Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

[Cross Reference]

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.

Why not we have a "penchant" for vanity/futile thinking rather a penchant for sinning? Vanity of itself, being but the doorway to our soul, is not sin but the venue it uses. That is how Adam fell and what God warned Cain of..

 

[Crucible]

Indeed! Man is born innocent until proven guilty of a sinful act and by his own conscience will the evidence be a conviction.

One thing all non-Catholics have in common, but especially with Calvinism, is the doctrine of 'Total Depravity'.
It's a fairly simple point- it states that man is incapable of good without God- we aren't 'born sinners', but rather 'born into sin'. And therein we fall.

 

[Cross Reference]

One thing all non-Catholics have in common, but especially with Calvinism, is the doctrine of 'Total Depravity'.
It's a fairly simple point- it states that man is incapable of good without God- we aren't 'born sinners', but rather 'born into sin'. And therein we fall.

I am a non-Catholic and I don't believe that. Jesus was born in a sin environment.

Though born IN a sin environment, not INTO sin itself, man is not without the knowledge of God. What he does with such knowledge when able to discern good and evil, is what will determine his course in life.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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

I responded here. Your "actual argument" comprised a short sentence "Judas was told by Jesus" followed by quoting Matthew 13:10-17. Absent anything that resembles and actual argument, I provided a response dealing with the passage in question under the assumption you meant to imply that even Judas possessed some moral ability to do what he ought to do. Rather than leave it to the reader to read between the words of your short snippets, perhaps you need to bolster Scripture citations with more substantive comments.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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.

The determination beforehand includes from God's decree the establishment that what one does is according to their liberty of spontaneity. In other words, God's decree establishes the very free will I have described. So what is the issue? Why does the fault that a person is born a sinner in Adam lie with God? Surely God was able to create a perfect representative for all mankind to place on probabation, made upright, but mutable. Are you claiming you could have done better than Adam so you should not be held to account for something some man did many thousands of years ago? :AMR:

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.

Responsibility does not include ability. You would know this had you read my post which was dutifully linked in my earlier response to you which discusses the matter of "ought" vs. "can". Quite simply we are responsible because there is One who holds us to account. Please take the time to digest all of my response content before firing off "Yeah, but..." snippets.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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.

All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. All. That is our duty. Trying to ascend into the heavens and piece the veil of God's unrevealed will is irrelevant. No man or woman omnisciently knows he or she is never going to call upon the name of the Lord. This is foolishness. To anyone I say confidently, "if you will but call upon the name of the Lord, you will be saved and never lost to Him." You are wrestling with something you clearly do not understand. What prevents you from calling upon the Lord to be saved? Nothing but your own free will, your liberty of spontaneity. Hoping for an exit strategy from judgment by arguing, "Lord I wanted to call upon your name, but I was prevented by your secret decree" is nonsense. God's decree includes a grant of your liberty of spontaneity. That you refuse to do so cannot be laid at God's feet. Rather it is because you refuse to do so. Plain and simple, no matter if you are Calvinist or not.

So set aside these tortuous twists you have been taken and simply walk the Romans Road to Salvation with me: Romans 3:23; 6:23; 8:1; 10:9; 10:13. It is literally that simple. Once you have done so, soon these other matters will become more perspicuous to you. The dawn will come up like thunder and you will marvel at your newfound understanding. Nothing of what we are discussing prevents you from doing your duty to God. Maybe I am all wrong and you are all right. Maybe I am right and you are wrong. Maybe it is somewhere in between. Nevertheless, none of the former prevents you from being born anew. Of course, if you permit some humor, if you do your duty we will both be in heaven and that is what truy matters. It will just be that the Reformed will tell you exactly how you got there.


AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. All.
AMR

Were the men of Gen 4:26 saved?

 

[patrick jane]

Were the men of Gen 4:26 saved?

Mostly the women -

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

ALL who are born into this world WILL sin. It is inevitable. It's a fact of life. No one except the Lord Jesus Christ was able to NOT sin. Calvinists believe that humanity has NO free will. They believe that God chose before the foundation of the world who He would save and who he would not save. Calvinists also believe that, in order for one to get saved, they MUST first be regenerated and then, they receive saving faith.

These are a few of their "false doctrines." The truth be told, humanity WAS created with a "free will" and every human being is made capable of CHOOSING what/who they wish to believe in. Even if someone decides to be an atheist, they've CHOSEN that route of belief. Hence, Calvinists believe that humanity is essentially, a puppet. Calvinists use the Sovereignty of God as their excuse for trusting in this false doctrine. I like using the following Scripture verse as proof of humanities free will: Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" You'll notice that Christ's desire is to embrace His chosen people (The Jews) however, their "free will " was to CHOOSE not to worship and follow after Him. Christ is, God in the flesh, therefore, He speaks of the Old/New Testament Jews. At times (In the Old Testament) the Jews would walk away from God and follow after idols. That was an example of their free will.

Yet, Calvinism INSISTS there is NO "free will." We see the "free will" of humanity throughout the Old/New Testament. Calvinism changes the character and intent of the God of the Bible in order to have Him fit their false doctrines.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

It's a brutal shame that the false doctrines of Calvinism ever came into existence. So far as I'm concerned it's "Another gospel" the Scriptures warn against.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Adherers of Calvinism usually are well schooled and intelligent. Unfortunately, they are drawn into this horrendous form of theology. It seems to entice such people for some reason. You rarely, if ever encounter a Calvinist who isn't well schooled. They are usually very articulate and more than able to hold their own in an intelligent conversation. AMR is a good example of such and Lon is another.

 

[Sonnet]

I responded here. Your "actual argument" comprised a short sentence "Judas was told by Jesus" followed by quoting Matthew 13:10-17. Absent anything that resembles and actual argument, I provided a response dealing with the passage in question under the assumption you meant to imply that even Judas possessed some moral ability to do what he ought to do. Rather than leave it to the reader to read between the words of your short snippets, perhaps you need to bolster Scripture citations with more substantive comments.

AMR

I'll try again:

Note:
Matthew 13:12 "...but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath."

You quote this, seemingly, so that you might include Judas as being so described but you ignore the fact that Jesus puts Judas with those not in the group that Isaiah 6:9-10 describes.

Mark 4:10
When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, “‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”

Here's Dordt claim:
Who teach that it was not on the basis of his just will alone that God decided to leave anyone in the fall of Adam and in the common state of sin and condemnation or to pass anyone by in the imparting of grace necessary for faith and conversion.
For these words stand fast: “He has mercy on whom he wishes, and he hardens whom he wishes” (Rom. 9:18). And also: “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given” (Matt. 13:11).

So we have Matt. 13:11 employed to uphold their doctrine of election / reprobation but Jesus then including Judas with the (so called) elect. Dort obviously got it wrong.

Indeed it frequently happens that the reprobate (Judas) are endued with eminent gifts, even gifts granted by God for His own purposes, and appear to resemble the children of God: but there is nothing of real value about them; for their mind is destitute of piety, and has only the glitter of an empty show. Matthew is therefore justified in saying that they have nothing; for what they have is of no value in the sight of God, and has no permanency within. All who have been given over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28) do voluntarily, and from inward malice, blind and harden themselves. All whom God does not enlighten with the Spirit of adoption are men of unsound mind; and that, while they are more and more blinded by the word of God, the blame rests wholly on themselves, because this blindness is voluntary

In Matthew 13:16 Our Lord does not mean any kind of hearing, or the mere beholding of the flesh, but pronounces their eyes to be blessed, because they perceive in Him a glory which is worthy of the only-begotten Son of God, so as to acknowledge Him as the Redeemer. They perceive shining in Him the lively image of God, by which they obtain salvation and perfect happiness and because in them is fulfilled what had been spoken by the Prophets, that those who have been truly and perfectly taught by the Lord (Isaiah 54:13) do not need to learn every man from his neighbor (Jeremiah 31:34).

That the passage relates to the parable of the sower is instructive here, for Judas, if he was present, would be spoken about in the parable (all the outward trappings of faith that never takes root).

As has been noted, Jesus puts Judas in the wrong group so this is irrelevant.

 

[Sonnet]

The determination beforehand includes from God's decree the establishment that what one does is according to their liberty of spontaneity. In other words, God's decree establishes the very free will I have described. So what is the issue? Why does the fault that a person is born a sinner in Adam lie with God? Surely God was able to create a perfect representative for all mankind to place on probabation, made upright, but mutable. Are you claiming you could have done better than Adam so you should not be held to account for something some man did many thousands of years ago? :AMR:

I find your response astonishing. You have affirmed that you consider men born already guilty of sin and unable to not sin and yet you still attempt to hold them accountable. It's got nothing to do with whether I could do better - but it's about the fact that you preclude any hope whatsoever from certain folk who are born as you claim.

This, whether you wish it so or not, becomes your Gospel - the naked truth of it anyway.

 

[Sonnet]

All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. All. That is our duty. Trying to ascend into the heavens and piece the veil of God's unrevealed will is irrelevant. No man or woman omnisciently knows he or she is never going to call upon the name of the Lord. This is foolishness.

Who is attempting to do so that you issue this reprimand?

To anyone I say confidently, "if you will but call upon the name of the Lord, you will be saved and never lost to Him." You are wrestling with something you clearly do not understand. What prevents you from calling upon the Lord to be saved? Nothing but your own free will, your liberty of spontaneity.

A free will that you have defined as guilty at birth and unable to not sin. Why pretend to hold out a seeming offer of salvation?

Hoping for an exit strategy from judgment by arguing, "Lord I wanted to call upon your name, but I was prevented by your secret decree" is nonsense. God's decree includes a grant of your liberty of spontaneity. That you refuse to do so cannot be laid at God's feet. Rather it is because you refuse to do so. Plain and simple, no matter if you are Calvinist or not.

Sorry, but you have already affirmed guilt at birth, inability to not sin and selective regeneration.

So set aside these tortuous twists you have been taken and simply walk the Romans Road to Salvation with me: Romans 3:23; 6:23; 8:1; 10:9; 10:13. It is literally that simple. Once you have done so, soon these other matters will become more perspicuous to you. The dawn will come up like thunder and you will marvel at your newfound understanding. Nothing of what we are discussing prevents you from doing your duty to God. Maybe I am all wrong and you are all right. Maybe I am right and you are wrong. Maybe it is somewhere in between. Nevertheless, none of the former prevents you from being born anew. Of course, if you permit some humor, if you do your duty we will both be in heaven and that is what truy matters. It will just be that the Reformed will tell you exactly how you got there.
[/FONT]

AMR

I am called to believe but I certainly don't believe in your version of Jesus.

 

[Sonnet]

Any Christians here that also don't believe Jesus.......Calvin's Jesus?

 

[Sonnet]

You are wrestling with something you clearly do not understand. What prevents you from calling upon the Lord to be saved? Nothing but your own free will, your liberty of spontaneity. Hoping for an exit strategy from judgment by arguing, "Lord I wanted to call upon your name, but I was prevented by your secret decree" is nonsense. God's decree includes a grant of your liberty of spontaneity. That you refuse to do so cannot be laid at God's feet. Rather it is because you refuse to do so. Plain and simple, no matter if you are Calvinist or not.

That you link 'liberty' with free will here when you have already curtailed it such that there is none is grossly disingenuous.

 

[Cross Reference]

I find your response astonishing. You have affirmed that you consider men born already guilty of sin and unable to not sin and yet you still attempt to hold them accountable. It's got nothing to do with whether I could do better - but it's about the fact that you preclude any hope whatsoever from certain folk who are born as you claim.

This, whether you wish it so or not, becomes your Gospel - the naked truth of it anyway.

AMR and those of his kind can't get it into their thinking that Biblical history testifies to the fact that God has NEVER made/turned a righteous man into an unrighteous man that He might gain glory from such an unjust act. To the contrary, God grieves to an anger for anyone who forsakes His ways. His sovreignty will NOT permit any unrighteousness to enter into His Holiness. Though used of God for His glory, unrighteousness CANNOT be of God.

 

[Cross Reference]

The Calvinist provides the Christian with the 'actual' explanation of what it means to have one's "conscience seered as with a hot iron".

 

[Cross Reference]

Any Christians here that also don't believe Jesus.......Calvin's Jesus?

I believe Calvin's Jesus was of his own making. A doctrine that says easy believism is the way truth and the life but you cannot believe for it for yourself. To me, that says one already has two strikes against him and he has even swung the bat.

 

[TulipBee]

I believe Calvin's Jesus was of his own making. A doctrine that says easy believism is the way truth and the life but you cannot believe for it for yourself. To me, that says one already has two strikes against him and he has even swung the bat.