Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Strange thing for Paul to be preaching belief in an event that Calvinist's say many were excluded from.....the Resurrection.

It's becoming embarrassing.

But your representation of Calvinism is about half strawman and half criticism of actual Calvinistic tenets.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

That is so much hocky puck! You should be ashamed of yourself.

Was Paul a Calvinist??

Paul was more Calvinist than Arminian; and he certainly wasn't a Hegelian Kenoticist and Barthian heretic and reprobate like you.

You can't even validly speak Paul's name, heretic.

 

[Sonnet]

Okay, I see. Yes, I agree with the meme. Do you not?

Have you read Calvin?

If so, how much and what in particular?

I haven't read much at all of Calvin's 'Institutes' - my understanding, rather, comes from Dort. I was however familiar with this quote (from 'Institutes'):

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death” (3:21:5)

So if we lay this beside the other quote then his doublespeak is apparent:

No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief

 

[Sonnet]

It is a valid point. The only one that needs to be made, actually- I've shown a number a times to a few of you that you don't understand Calvinism very well, that you all are just afraid of predestination, in it's full blossom, within God's providence and sovereignty.

You all instead start talking nonsense- that we are 'robots', that God authored sin, or that a person is blameless in their own damnation.
These are all faulty rebuttals that show little more than a vast misunderstanding of Calvinism.

This thread bespeaks the reality - when held to account for their doctrines of limited atonement and election/reprobation - they keep silent.

 

[Sonnet]

Swine only respond to their own waste . . .

Are all infralapsarians unregenerate too?

 

[Cross Reference]

Paul was more Calvinist than Arminian; and he certainly wasn't a Hegelian Kenoticist and Barthian heretic and reprobate like you.

You can't even validly speak Paul's name, heretic.

You are the one who is a heretic. Paul had more contingencies attached to what he had to say than you care to admit . .or perhaps because you so are wrapped up in your stinking self-praise everything of Christ become adulterated in that wasteland sitting on your neck. But then again perhaps you are, all neck. . . with a hole in it!

 

[Cross Reference]

Swine only respond to their own waste . . .

How do you live with yourself?

 

[patrick jane]

Have you read Calvin? What and how much?

I knew you were a Calvinist

 

[lifeisgood]

This is a characterization in hopes of supporting your point, but it fails to make your point.

When you visit an auto mechanic and he starts to describe how the valve seals on your engine have failed and need replacing, your eyes may glaze over for all you know is that your engine spews out blue smoke each morning when you start it up and you want to know why and how much to fix it.

Theological discourse is pregnant with specialized words that have been adopted and carry meaning for the community using them. Yes, we can spend lots of time describing this or that, never knowing that actual words carry the entire description and may be more useful among those that are familiar with them. So it all depends upon context. Given that you are participating in a theological discussion, it pays dividends to become familiar with the common terminology and their meanings such that the discussion can move forward. Just because someone uses specialized words does not give warrant to complain, especially if you have not taken the time to ask for clarification or took it upon yourself to dig a wee bit deeper to learn new words and concepts.

The next time you run across and unfamiliar term, bookmark these sites and see if you can find something explaining things to you:
http://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/isb/
http://www.theopedia.com/

AMR

Thank you AMR. I have no problems with what I termed 'elevated' words. My problem is when those 'elevated' words are being used to consign others to 'reprobate' or 'nonsalvation' status as they have been used in this thread to say that others are not of God because they used 'working together' instead of perichoresis because 'working together' is synergy.

In my mind when I hear someone, who is a Christian, say for example, 'God is working together to help me', personally I am not thinking of perichoresis or synergy or monergism etc., I am thinking that that person is hoping in God to help him/her to resolve his/her problem.

If I hear a Christian tell me 'God is working together to help me', I wouldn't dare consign that person to reprobate or nonsalvation status, because the person did not say 'God's perichoresis is helping me.'

IMHO when 'elevated' words are being used so vociferously as to consign a brother/sister to hell is to make God god.

God is UNcomprehensible. How can He not be? Sending the Second Person of the Godhead to die in my place, one who deserves absolutely nothing. Eternity will not be enough for me to say thank you to God for saving me. Eternity will not be enough for Him to explain to me why He loves me so.

I know I do not make sense but the Lord knows my heart. Tears come to my eyes when I hear a brother/sister consigning others to hell because they do not speak like they do.

So much time is wasted in not preaching the Gospel because the time is taken into the back and forth of no that is synery not perichoresis, for example, and being consigned to reprobate status or hell status. Sad. The Lord can't be happy.

Again, I have no problems with the 'elevated' words. My problem is on how those 'elevated' words are being used to bash another brother/sister and consign them to hell.

And, yes, I can go through the thread and look for the particular post numbers to show that that is what is happening but that would be taking me away from speaking of Jesus Christ and His finished work on the Cross of Calvary, which is being lost because there are so may fads in the BOC that my head spins sometimes.

Again, AMR, thank you.

 

[Cross Reference]

What disturbs me is, anyone who speaks of the "why" of "so great salvation" is ridiculed for attempting to advance the idea of "works salvation" because of their willful ignorance in the matter and completely ignoring the exhortation to move in Christ by: ". . . . leaving the principles [elementary teachings] of the doctrine of Christ, . . .and moving on unto perfection; not laying again [and again and again] the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."
Hebrews 6:1-2 (KJV)


[emphasis mine]

 

[Crucible]

This thread bespeaks the reality - when held to account for their doctrines of limited atonement and election/reprobation - they keep silent.

You can't single out points of TULIP- they are all intrinsic to each other.

Total depravity (Man cannot perform true works without God)
Unconditional Election (God's providence led the elect to Him, and not of themselves)
Limited Atonement (Only the predestined accept and enjoy the merits of Christ)
Irresistible Grace (The elect are incapable of resisting God)
Perseverance of the Saints (The elect will not fall away from God; the original OSAS)

There is nothing wrong with any of that- it is fundamental, ironclad Christianity.

And
Notice that God takes center stage- there is not one point where He is not, which cannot be said for your free will doctrines that, by definition, put the focus on men and their own folly.

 

[Cross Reference]

You can't single out points of TULIP- they are all intrinsic to each other.

Total depravity (Man cannot perform true works without God)
Unconditional Election (God's providence led the elect to Him, and not of themselves)
Limited Atonement (Only the predestined accept and enjoy the merits of Christ)
Irresistible Grace (The elect are incapable of resisting God)
Perseverance of the Saints (The elect will not fall away from God; the original OSAS)

There is nothing wrong with any of that- it is fundamental, ironclad Christianity.

And
Notice that God takes center stage- there is not one point where He is not, which cannot be said for your free will doctrines that, by definition, put the focus on men and their own folly.

You should learn to compare what you write with the evidence against what you write from the written word of God. You and TULIP are all wet and you will find that out quickly if you make the attempt at getting educated. That is how easy you will find it when you do. Until you make the objctive attempt to discuss it, consider yourself a bore.

Why not begin at the beginning so that you get off on the right foot:

"And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."
Genesis 4:3-7 (KJV)?

Whose will was greater than God's?

 

[Crucible]

You should learn to compare what you write with the evidence against what you write from the written word of God. You and TULIP are all wet and you will find that out quickly if you make the attempt at getting educated. That is how easy you will find it when you do. Until you make the objctive attempt to discuss it, consider yourself a bore.

Once again:

The 'issues' aren't valid, and it is apparent that you all don't even really understand Calvinism. You all are pretty much just rebutting whatever you think Calvinism is or want to be.

Also
You want Calvinists to be 'objective' while you take a direct one sided approach- that really just evidences your futility with the subject.
There is nothing 'objective' about the written word of God, and it has plenty to say in the spirit of TULIP. All you all got is over reaching declarations on a handful of scattered verses.

 

[Cross Reference]

Once again:


Also
You want Calvinists to be 'objective' while you take a direct one sided approach- that really just evidences your futility with the subject.
There is nothing 'objective' about the written word of God, and it has plenty to say in the spirit of TULIP. All you all got is over reaching declarations on a handful of scattered verses.

Verses you don't take to yourself as evidence of your error.

I edited my reply to you. Please accept it as my challenge to you.

 

[Crucible]

You should learn to compare what you write with the evidence against what you write from the written word of God. You and TULIP are all wet and you will find that out quickly if you make the attempt at getting educated. That is how easy you will find it when you do. Until you make the objctive attempt to discuss it, consider yourself a bore.

Why not begin at the beginning so that you get off on the right foot:

"And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."
Genesis 4:3-7 (KJV)?

Whose will was greater than God's?

It's not a matter of who has a 'stronger' will- Cain had a fallen will (Total Depravity).

You've already gone off the tracks- the elect began at Abel, the damned began at Cain. That is why the biblical author never even bothered to record Cain's lineage, because it was a birth of a reprobate people.

 

[Cross Reference]

It's not a matter of who has a 'stronger' will- Cain had a fallen will (Total Depravity).

Funny, God didn't speak as if it was, right?

You've already gone off the tracks- the elect began at Abel, the damned began at Cain.

Not according to what is recorded for your benefit you are willfuly ignoring. I am right on track. You are just showing your religion, a doctrine of demons.

That is why the biblical author never even bothered to record Cain's lineage, because it was a birth of a reprobate people.

Cain was not a reprobate. God turns one over to reprobation, those who are "stiff necked" after having much patience with them. It just doesn't happen and never happened because of the fall of Adam or mankind.. So, God never did that to Cain, did He? Why even your fallen "reprobated" man began to call upon the name of the LORD. Look it up Gen 4:26 KJV. No, Cain upon knowing God, was willfully disobeying as you now are doing in your heart.

 

[Nang]

Verses you don't take to yourself as evidence of your error.

TULIP is shorthand for a systematic theology that is faithful to every Word of God.

Your postings using Scripture randomly, do not edify but only disrupt thread after thread with meaningless rhetoric.

 

[Cross Reference]

TULIP is shorthand for a systematic theology that is faithful to every Word of God.

Your postings using Scripture randomly, do not edify but only disrupt thread after thread with meaningless rhetoric.

You are delusional. What is "random" about them? I said it was the beginning of the truth you also willfully ignore because of and to protect, your religious bent.

 

[Cross Reference]

TULIP is shorthand for a systematic theology that is faithful to every Word of God.

Your postings using Scripture randomly, do not edify but only disrupt thread after thread with meaningless rhetoric.

That go unanswered by you.

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

And the longer threads such as this go without a response the greater the confirmation of what you say.

Sonnet,

Christianity has hijacked the message of Jesus in many ways.

A message of hope for mankind has been modified AGAIN into a message of elite claim to a group.

The teachings of Jesus have been bound by doctrines of men.

The church has been defined as only the body of believers.

Paul references God's Royal law (Love) and says that people of this, become a law to themselves.

This verse can and will be undermined, but clearly the message of Jesus is undermined by elite building based thinking.

The Good News of hope, love and grace was supposed to be a universal message to all, and asks that we return the grace that Christ dispensed in word and deed to ALL.

No labels. No walls. Jesus tore the walls down when The temple curtain was rent in two.

A self centrist, group centrist view is in diametric opposition to the message of Jesus.