Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

Sonnet

Sonnet

New member
PneumaPsucheSoma said:
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.
Click to expand...

You:
I'm really not here for debate, but to serve the Body and those who seem to be searching as drawn by the Spirit. Sorry I misunderstood. And now you understand me not responding to your last few appeals for endless debate.
 
PneumaPsucheSoma

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Sonnet said:
You:
I'm really not here for debate, but to serve the Body and those who seem to be searching as drawn by the Spirit. Sorry I misunderstood. And now you understand me not responding to your last few appeals for endless debate.
Click to expand...

You need to revisit the definition for debate. Me calling attention to your tactics and the inevitabilities of your assertions is not debating. I'm just making you aware of your double standards and disingenuous posturings.
 
nikolai_42

nikolai_42

Well-known member
Sonnet said:
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.
Click to expand...

So those who have faith are blinded? Unless you want to proceed with that contradiction, you still have a specific elect people (who have been blinded) who have not yet been "realized" in time. Whether that "all Israel" is all racial Israel or spiritual Israel, they have been elected. They have Jacob as their pattern...

Sonnet said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would reiterate Jesus' own "might be saved" statement. The Calvinistic view here may seem problematic, but I have to say that when I come across statements like this, I don't see a contradiction in Paul (even Jesus) having one desire but realizing on the other hand that it may or may not come to fruition (because of the Father's will...which I admit is not fully revealed) :

Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
Acts 8:21-22

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
Hebrews 12:14-17

And Jonathan said to the young man that bare his armour, Come, and let us go over unto the garrison of these uncircumcised: it may be that the Lord will work for us: for there is no restraint to the Lord to save by many or by few.
I Samuel 14:6

Or when David went before the Lord on behalf of his son - he spent seven days seeking his life from God. God let it be and allowed him to do so until finally, on the seventh day, the boy died (2 Samuel 12:15-23). God allowed the child to survive for that long and David continued to fast and pray while the child was alive. There was always that hope that the Lord would act - but no guarantee. Nathan had already prophesied the child's death (2 Samuel 12:14). Was David wrong to do this? Even when Nathan had prophesied what would happen? What about Hezekiah gaining 15 more years of life (Isaiah 38) and Isaiah saying he would die and not live? Hezekiah still petitioned God and (in spite of Isaiah's statement) was granted further life. Of course he died eventually, but even when something was declared, the man sought God. There is always an "it may be" with God. He doesn't tell us all His will - including the apostle to the Gentiles (or, it seems, Jesus while on earth as the Son of man - remember the Garden of Gethsemane...). Does that mean that all is predetermined? I think it means (if nothing else) that predestination is an explanation of truth found in scripture but that goes beyond our ability to properly and fully grasp. Paul, again, was not being disingenuous - but describing the deep desire he had on behalf of his people (after the flesh). Our desires and God's ways will not ever unite perfectly. But that doesn't mean our unfulfilled desires are necessarily wrong (or sinful).

Sonnet said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can only say that I see in the Calvinist theology, a biblical explanation for why things happen the way they do. But when it comes to walking out our faith, we don't walk out what we know based on what we believe God knows. We are responsible for the light we have - and the Reformed faith clearly places responsibility for the administration of predestination in the Lord's court.

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
I Corinthians 4:1-5

Paul was clearly not made steward of the full understanding of God's ways in predestination.

For myself, I can only say I don't want my dogmatism to overreach my faith. In other words, I am happy to say I don't really understand predestination but that I do see hints of its operation. Yet when I act in faith and obedience to God's Word, I do so only according to the understanding I have. I can say I believe predestination is true, but I really can't explain "how"....nor am I required to.
 
PneumaPsucheSoma

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Cross Reference said:
Presumption dictates much to those who tend to come up short in their understanding by their relying upon the scolarly approach to it...
Click to expand...

If you had the intuitive knowledge (oida) of the Spirit, you'd know I don't rely upon the scholarly approach; even though I refer to Greek lexicography. So your false accusations reveal the void of your heart.
 
PneumaPsucheSoma

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Cross Reference said:
No more than your accusations reveal your corrupted heart.
Click to expand...

Your accusations are false. Mine are based on centuries of Christian history.

Actually, it's you vehemently standing against 1.6 millennia of Christology that reveals your corrupted heart.

But that's what Third Wave Charismatic heretics all do. So you're not alone in your false faith.
 
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
PneumaPsucheSoma said:
Your accusations are false. Mine are based on centuries of Christian history.

Actually, it's you vehemently standing against 1.6 millennia of Christology that reveals your corrupted heart.

But that's what Third Wave Charismatic heretics all do. So you're not alone in your false faith.
Click to expand...

Your own words condemn you.
 
1Mind1Spirit

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Sonnet said:
Well let's hear from you 1Mind1Spirit why you would think it about me in the first place,
Click to expand...

Because the only unbelievers who can pull off your candor are homos.
So it was an educated guess.

and why you would consider me a liar in my response?
Click to expand...

I didn't say you lied.

I said I'm not buyin' your story.

At this point I'd say you're more like Michael Cadry who is not practicing sexually but still lives with his lover.

Heck, you might even be his live in.:think:


I know very well the game you are playing.
Click to expand...

I'm not playin'.
 
Sonnet

Sonnet

New member
1Mind1Spirit said:
Because the only unbelievers who can pull off your candor are homos.
So it was an educated guess.
Click to expand...

Unbelievers who are candid are homosexual? This is logical is it 1Mind1Spirit?

An educated guess? You have zero reasons to consider me homosexual 1Mind1spirit, but you thought you'd just throw it out there in an attempt to damage my reputation.

Do you use the same kind of guessing when it comes to theology?

Really shallow mate.

I didn't say you lied.

I said I'm not buyin' your story.
Click to expand...

Right so I'm not lying, in which case you believe what I said, but you aren't buying my 'story'.

Illogical 1Mind1Spirit. Now are you going to explain yourself?

At this point I'd say you're more like Michael Cadry who is not practicing sexually but still lives with his lover.

Heck, you might even be his live in.:think:
Click to expand...

So are you legitimizing wild unfounded speculations that might be directed your way as well 1Mind1Spirit? You're okay with that? In full view of all the other posters?
 
1Mind1Spirit

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Sonnet said:
Unbelievers who are candid are homosexual? This is logical is it 1Mind1Spirit?

An educated guess? You have zero reasons to consider me homosexual 1Mind1spirit, but you thought you'd just throw it out there in an attempt to damage my reputation.

Do you use the same kind of guessing when it comes to theology?

Really shallow mate.



Right so I'm not lying, in which case you believe what I said, but you aren't buying my 'story'.

Illogical 1Mind1Spirit. Now are you going to explain yourself?



So are you legitimizing wild unfounded speculations that might be directed your way as well 1Mind1Spirit? You're okay with that? In full view of all the other posters?
Click to expand...

I was speaking to PPS of feigning.

You thinking I was aiming at you just confirms my founded suspicions.

Me thinkest thou dost protest too much, hmmmmm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top