Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
You make up words and phrases to fit your sick doctrine
beloved57
Well-known member
Sonnet
New member
The OP makes a clear argument as to why salvation is available, conditionally, for all. Your statement is just an assertion. Are you suggesting I might do as you do thus:
Calvinistic reprobation of some isn't a necessary doctrine of the Gospel nor is Sovereign discrimination in Election. Introduce it and we forfeit the Gospel.
?
I wont though.
Sonnet
New member
When it comes to any "before-ness" concerning Yeshua they have eliminated it from their "infallible" texts, (it used to be in Luke 3:22, and in Codex Bezae only may it still be found even though most modern translations refuse to note this fact). However the author of Hebrews reveals that the full decree from the Father to the Son, quoted from Psalms 2:7 in Luke 3:22, was still assumed as common knowledge to the reader when the epistle to the Hebrews was penned, (see Hebrews 1:4-5). But of course if there was indeed any time within time when the Father said to the Son, "This day have I begotten thee", then it clearly follows that, "Houston, Trinity has a problem: eternal Son doctrine is down for the count." What is also alarming is how the author of Hebrews clearly puts his comments in the context of inheritance while everyone knows the old doctrine they tried to snuff out was called the adoptionist view, (and it was well known because it was the first century Messianic Jewish position). I understand this was not what your comments were about but it does have much to do about "before-ness" and "non-before-ness" from a slightly different perspective.
I'll admit I'm not following you totally.
Sovereign discriminating Grace in Election is found nowhere in the Bible
That's proof, anti Christ
beloved57
Well-known member
Says who ? Prove that statement. Where did it say that in the bible ?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Sonnet
New member
When Paul preached belief in the resurrection unto salvation as in the OP (Romans 10) - was it genuine or not?
Cross Reference
New member
Indeed because what is a Christian has become quite subjective these days in which we all live, move and have our being.. There seems to be more 'Christian' than Christ to our understanding of the scriptures.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Did I say you were a Calvinist?
Ah well, never mind . . .
I think it was a series of Cool Hand Luke moments. "What we have here is a failure to communicate."
View attachment 24474View attachment 24474View attachment 24475I think it was a series of Cool Hand Luke moments. "What we have here is a failure to communicate."
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I think it was a series of Cool Hand Luke moments. "What we have here is a failure to communicate."
That's okay on both accounts; to be honest, with 132 pages already in this "new thread", (new to this board anyways), I should probably just walk away simply because of the shear amount of information here which I cannot read up on at the moment.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
"Shakin' it here, Boss."
Cross Reference
New member
I think it was a series of Cool Hand Luke moments. "What we have here is a failure to communicate."
Yeah, and the solution to it lies with you. You need to let some light shine in to burn off the fog in the cockles of your mind.
Cross Reference
New member
I have been on these forums long enough to realize most are authored by Calvinists and no one in disagreement with them has a prayer of participating; are excoriated.
Eagles Wings
New member
I applaud you on the word, excoriate. It is now filed in my vocabulary.
Said with a light heart and simply commenting on a word.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Very glad to see this thread re-located to the proper venue now.
AMR
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
@Nameless.In.Grace
@WrathAndRdmpt.NIG
Lots of word salad in that post of yours. We need to be more specific.
You have asked for scholarly vindication of your view. I am happy to oblige your request. So how about we review some things more specific?
Take this test...
Trinity:
https://challies.typeform.com/to/I1ntTT
How did you do?
Next, review the following:
Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second subsistence of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused. One can best understand this mystical union (together united in one distinguishable subsistence) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.
The mystical union of the divine and human natures of Our Lord is not:
1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct subsistence in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).
Your responses as to agreement or disagreement with the above?
AMR
Last edited: