Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

[Ask Mr. Religion]

According to your definition we will all be choosing the one option (or one among several equal options) that fits our 'greatest inclination at the moment one so chooses'.

That equates to pre-programming - especially if we also allow your definition of original sin - born guilty of sin and unable to not sin.

This leaves man without any recourse...unless elect. His fate is sealed.

Not at all. Each time you choose among many options the one you chose is the one you wanted to choose, else you would not have so chosen. Hence, that choice was your greatest inclination at the time you so chose.

You did not read my linked content in my post, did you?

Slow down. Ready, fire, aim, is not the way to move forward.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

No reference to moral ability is found in those scriptures. That is why I said I didn't understand why you quoted it.

Yes they do. The will is the mind choosing. The lost possess no will to choose righteously. They cannot choose the good, hence their morality is, well, immoral. They possess no moral ability to choose the good.

We choose according to our greatest inclinations (motives) at the moment we so choose. That is what "freedom" entails. The "will" is that by which the mind chooses something. The whole of that which moves a person to "will" something is called the motive. The strongest motive is always the driving force behind the will. Motive is the ground or cause of the will—the will is not self-determined, but rather the will is determined, or more properly speaking, the will is as the motive is. Hence, we can say motives are the antecedent causes which give rise to the act of willing.


Arminians, open theists, and others, argue that the will can come to action without a cause. Well, if we agree God is the necessary first cause of all things, it must be concluded that that which exists without a cause is eternal and eternality can only be ascribed to God. Sigh.

AMR

 

[Sonnet]

My original post included the argument with the assumption Judas was present. You are grasping too much here.

AMR

With respect AMR, you haven't made an argument that actually refutes what I said. Please deal with the actual argument.

 

[musterion]

Let's stop this. Why must I explain each passage as if you are not capable of following a plain text?

Because he doesn't believe it.

 

[Sonnet]

Not at all. Each time you choose among many options the one you chose is the one you wanted to choose,

Since you assert that we are all born guilty of sin and are unable to not sin, then we are just doing what is determined beforehand.

You appear to be ignoring the import of your theology. On the one hand you want to hold each of us responsible - on the other you assert the predetermined state in which we are born which limits our responses.

You did not read my linked content in my post, did you?

Slow down. Ready, fire, aim, is not the way to move forward.

AMR

Indeed - will take time.

 

[Sonnet]

Yes they do. The will is the mind choosing. The lost possess no will to choose righteously. They cannot choose the good, hence their morality is, well, immoral. They possess no moral ability to choose the good.

Faith does not equate to a work of righteousness. How many times does this truism (see scripture) need to be repeated?

We choose according to our greatest inclinations (motives) at the moment we so choose. That is what "freedom" entails. The "will" is that by which the mind chooses something. The whole of that which moves a person to "will" something is called the motive. The strongest motive is always the driving force behind the will. Motive is the ground or cause of the will—the will is not self-determined, but rather the will is determined, or more properly speaking, the will is as the motive is. Hence, we can say motives are the antecedent causes which give rise to the act of willing.

Which you assert is totally corrupt from birth. The baby is born, you say, guilty of sin and unable to not sin.

And you ascribe all this to the behest of God?

 

[Sonnet]

You have been provided the historical teachings of the church militant for over a thousand years. And you prefer to just wave it off? Like the previous issue you have with the definition of free will, an erroneous view of the original sin of Adam, will lead to all manner of tortuous doctrine. If you cannot get past these two fundamentals, we are at an impasse.

Church militant?
I'm not waving it off AMR.

For review once more:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html

Okay - I have read this and there is nothing in it that proves that we are born already guilty of a sin. I wonder why you posted it?

I affirm that we are born with a penchant for sinning and that, 'death came to all people, because all sinned,' but since Christ's gospel is for all men then nobody need believe that some have been excluded. Such exclusion is your province as you readily affirm.

 

[Cross Reference]

Go back and re-read my supplied content. Nothing therein implies a significant minority view of the elect versus the non-elect. No Reformed person denies the elements of the decree of election presumes non-election. The mass of humanity (the lump of clay) contemplated by God's decree was a fallen lump in Adam, so no one deserves mercy, only justice. Praise be to God that He extended it to an amount no man can number.

AMR

Come again? Who deserves "justice"?? Adam? God? Mankind? Satan" Who? . . .and why?

 

[Cross Reference]

Since you have already said that man has, 'no ability to not sin,' then those not elect under your theology have zero access to salvation.

Made that way and left that way...the upshot of your theology...?

Why don't you quit with your 'convoluted, 'beat one to death' with your 'word speak, say nothing', "salad".

Free agency is free agency be it libertarian or any other approach to one doing his own thing..

 

[Cross Reference]

That was my point, no? Deuteronomy 30 is making the case that fulfillment of all the law is not within the reach of anyone without God's help.


What in that passage argues that libertarian free-will is operative in Abraham's belief? The passage is teaching that the way of salvation of the OT saints is no different from that of the NT saints. The latter only see more clearly without the need of types and shadows.



Paul here speaks to believers who are caught up in thinking that obeying the law perfectly is the warp and woof of their walk of faith. This only leads to despair and Paul reminds them of their Father's provision of the Gospel wherein the Son has met the burden that would lead them to despair.


The Spirit restrains the evil of the depraved mind, but does not snuff it out, as the daily news will testify. This is the common grace of the Spirit. It is not efficacious saving grace disposed upon the regenerated.


You offered up Deut. 30 in hopes of support for libertarian free will. I noted that the discussion therein is not about that at all. Rather it is about a nation chosen to keep the deposit of God's special revelation. Paul draws upon the passage to note the believers mistaken view of nominanism and the need for superaddition to their mere knowledge by God.

AMR

I believe you have a depraved mind. Why I believe that is because you exhibit depraved reasoning about scripture you say you espouse. One or the other needs rectification and the 'how to perform it' is the problem one, such as you, is given over to. Be advised that "kicking against the goads" is no way to begin the process. Repent!

 

[Cross Reference]

It matters not whether one is Calvinist or not on the matter. God is certainly capable of saving everyone, that He does not is indisputable in Scripture no matter what side of the aisle one resides soteriologically. Fortunately the Reformed do not dilute the sovereignty of God in favor of humanistic notions of fairness or libertarian free-will. Apparently, some folks don't mind God sitting on His throne, but when He dares to actually reign they gnash their teeth. Sigh.

AMR

<sigh> If this verse discribes the intended salvation for man then God is NOT able to save just anyone:

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3 (KJV)

Why don't you think long and hard on that??

 

[Cross Reference]

Your apparent intent was to argue that despite my claim of unbelievers needing a new heart to call upon the name of the Lord, that somehow this verse shows folks entreating God, presumably unbelieving folks.

Obviously, you are forced to conclude these men needed a new heart in order to turn to God:

Adam, Cain and Abel, ". . then began men to call upon the name of the LORD Genesis 4:26 (KJV). Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses, Joshua? Want more? Maybe even Jesus, He was born of Adam?

<this is sub-elementary stuff Paul assumes for per Heb 6:1 to not even mention it>

 

[Cross Reference]

Free agency is not libertarian. It is spontaneity. All are free to choose according to their greatest inclinations at the moment they so choose. That is as free as we can be. The unbeliever possesses no inclinations towards the righteousness of God. Their inclinations are only to sin more or sin less. Hence they will never choose to call upon the name of the Lord and be saved until God, the Holy Spirit quickens them from their state of spiritual death (Eze. 36:26). Only then will the unbeliever be capable of believing.

God is not predestinating those He knows will call upon His name. God is not peeking ahead in time and rubber-stamping men's choices. God is not a debtor to man.

For your further review:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...n-vs-Enyart)&p=1535765&viewfull=1#post1535765

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...n-vs-Enyart)&p=1535835&viewfull=1#post1535835

AMR

Not peeking ahead, you say?? If in His foreknewlge He "saw" and everything God does or "sees" can be understood to have taken place in the present tense, why would you say God would be "peeking ahead" in anything He predestinates?

Point is neither you nor anyone else can explain God that we have complete understanding about the absence of a "time factor" in Him. However, that was never a problem for the writers of your commentaries when presenting their guessing game as fact, eh?

 

[Cross Reference]

That was my point, no? Deuteronomy 30 is making the case that fulfillment of all the law is not within the reach of anyone without God's help.

AMR

How 'bout you taking your 'sighing' time to explain how you understand the "Law" you believe man cannot keep? Please enlighten us dummies.

 

[Cross Reference]

The notion is precluded by the full counsel of Scripture concerning the attributes of God. He is not a debtor to man. We have discussed this. See Job. Accordingly, God's "love before time" of His chosen is not based upon any foreseen merit in them at all, rather just His own good and wise counsel. Those He chose were out of a contemplated fallen in Adam mass of humanity. All deserved justice, not mercy.

AMR

"Contemplated"?? Interesting word. What does it mean in fallen man?

 

[Cross Reference]

The notion is precluded by the full counsel of Scripture concerning the attributes of God. He is not a debtor to man. We have discussed this. See Job. Accordingly, God's "love before time" of His chosen is not based upon any foreseen merit in them at all, rather just His own good and wise counsel. Those He chose were out of a contemplated fallen in Adam mass of humanity. All deserved justice, not mercy.
AMR

Not a debtor, yet God needs man. Why?

 

[Cross Reference]

Let's stop this. Why must I explain each passage as if you are not capable of following a plain text? The passage clearly states no one possesses moral ability to call upon the name of the Lord unless God acts beforehand. Only those given ears to hear will hear.

AMR

Which God provides for upon one's natural birth which the man who no longer wishes to retain it when considering his life, God "decrees" over to a reprobate mind without remendy meaning: even God cannot reverse it. In other words, man begins equipped with understanding and is capable of rejecting it in part or whole, to go his own way.. Isn't that what Adam did?

 

[Cross Reference]

Well, I am encouraged we are finally coming around to yet another fundamental issue (original sin being another one).

I am defining the liberty of spontaneity, that is, the ability to choose according to one's greatest inclinations at the moment one so chooses. That is the only definition of free will found in the full counsel of Scripture.

Libertarian free will, the liberty of indifference, claimed by Arminians, open theists, and others, is the so-called ability to choose contary to one's inclinations, to do otherwise. To choose other than what one is inclined to choose. This is logical nonsense. Such a view implies we could acceptably choose to receive Christ without having a desire to receive Him, despite the clear teachings of the Scriptures to the contrary.

For more see my:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...n-vs-Enyart)&p=1535835&viewfull=1#post1535835

AMR

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient"
Romans 1:28 (KJV)

 

[Cross Reference]

You have been provided the historical teachings of the church militant for over a thousand years. And you prefer to just wave it off? Like the previous issue you have with the definition of free will, an erroneous view of the original sin of Adam, will lead to all manner of tortuous doctrine. If you cannot get past these two fundamentals, we are at an impasse.

For review once more:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html


The symmetry of the First and Last Adam Paul teaches must reach a terrible conclusion with your view. A view that assumes God waits until we sin to impute sin to us must necessarily claim Our Lord is not really righteous until man first responds to the Gospel. There is no other way around this. Is Paul wrong? Er, no.

AMR

<Bull!>

 

[Cross Reference]

Church militant?
I'm not waving it off AMR.



Okay - I have read this and there is nothing in it that proves that we are born already guilty of a sin. I wonder why you posted it?

I affirm that we are born with a penchant for sinning and that, 'death came to all people, because all sinned,' but since Christ's gospel is for all men then nobody need believe that some have been excluded. Such exclusion is your province as you readily affirm.

Indeed! Man is born innocent until proven guilty of a sinful act and by his own conscience will the evidence be a conviction. This means that both Adam and Jesus came on the scene innocent . . that by a series of morals choices, holiness could only be attained. By His foreknowledge did God see both failure and success.