - not (primarily) scholastics with ambition. If you believe these men were in Christ (which you seemed to imply per your quote that they weren't) then I agree - wicked is not correct. But if they weren't and they wanted to do these things in God's name but not as His own...aren't they called workers of iniquity by the Lord Himself?

Then you that to owe to me as well as yourself to get understanding before using over the top words. You have to get into your thinking that these fellows were cessationists.

 

[Cross Reference]

Nik, The theological foundation one chooses to build upon necessarily dictates what they can only believe for. When things don't perform on schedule, they have a problem. A.W. Pink was one such person who wrote volumes with out saying anything.

 

[nikolai_42]

Nik, The theological foundation one chooses to build upon necessarily dictates what they can only believe for. When things don't perform on schedule, they have a problem. A.W. Pink was one such person who wrote volumes with out saying anything.

Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.
For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
Isaiah 48:10-11

Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
I Corinthians 3:5-7

I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
John 5:43-44

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 5:16

 

[Cross Reference]

"Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.
For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another."
Isaiah 48:10-11

"And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them. . . . . "
John 17:22 (KJV)

 

[nikolai_42]

With no credit open;y going to the Holy Spirit outside their "feelings" in the matter, which leaves it all open for unbelief to advance on schedule, they are denying God and in the process are heaping the glory on themselves. . . . which no doubt the reason Spurgeon is known for nothing more than being a great preacher with only one message.. .Well, maybe two.

Does the Holy Spirit need an introduction?

I have one more question for now so I can understand your understanding...

If there are two men who claim to be in Christ and both claim to have the Holy Spirit - one insists he is filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesies, speaks in tongues etc... and the other claims only to be in Christ and follow Him (no reference to gifts of the Holy Spirit). If the first man is also given to fits of anger and outbursts of insults or defamation of other people and the second man exhibits no such extremes but rather wisdom and consistency in sound teaching (and does not make claims like "I have prophesied" or "I have healed" etc...) - could you (in your understanding, remembering these are hypothetical) conclude that one or neither are in Christ?

 

[Cross Reference]

Does the Holy Spirit need an introduction?

Not to those who seek God to know Him; who have their priorities all sorted out in Him; those who put Him first, who have abandoned their lives having left them at the cross..They readily recognize Him without error in judging or judgment..

Now what were you saying/asking?

 

[God's Truth]

Yes, and I will amend my thought to say that God will save whom He wills, regardless of the doctrinal confusion of the individual at the time. He regenerates as He sees fit. He sovereignly saves those He chooses to save.

God saves those who obey Him.

 

[Bright Raven]

God saves those who obey Him.

God saves those who believe in His only begotten Son.

 

[God's Truth]

I don't know how to gently say that you are expecting Christian behavior from others that you are not exhibiting yourself. We ALL must look at ourselves and ask whether we are behaving as Christ would have us.

You say, I am lost, they say, you are lost. I KNOW who I am, in/by Christ, so I am secure in Him.

No, they say I am lost, and you joined in with them.

You need to stop misjudging me.

Paul says those who say I belong to ___, they are worldly.

Worldly means lost.

You keep talking about Spurgeon and other men when you could be talking about God's Word.

 

[God's Truth]

God saves those who believe in His only begotten Son.

Do you believe we are not saved until we receive the Holy Spirit?

 

[Bright Raven]

Do you believe we are not saved until we receive the Holy Spirit?

I believe that we receive the Holy Spirit when we are saved.

 

[God's Truth]

I believe that we receive the Holy Spirit when we are saved.

We agree on that.

Now what does this scripture say:

Acts 3:32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."

 

[Cross Reference]

I believe that we receive the Holy Spirit when we are saved.

I don't. I believe one receives Him when born again as a prerequisite for moving on in sonship with God per John 1:12 KJV.. "Let him who builds the house, first count the cost".

 

[God's Truth]

I don't. I believe one receives Him when born again as a prerequisite for moving on in sonship with God per John 1:12 KJV.. "Let him who builds the house, first count the cost".

BEING BORN IS AGAIN IS WHEN ONE IS SAVED.