Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

[Danoh]

Very quick question b4 I respond in full - did Paul tell unbelievers 'Christ died for our sins'?

I asked you the questions I asked you in an attempt to know if you had ever believed Christ died for your sins.

No more, no less.

Other than that, I do not ask open ended questions. I state my view on a thing and then ask my question, if I have one.

If you have a point in your above question, state it, and we will go from there.

 

[Sonnet]

Not after their agreement in Gal. 2:7-9.

At which point, the terms "the circumcision" and "the uncircumcision" now carried a meaning that at times differed as to whom it was referring to.

Just before Paul was saved in Acts 9, he, along with his unbelieving nation: Israel, was concluded UNcircumcision at the end of Acts 7.

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 7:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. 7:54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

Both Jew and Gentile were now "under sin" Romans 1:18-3:20.

Both were now UNcircumcision.

In need of Paul's "gospel of the UNcircumcision."

Romans 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Romans 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

While "the circumcision" that "James, Cephas, and John agreed" with Paul in Gal. 2:7-9 that they would now confine their own ministry to referred to "they of the circumcision which believed" Acts 10:45, which is who James, Cephas, and John are writing to in their Epistles.

Acts 15:6-11
The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.0Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

We also know that Paul preached in the synagogues.

My question regarding 1 Cor 15:11 was about such a Gospel being preached to unbelievers.

 

[Sonnet]

I asked you the questions I asked you in an attempt to know if you had ever believed Christ died for your sins.

I said I believed.

No more, no less.

Other than that, I do not ask open ended questions. I state my view on a thing and then ask my question, if I have one.

If you have a point in your above question, state it, and we will go from there.

?

It's a simple question - did Paul tell unbelievers 'Christ died for our sins'?

 

[fzappa13]

ummmmmm ... what's this doing in ECT?

 

[intojoy]

How? By what means that anyone would know to respond to God?

By divine enablement


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Nang]

ummmmmm ... what's this doing in ECT?

Doesn't belong here, and has wrongly been allowed here for much too long, but the mods are weak . . .

 

[Sonnet]

Doesn't belong here, and has wrongly been allowed here for much too long, but the mods are weak . . .

We are also willing to let any other unbeliever or follower of another religion post here if they are honestly seeking an answer to a question or have constructive input to the discussion. In other words... if an atheist has a question about God and he asks it in an honest, upfront way we will gladly deal with that question without booting him out of the forum.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?12042-The-new-rules-for-the-Exclusively-Christian-forum

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

We are also willing to let any other unbeliever or follower of another religion post here if they are honestly seeking an answer to a question or have constructive input to the discussion. In other words... if an atheist has a question about God and he asks it in an honest, upfront way we will gladly deal with that question without booting him out of the forum.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?12042-The-new-rules-for-the-Exclusively-Christian-forum

Your demands for debate are not such inquiry. You've ignored the straight-forward answer to your query, unless you have an agenda. Jesus died for the SIN of all mankind; He didn't die for all OR some individuals.

Why not lend yourself some shred of credibility and ask for this thread to be moved to the Religion section. If you're sincere, it shouldn't matter.

 

[Sonnet]

Your demands for debate are not such inquiry. You've ignored the straight-forward answer to your query, unless you have an agenda. Jesus died for the SIN of all mankind; He didn't die for all OR some individuals.

Why not lend yourself some shred of credibility and ask for this thread to be moved to the Religion section. If you're sincere, it shouldn't matter.

You aren't here for debate PPS.

I don't mind the thread being moved but the rules permit it remaining.

 

[Sonnet]

So those who have faith are blinded?

Not clear as to what you mean.

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...

Still unclear.

Romans 9:6
It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

It seems that the second occurrence of 'Israel' here is a reference to 'true' Israel is it not? The first relates to Israelites by birth. So too with Romans 11:25-26

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Blindness in part regarding Israelites by birth with all true Israel being saved. I might be wrong.

 

[Sonnet]

Your demands for debate are not such inquiry.

It's not a demand - just a confirmation that a rebuttal is problematic.

You are unable to substantiate that my inquiry isn't honest so please stop insinuating it.

 

[Sonnet]

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) :

If TULIP is the reality, then you can't hide it. Paul never includes LA or UE as part of the Gospel.

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).

I don't believe that scripture anywhere substantiates tULip, so I can't see these citations relevant (though interesting nonetheless).

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.

Isn't this just an admission that some Christians aren't genuine?

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.

Do you proclaim and affirm the notion that the total depravity of man justifies God selecting those who will be saved with the rest left to their own destruction? - for that is the logic of TULIP.

 

[Sonnet]

You've ignored the straight-forward answer to your query,

Right, let's actually tell it like it really is PPS. I ignored nothing and requested you substantiate your claims about anarthrous / articular 'all' in our ongoing debate (I mistakenly thought, but you don't debate) regarding LA, Romans 5 etc.

YOU DIDN'T RESPOND. So quit telling everyone what is not true.

What you are actually saying is that I questioned your claims, which, because you consider yourself in possession of the truth you take as me ignoring truth.

Arrogation PPS.

 

[intojoy]

Yea it's not all that hard to prove Nang wrong. But it's equally easy work proving the Arminian wrong.
It's milk. Nang.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[intojoy]

Reprobating is what will happen once a person crosses a line of no return. Kaitlin Jenner.

To allow men in the women's crapper is an example of a reprobate mind.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[intojoy]

Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Sonnet]

I'm laughing...probably shouldn't be.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Do you proclaim and affirm the notion that the total depravity of man justifies God selecting those who will be saved with the rest left to their own destruction? - for that is the logic of TULIP.

If you deny the doctrine of original sin from Scripture, then of course you will deny God's warrant to dispose of His creatures justly and pour out His mercy on a great amount no man can number from those fallen in Adam whom He will. Such is the result of one's error.

AMR

 

[Sonnet]

Reprobating is what will happen once a person crosses a line of no return. Kaitlin Jenner.

To allow men in the women's crapper is an example of a reprobate mind.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Hence Matthew 13:11ff.

You are challenging Dort:

Election is God’s unchangeable purpose by which he did the following:
Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, God chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

It's not a demand - just a confirmation that a rebuttal is problematic.

You are unable to substantiate that my inquiry isn't honest so please stop insinuating it.

Already did.

Right, let's actually tell it like it really is PPS. I ignored nothing and requested you substantiate your claims about anarthrous / articular 'all' in our ongoing debate (I mistakenly thought, but you don't debate) regarding LA, Romans 5 etc.

That compiled list was for you to spend time accessing and considering. It took me years and years to comprehend, and I was giving you a headstart by outlining part of the grammatical facts for you, which you ignored. You have no intention whatsoever of actually pursuing understanding on the matter. And I genuinely served you, as I said, until you made it clear you were only here to debate.

The summary clarity I provided was also not debate. Jesus Christ died for the SIN of all mankind, not some OR all individuals. You keep framing your argument based on individuals, and there's no argument. I declared the simple truth (with brief exegesis of singular anarthrous hamartia) to you and you rejected it. Just because many modern Greek scholars haven't thoroughly exhausted the noun constructs in their outlines, it doesn't mean there isn't simple lexical application for them.

YOU DIDN'T RESPOND. So quit telling everyone what is not true.

I'm not. You have refused to even consider that Christ died for the SIN of all mankind instead of some OR all of mankind.

(And you don't get to equate desisting from responses as some "victory" for yourself, either. There's a point when adults stop engaging with adolescents when they prove to be obtuse or obstinant.)

What you are actually saying is that I questioned your claims, which, because you consider yourself in possession of the truth you take as me ignoring truth.

Arrogation PPS.

Nope. Just from me alone, you've had enough to employ any Synergism you claim to have. This isn't an honest pursuit, it's a personal quest of some sort to avenge whatever vicitimization you feel from what Supralapsarians inflicted upon you that your alleged faith couldn't withstand.

I've clearly demonstrated that faith is a noun and hearing is a noun. You don't want to be served with the truth. You want to determine the truth for yourself.

If you ever want to actually engage in inquiries instead of competition for self-validation, I can answer every last question you have and explain grammar until you understand it. That's not likely to happen, though.

In the end, I don't care. You've been given more than 99% of those who have gone to their graves without Christ. You're playing games, and deceiving yourself if you deny it.

In the words of iconic cinematic narrative one-liners... "You can't handle the truth!"