Sonnet
New member
Yes, all knowing is the claim.
Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
Yes, all knowing is the claim.
Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation
Then we can then believe, with absolute clarity, that God gave freewill with the knowledge that He would have to pay for its' provision in His own being. Is this a fair statement?
Are you familiar with the Protoevangelium?
Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary
Then we can then believe, with absolute clarity, that God gave freewill with the knowledge that He would have to pay for its' provision in His own being. Is this a fair statement?
Are you familiar with the Protoevangelium?
Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary
It's all good, I still like you Cross Reference. I'm just going radio silence for now, towards you, to stay on track.
Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary
Rosenritter
New member
It might help to define that which is knowable before applying "all knowing" to things knowable and unknowable. For example, if God truly gives a type of creature free will, and the path taken is truly at the whim of the creation, can the action be known before the creature is brought into existence? I would consider that case "not knowable" by definition. It would differ from the roll of a fair die because the bounce and angles could be calculated.
One more question to consider, can God choose not to know something that would be otherwise knowable? Jesus said that the specific time of his coming was not known to him, only by his Father in heaven.
Mark 13:32 KJV
(32) But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
If we assume that Jesus was God and that God knows all things knowable, then from that passage it would seem that either Jesus chose not to know something that would be otherwise knowable, or in his own way is saying that the day and hour of his return was at that time not yet determined (thus it was "not knowable.")
[You can go in radio silence mode for me too if I'm interfering.]
Rosenritter
New member
Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation
First and foremost, I feel terrible inside, because I know that you are subjecting yourself to attack over ideas you embrace.
I know in my soul that you are a child of God, AMR.
I am banking on the strength of your metal and your cool head under fire. I'm depending on your fruits of the Spirit allowing you to be patient with my now focused thrust.
I genuinely respect you. However, if I represented God and Scripture in a way that was false according to the convictions of my soul, by Christ, I would be a liar and thus you wouldn't be able to respect me.
In this, I know You Love Jesus with all your heart, mind, soul and body, and thus you speak out of the same obligation that I speak. I hope we have peace, brother, though we disagree.
To suggest that God created beings of election that are His, but created and reprobated the non-elect for destruction, or according to your preference of theology, which I don't know, possibly eternal torture of physical or emotional nature; states a character contrary to the One who commanded Love and Forgiveness towards one's enemies.
No amount of theological extrapolation in snippets of scripture can refute this plain truth.
This takes a book to answer, and in that, I am already aware, that there are issues with such concepts.
I indeed elevate the attribute of Love above all other attributes of God, as I believe the de-elevation is the core of all heresies that the apostles contended with. Might I challenge you to cite one instance in the gospels of Christ, where Jesus does't exemplify Love? Expect a response when you cite the passages I have committed to memory in response to many who question the Nature of God.
As to your link, I found it void of scriptural context. Snippets of scripture are worthless for reproof. The strong implication of that article, was 90% assertions of men and 10% use of unbound scripture that is cited in one verse at a time fashion.
True scriptural thrust is only sharpened, understood and honed, by measuring the steel of books and books, in parallel to chapters and chapters. I can make the Bible say "anything", if I bend it to mere verse citations. The original manuscripts were void of verse and chapter. They were added for our diligent study and reference, but in no way do they permit citation of snippets to brace a doctrine.
This "restriction" of Love is my greatest contention. You may assert application of Love towards the divide of the pure nature from the fallen nature, but this division challenges God's act of taking all sin on, to dwell within mankind. When does Jesus limit His Love to the fallen sin of man, within the context of the 4 Gospels, alone?
You are now on record as saying God Loves some, more than others, which is a complete violation of every word in the book of James.
Do you wish to retract any theological expressions, or do you go forward with these assertions?
Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary
First and foremost, I feel terrible inside, because I know that you are subjecting yourself to attack over ideas you embrace.
I know in my soul that you are a child of God, AMR.
I am banking on the strength of your metal and your cool head under fire. I'm depending on your fruits of the Spirit allowing you to be patient with my now focused thrust.
I genuinely respect you. However, if I represented God and Scripture in a way that was false according to the convictions of my soul, by Christ, I would be a liar and thus you wouldn't be able to respect me.
In this, I know You Love Jesus with all your heart, mind, soul and body, and thus you speak out of the same obligation that I speak. I hope we have peace, brother, though we disagree.
To suggest that God created beings of election that are His, but created and reprobated the non-elect for destruction, or according to your preference of theology, which I don't know, possibly eternal torture of physical or emotional nature; states a character contrary to the One who commanded Love and Forgiveness towards one's enemies.
No amount of theological extrapolation in snippets of scripture can refute this plain truth.
This takes a book to answer, and in that, I am already aware, that there are issues with such concepts.
I indeed elevate the attribute of Love above all other attributes of God, as I believe the de-elevation is the core of all heresies that the apostles contended with. Might I challenge you to cite one instance in the gospels of Christ, where Jesus does't exemplify Love? Expect a response when you cite the passages I have committed to memory in response to many who question the Nature of God.
As to your link, I found it void of scriptural context. Snippets of scripture are worthless for reproof. The strong implication of that article, was 90% assertions of men and 10% use of unbound scripture that is cited in one verse at a time fashion.
True scriptural thrust is only sharpened, understood and honed, by measuring the steel of books and books, in parallel to chapters and chapters. I can make the Bible say "anything", if I bend it to mere verse citations. The original manuscripts were void of verse and chapter. They were added for our diligent study and reference, but in no way do they permit citation of snippets to brace a doctrine.
This "restriction" of Love is my greatest contention. You may assert application of Love towards the divide of the pure nature from the fallen nature, but this division challenges God's act of taking all sin on, to dwell within mankind. When does Jesus limit His Love to the fallen sin of man, within the context of the 4 Gospels, alone?
You are now on record as saying God Loves some, more than others, which is a complete violation of every word in the book of James.
Do you wish to retract any theological expressions, or do you go forward with these assertions?
Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary
Last edited:
Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation
Never, Rosenritter. No radio silence for you. You are speaking in the Spirit of the fruits.
[emoji846]
I have pondered your words and have an answer. However, I want the weight of your words to rest heavily on our minds, as spoken, for now. They are wise.
I do have absolute concepts that challenge the aspect of your removal of God's understanding that rest on the Mystery of Jesus's willing surrender to the Father, though we know He could have "Powered up" and handled everything in and of Himself, had He "exalted" Himself amongst men, in any other way but on the Cross and serving All mankind, as well as His Father.
Perhaps I have revealed my stance to your Spiritual ears, and in this, I think you now know my answer.
Let's cool this one, until we have moved further. You are welcome to question me any day. As it is written in Proverbs, only a fool rebukes counsel and correction. [emoji846]
I appreciate your interjection. It is well spoken and guides the train of thought. [emoji106]
Never, Rosenritter. No radio silence for you. You are speaking in the Spirit of the fruits.
[emoji846]
I have pondered your words and have an answer. However, I want the weight of your words to rest heavily on our minds, as spoken, for now. They are wise.
I do have absolute concepts that challenge the aspect of your removal of God's understanding that rest on the Mystery of Jesus's willing surrender to the Father, though we know He could have "Powered up" and handled everything in and of Himself, had He "exalted" Himself amongst men, in any other way but on the Cross and serving All mankind, as well as His Father.
Perhaps I have revealed my stance to your Spiritual ears, and in this, I think you now know my answer.
Let's cool this one, until we have moved further. You are welcome to question me any day. As it is written in Proverbs, only a fool rebukes counsel and correction. [emoji846]
I appreciate your interjection. It is well spoken and guides the train of thought. [emoji106]
You all are the one's confused. In all these years you simply produced for yourselves heresies
You=:rotfl:
Crucibles opinions are of no interest to old GM. He's just a "run of the mill" Calvinist.
Cross Reference
New member
You have no track. That is the problem, isn't it?
Cross Reference
New member
Cross Reference
New member
Since you have more times than enough, misrepresented my words, which is tantamount to casting aspersions upon someone and certainly not of love, I welcome it.
Cross Reference
New member
No here:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-reprobation&p=4777672&viewfull=1#post4777672
But then I believe you know that.
I apologize if it appeared so. I siimply have no quarrel with you.
Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary
We represent the side that disagrees with Augustine/Calvinsitic Reprobation.
Can a Kingdom divided amongst its' self stand?
Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary
Cross Reference
New member
Show one verse where it is even hinted that: God loves all mankind? You said He did and have based you understanding on that.. Now where do you stand?
Please don't change the subject, per usual when you have no answer.
Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation
On the issue of God's love, you now are in direct agreement with AMR.
Our debate is with AMR and others with Calvinsitic teaching in there heart.
Your common ground with AMR on this matter helps his stance.
I will not chase my tail.
Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary
On the issue of God's love, you now are in direct agreement with AMR.
Our debate is with AMR and others with Calvinsitic teaching in there heart.
Your common ground with AMR on this matter helps his stance.
I will not chase my tail.
Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary