Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

[Cross Reference]

You are without excuse. Historical Christology of the Faith has been settled for many centuries by men of God much greater than I (and you, for sure). You don't get to validly innovate, any more than the Third Wave Charismatic antichrists get to innovate.

Extreme Kenoticism has been anathema for centuries. And if you knew the reasons why, you'd cringe at yourself and your peers. You just can't get there from here. Sad.

<yawn>

 

[Cross Reference]

Probably the wrong section for you. It is 'exclusively' Christian for posting here. Some exceptions but check with a mod.

Why not address that at PPS?? Maybe even yourself from time to time for your creedish brand of Christianity that pretty much elevates itself above the authority of God. With PPS his authority is a hodge podge of Greek expressions so convoluted he doesn't even know that, by them, he is all over the road in trying to determine which end is up in his replies.. He reads like he needs oxygen.

 

[Eagles Wings]

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect....

You have been afforded gentleness and respect, Sonnet. You have been given the Gospel over and over and by your own lips, refuse Him. You have many people praying for you, particularly men of God, who well know the reason for their Hope.

 

[Eagles Wings]

Why not address that at PPS?? Maybe even yourself from time to time for your creedish brand of Christianity that pretty much elevates itself above the authority of God. With PPS his authority is a hodge podge of Greek expressions so convoluted he doesn't even know that, by them, he is all over the road in trying to determine which end is up in his replies.. He reads like he needs oxygen.

I've been a student of creeds and confessions for a couple of years now and NEVER, EVER are they considered to be above the authority of the Word of our Sovereign, Triune God,. NO ONE would suggest such a thing.

Most Christians decline to even read them out of a gross misunderstanding of their purpose and historical importance in Christendom.

 

[Cross Reference]

I've been a student of creeds and confessions for a couple of years now and NEVER, EVER are they considered to be above the authority of the Word of our Sovereign, Triune God,. NO ONE would suggest such a thing.

Most Christians decline to even read them out of a gross misunderstanding of their purpose and historical importance in Christendom.

Well, everyone has a right to their opinion, don't they? Even PPS, Lon, AMR and of course, you.

 

[Eagles Wings]

Well, everyone has a right to their opinion, don't they? Even PPS, Lon, AMR and of course, you.

Sure.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Well, everyone has a right to their opinion, don't they? Even PPS, Lon, AMR and of course, you.

Not really. But everyone has the privilege of God's opinion, if they are renewed in the spirit of their mind.

That doesn't include Hegelian Kenoticists like yourself, though; so all you can have is your own opinion rather than God's. Again, sad.

 

[Cross Reference]

Not really. But everyone has the privilege of God's opinion, if they are renewed in the spirit of their mind.

That doesn't include Hegelian Kenoticists like yourself, though; so all you can have is your own opinion rather than God's. Again, sad.

you presume much without knowledge. Sez much about your weirdness one needs to be mindful of if he chooses to reply to what he thinks you might be saying.

 

[Sonnet]

If I may just make 2 points here :

1. It is a bit of an irony that the passage you quoted concerns Israel - which is called (many times in scripture) God's elect. And most of the Christian world that does not hold Calvinism will at the same time hold that ALL of Israel is elect to salvation (Romans 11:25-26). So those who will reject predestination (at least for Gentiles) will wholeheartedly accept the idea that it will hold for Israel. God, then, can do what He wants with Israel but not with the Gentiles? So which does Paul believe (more...?), that it's up to Israel if they want to believe or not (the chapter you cited) or that they all will be saved per Romans 11 (whether they like it or not?)...
For the record, I don't use that to place undue stress on one or the other passage - just to realize that the arguments against Reformed predestination often seem to be more emotional than biblical. The matter is complex and I don't believe our words can properly do the whole thing justice.

I don't see that as an issue considering the following:

Romans 9:6-8
It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Galatians 3:7
Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.

2. The second point is one you are no doubt familiar with - the Calvinist doesn't disagree that belief is a necessary component of salvation. And would also say (I suppose) that Paul didn't know who was to be saved or not. Even Jesus spoke what He did first of all out of obedience to the Father, but also hoping the Pharisees "might be saved" (John 5:34). Were they? The Calvinist would say that God alone knows...so Paul's approach wouldn't be inconsistent with a Calvinistic theology (as I understand it, anyway).

I can't see how Calvinist Paul can extricate himself from the charge of disingenuity. The reality would be that Paul is merely covering the election doctrine with some flowery words. One can feel Paul's genuine concern in his desire for their salvation - such a contrast to the stark theology of TULIP.

Why quote from Moses to the effect that it's not too difficult? TULIP says it wont happen unless you're 'in'. Why enjoin belief in something that some folk have been excluded from? How can the Calvinist preacher do this? How could J. Piper do so when we know he doesn't believe Christ died for all salvifically?

When the Gospel writers recorded the events concerning Jesus Christ and the Passion, they endeavoured to do so accurately - as Luke says at the beginning of his:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Paul's recourse for his kinsmen appears to be anything but genuine under Calvinism.

 

[Cross Reference]

Not really. But everyone has the privilege of God's opinion, if they are renewed in the spirit of their mind.

That doesn't include Hegelian Kenoticists like yourself, though; so all you can have is your own opinion rather than God's. Again, sad.

you presume much without knowledge. Sez much about your weirdness one needs to be mindful of if he chooses to reply to what he thinks you might be saying. personally, i wouldn't bother.

 

[Sonnet]

You have been afforded gentleness and respect, Sonnet. You have been given the Gospel over and over and by your own lips, refuse Him. You have many people praying for you, particularly men of God, who well know the reason for their Hope.

It was more of a focus on 'hope' in 1 Peter 3:15. I'm looking at how such good news as the Calvinist interprets it might be explained. I don't see any good news in the theology - more a total focus on man's depravity that permits election/reprobation without impugning God's character.

 

[Sonnet]

Probably the wrong section for you. It is 'exclusively' Christian for posting here. Some exceptions but check with a mod.

Furthermore...
We are also willing to let any other unbeliever or follower of another religion post here if they are honestly seeking an answer to a question or have constructive input to the discussion.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Furthermore...
We are also willing to let any other unbeliever or follower of another religion post here if they are honestly seeking an answer to a question or have constructive input to the discussion.

But you're not honestly seeking an answer. You're contending for a position. You're debating, and insisting others do so.

How can you be so obtuse as to think you fit that requirement? Especially after being extended much long-suffering and genuine conversation while you were being disingenuous all along.

You're not searching. You're debating. There's a huge difference.

 

[Sonnet]

Look at the contrast:

Romans 4:25
He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

According to the Calvinist, Paul's 'our' is only believers - but Paul to unbelievers (Romans 10:9):
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Unless God raised Jesus from the dead for all men, Paul could never say this with integrity.

 

[Sonnet]

But you're not honestly seeking an answer. You're contending for a position. You're debating, and insisting others do so.

How can you be so obtuse as to think you fit that requirement? Especially after being extended much long-suffering and genuine conversation while you were being disingenuous all along.

You're not searching. You're debating. There's a huge difference.

That I think it totally obvious that scripture teaches a genuine sacrifice for all without exception isn't a failure. That I'm holding Calvinists to account for what I consider their crucifixion of what would otherwise be considered the Good News - such, so far, appears to be considered within the rules.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

That I think it totally obvious that scripture teaches a genuine sacrifice for all without exception isn't a failure. That I'm holding Calvinists to account for what I consider their crucifixion of what would otherwise be considered the Good News - such, so far, appears to be considered within the rules.

That's the point. Unbelievers don't hold Belivers to account for ANY doctrinal disparities IN THIS SECTION.

I couldn't care less if you have a thread in the Religion section with all the other dissenters of every ilk. I've answered your obtuse challenges several times by indicating Christ died for the SIN of all, not for all individuals.

And I'm not a Mod, so what I say matters little in this context. But it matters more than your opinion as a non-Believer on anything related to Christian doctrine.

And it remains that you are in the category of those who have the least excuse of all for not believing.

 

[Cross Reference]

Presumption dictates much to those who tend to come up short in their understanding by their relying upon the scolarly approach to it...

 

[Sonnet]

That's the point. Unbelievers don't hold Belivers to account for ANY doctrinal disparities IN THIS SECTION.

Doesn't say this in the rules.

I couldn't care less if you have a thread in the Religion section with all the other dissenters of every ilk. I've answered your obtuse challenges several times by indicating Christ died for the SIN of all, not for all individuals.

I'd respond but you don't debate - remember?

And I'm not a Mod, so what I say matters little in this context. But it matters more than your opinion as a non-Believer on anything related to Christian doctrine.

Plenty of Arminians who would vehemently disagree with your theology.

And it remains that you are in the category of those who have the least excuse of all for not believing.

It remains the case that Calvinism destroys the Gospel...for me. And your theology does so too.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Doesn't say this in the rules.

I'd respond but you don't debate - remember?

Plenty of Arminians who would vehemently disagree with your theology.

It remains the case that Calvinism destroys the Gospel...for me. And your theology does so too.

Good thing the Gospel is not subjective, then. It doesn't need your approval as you sit in judgment of God from your own depravity with an unrenewed heart and mind.

Your masterful "feigned-ness" of all things, not withstanding, of course. In the end, I don't care about anything except your life and others'.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

It remains the case that Calvinism destroys the Gospel...for me. And your theology does so too.

Wow. Jesus Christ being made the sin of all mankind destroys the Gospel... for you? Just wow.

The giant elephant in the room, then, is that you must then judge all Monergists as unsaved if Monergism destroys the Gospel.