Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does God Create Reprobates?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by intojoy View Post
    Where does scripture say God elected them not to believe?
    Simple. So simple, in fact, that you already know the answer:

    Why do those who believe, believe?
    "There is one thing worse than going to Hell. That would be going to Hell and having it be a surprise."
    Terence Mc Lean

    [most will be very surprised]


    Everyone who has not believed the Gospel of grace is not saved, no matter what else they believe or do.
    By that measure, how many professing Christians are on their way to the Lake of Fire?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by musterion View Post
      Then it's astounding that a God who isn't retarded, insane or lying would still expect faith from those He knows are so literally "dead in sin" that they cannot possibly believe what He wants them to believe unless He first enables them to believe it...yet elected many of them to not be able to believe Him anyway.

      We do not have the same god.
      Calvinists change the character and intent of the God
      of the Bible in order to make their "false doctrines"
      seem reasonable.

      Comment


      • #48
        Calvinists belief system blinds them from seeing any free-will choice.

        Comment


        • #49
          I believe that Calvinism is an ungodly belief system.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by musterion View Post
            Creation generally, or mankind specifically?
            As I noted in my post, mankind is the operative object.

            AMR
            Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



            Do you confess?
            Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
            AMR's Randomata Blog
            Learn Reformed Doctrine
            I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
            Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
            Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
            The best TOL Social Group: here.
            If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
            Why?


            Comment


            • #51
              Duplicate

              Comment


              • #52
                Christ died and resurrected for all of mankind. Therefore,
                Gods Grace is available to anyone who will place their
                faith in Christ as their Savior.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Paul could have said,

                  All are reprobates and come short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23.

                  Man has fallen and he can't get up. Catholics believe that this fallen man can be re-habilitated through the works of the law. But when the Catholics get through with him he is a bigger sinner than he was before, only now he is a hypocrite as well.

                  Religious people believe that the solution to man's fallen condition is within himself. If he would just stop lying, cheating and stealing and become a fit vessel he would be accepted. This is the devils lie.

                  There are more religious reprobates than there are non-religious reprobates. I have more success reaching non-religious people with the Gospel than I do the regular church goers. Why is this? The regular church people are not interested in the Gospel simply because the Gospel is about Christ. They want to hear about what they can do to please a holy God. When you tell them that God is only pleased with Jesus Christ, they tell you goodbye.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by musterion View Post
                    Then it's astounding that a God who isn't retarded, insane or lying would still expect faith from those He knows are so literally "dead in sin" that they cannot possibly believe what He wants them to believe unless He first enables them to believe it...yet elected many of them to not be able to believe Him anyway.

                    We do not have the same god.
                    In trying to wrap my head around the Sovereignty of God and the will of man, it becomes apparent to me that we are woefully inadequate to the task (naturally speaking).

                    Musterion - you used the word "expect" in your post. That one term carries with it so much implicit understanding that it winds up being different than, say, if someone had had God "requiring" faith. Expectations imply hope in an uncertain end (Open Theism?) where requirements are (on the part of the Almighty, at least) simply a statement of the standard He has put in place (for whatever reason).

                    One, therefore, discusses man's actions as the primary thing in view. If God is expecting something, He is waiting for it and now the spotlight is on you to see if you can deliver. Faith as a requirement, however, simply recognizes God as having declared that which we would not otherwise naturally be able to deduce. Faith is a necessity. Why it is is not revealed to us. What it does NOT do, is impute unfairness to God (that expectation may do) by implying God has done what He can and now is simply waiting for a response in hope. In such a situation, the burden all being on man (after God has done what He could) tends to make it a necessity that all of God's counsel in regard to faith has been made known and passed on to every human. Requirement does not limit God in such a way. He can still simply say no man meets the requirement - or only certain men meet the requirement - all the while letting the decree (the just shall live by faith) hold true and Him being just Himself. He is not bound to reveal all - nor is it to our benefit. If a man (in the end) simply can't believe, God's requirement is not diminished in the least. His expectation, however, is a failure - all because someone failed to hold up his end of the deal.

                    Now please realize I'm not trying to put words in your mouth - the choice of word simply gave me the opportunity to express how reading one little thing into the matter (God's Sovereignty and man's freedom) can seem subtle, but - if carried through - can change how it is viewed. There is much that is hidden, but erring on the side of upholding God's Sovereignty at the expense (possibly) of man's free will seems to me to be the safer thing to do.
                    If God promises life, He slayeth first; when He builds, He casteth all down first. God is no patcher; He cannot build on another's foundation. - William Tyndale

                    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
                    Jeremiah 17:9

                    Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.
                    Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

                    Isaiah 50:10-11

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Robert Pate View Post
                      Paul could have said,

                      All are reprobates and come short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23.

                      Man has fallen and he can't get up. Catholics believe that this fallen man can be re-habilitated through the works of the law. But when the Catholics get through with him he is a bigger sinner than he was before, only now he is a hypocrite as well.

                      Religious people believe that the solution to man's fallen condition is within himself. If he would just stop lying, cheating and stealing and become a fit vessel he would be accepted. This is the devils lie.

                      There are more religious reprobates than there are non-religious reprobates. I have more success reaching non-religious people with the Gospel than I do the regular church goers. Why is this? The regular church people are not interested in the Gospel simply because the Gospel is about Christ. They want to hear about what they can do to please a holy God. When you tell them that God is only pleased with Jesus Christ, they tell you goodbye.
                      Good post

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Robert Pate View Post
                        Paul could have said,

                        All are reprobates and come short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23.

                        Man has fallen and he can't get up. Catholics believe that this fallen man can be re-habilitated through the works of the law. But when the Catholics get through with him he is a bigger sinner than he was before, only now he is a hypocrite as well.

                        Religious people believe that the solution to man's fallen condition is within himself. If he would just stop lying, cheating and stealing and become a fit vessel he would be accepted. This is the devils lie.

                        There are more religious reprobates than there are non-religious reprobates. I have more success reaching non-religious people with the Gospel than I do the regular church goers. Why is this? The regular church people are not interested in the Gospel simply because the Gospel is about Christ. They want to hear about what they can do to please a holy God. When you tell them that God is only pleased with Jesus Christ, they tell you goodbye.
                        Pateism believes that God shall punish them who are Perfect and Righteous through Christ, in eternal hell fire for their sins !
                        "... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
                        preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
                        called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
                        a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

                        Charles Spurgeon !

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Mere Assertions Do Not Pass For Actual Arguments

                          Originally posted by Grosnick Marowbe View Post
                          Calvinists change the character and intent of the God of the Bible in order to make their "false doctrines" seem reasonable.
                          Originally posted by Grosnick Marowbe View Post
                          Calvinists belief system blinds them from seeing any free-will choice.
                          Originally posted by Grosnick Marowbe View Post
                          I believe that Calvinism is an ungodly belief system.
                          You haven't provided a single argument to support your claims. No one can provide and answer to a nonexistent argument. Unless and until you or others like you put an actual argument on the table, there's nothing for anyone to evaluate.

                          Too many non-Calvinists take crucial intellectual shortcuts. I try not to let them get away with that any more than I'd let an non-believer get away with the same behavior.

                          Non-Calvinist critics of Calvinism need to master the difference between assertions and arguments. They need to become aware of their unexamined assumptions. When they are pressed to examine them, things usually start off well enough. But as the discussion continues wherein they are asked to dig deeper into what they are asserting without careful examination, the discussion quickly turns into personal attacks; most likely borne of the cognitive dissonance that has erupted within themselves. At that point it usually becomes a matter of fight or flight. Being a good steward of one's time granted by God dictates not to waste one's efforts on those that have shown themselves to be unwilling or unable to engage at the needed substantive level for sacred topics.

                          The non-Calvinist needs to learn that just because something seems to be wrong to them, that creates no presumption that their perception is correct. Non-Calvinist critics need to become cognizant of how often they beg the question.

                          Unfortunately, these folks usually shield themselves from scrutiny by playing to a sympathetic audience or airing their views in a controlled setting (which they themselves can control). They don't usually risk direct and substantive engagement with others that disagree who happen to be in their own weight class. And for good reason.

                          Not a few non-Calvinists like to merely nakedly assert, usually involving some lifted Scripture quotes with nice boldface or coloring, without providing and actual argument and then sit back. After all, "Scripture says this, see my boldface therein? That settles it. I win!"

                          It is simply not the Calvinist's job to make their argument for these sorts, as they are but intellectual freeloaders. Why should anyone enable their intellectual laziness by doing the heavy-lifting they themselves should be doing? Unless there's a well-provided reason to think their view of this or that matter of doctrine is incompatible with God's goodness, love, or whatever, there's nothing for the Calvinist to disprove. We literally have nothing to work with in a real discussion.

                          Nowadays persons have their feelings hurt at even the most superficially perceived slight in their direction. These folks would have withered away during the days of the Reformation wherein the Reformers were engaged in a deathlike battle of words with their opponents. Reading them as they interacted with the heterodox and heretics around them makes the so-called "truth-smacking" at TOL to be nothing more than ladies tea-time.

                          Accordingly, it is becoming an increasingly rare occasion for me to actually engage another unless that person has honestly shown themselves to be willing to stay put until the matter is driven to ground while not retreating behind: verbal abuse when unable to furnish even prima facie reasons for their objections, toadying to the crowd, lachrymose claims of hurt feelings, refusal to dig deeper into the topic and interact with the same, and other what-nots that purportedly gives them a poor rationalization to bow out of the discussion.

                          That being said, there is not a person on this site or anywhere else that has contacted me with questions that I have not provided answers to them...in detail. I have no problem explaining that which I hold dear to the sincere person wanting to know more about some topic or even question what I believe. It just seems to me in the public arena some are unwilling to be seen as willing to learn something new or increase their knowledge. It is not a weakness to desire this, but a strength of character.

                          AMR
                          Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; February 9, 2017, 01:16 PM. Reason: added post title
                          Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                          Do you confess?
                          Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                          AMR's Randomata Blog
                          Learn Reformed Doctrine
                          I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                          Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                          Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                          The best TOL Social Group: here.
                          If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                          Why?


                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by IntoJoy
                            …The scriptures teach that man is born after Adam in Adam's likeness therefore unlike Adam who God spoke into existence we are born dead to God.
                            Glorydaz replied:
                            That's speculation.
                            To the contrary, Intojoy is on solid biblical ground here.

                            The bible says that apart from Christ we are all dead in trespasses and sins following the devil and were by nature children of wrath.

                            And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, (Ephesians 2:1-4 ESV)

                            If this doesn’t convince you that, apart from Christ, we are all dead to God as Intojoy stated, then I don’t know what would convince you.

                            Glorydaz, if this doesn't prove that we are dead to God apart from Christ then can you please tell us what our relationship is to God as unbelievers?

                            What would it mean to be "dead to God" if being separated from Christ doesn't make us "dead to God?"

                            Musterion asked:
                            Why do those who believe, believe?
                            I think this is exactly the right question to ask.

                            Musterion, how would you answer this question?
                            αξιον εστιν το αρνιον
                            Worthy is the Lamb

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                              You haven't provided a single argument to support your claims. No one can provide and answer to a nonexistent argument. Unless and until you or others like you put an actual argument on the table, there's nothing for anyone to evaluate.

                              Too many non-Calvinists take crucial intellectual shortcuts. I try not to let them get away with that any more than I'd let an non-believer get away with the same behavior.

                              Non-Calvinist critics of Calvinism need to master the difference between assertions and arguments. They need to become aware of their unexamined assumptions. When they are pressed to examine them, things usually start off well enough. But as the discussion continues wherein they are asked to dig deeper into what they are asserting without careful examination, the discussion quickly turns into personal attacks; most likely borne of the cognitive dissonance that has erupted within themselves. At that point it usually becomes a matter of fight or flight. Being a good steward of one's time granted by God dictates not to waste one's efforts on those that have shown themselves to be unwilling or unable to engage at the needed substantive level for sacred topics.

                              The non-Calvinist needs to learn that just because something seems to be wrong to them, that creates no presumption that their perception is correct. Non-Calvinist critics need to become cognizant of how often they beg the question.

                              Unfortunately, these folks usually shield themselves from scrutiny by playing to a sympathetic audience or airing their views in a controlled setting (which they themselves can control). They don't usually risk direct and substantive engagement with others that disagree who happen to be in their own weight class. And for good reason.

                              Not a few non-Calvinists like to merely nakedly assert, usually involving some lifted Scripture quotes with nice boldface or coloring, without providing and actual argument and then sit back. After all, "Scripture says this, see my boldface therein? That settles it. I win!"

                              It is simply not the Calvinist's job to make their argument for these sorts, as they are but intellectual freeloaders. Why should anyone enable their intellectual laziness by doing the heavy-lifting they themselves should be doing? Unless there's a well-provided reason to think their view of this or that matter of doctrine is incompatible with God's goodness, love, or whatever, there's nothing for the Calvinist to disprove. We literally have nothing to work with in a real discussion.

                              Nowadays persons have their feelings hurt at even the most superficially perceived slight in their direction. These folks would have withered away during the days of the Reformation wherein the Reformers were engaged in a deathlike battle of words with their opponents. Reading them as they interacted with the heterodox and heretics around them makes the so-called "truth-smacking" at TOL to be nothing more than ladies tea-time.

                              Accordingly, it is becoming an increasingly rare occasion for me to actually engage another unless that person has honestly shown themselves to be willing to stay put until the matter is driven to ground while not retreating behind: verbal abuse when unable to furnish even prima facie reasons for their objections, toadying to the crowd, lachrymose claims of hurt feelings, refusal to dig deeper into the topic and interact with the same, and other what-nots that purportedly gives them a poor rationalization to bow out of the discussion.

                              That being said, there is not a person on this site or anywhere else that has contacted me with questions that I have not provided answers to them...in detail. I have no problem explaining that which I hold dear to the sincere person wanting to know more about some topic or even question what I believe. It just seems to me in the public arena some are unwilling to be seen as willing to learn something new or increase their knowledge. It is not a weakness to desire this, but a strength of character.

                              AMR
                              I feel your frustration, dear brother. On occasion I have attempted to explain what I see in the areas where we clearly differ, but I am a very simple person. I just can't keep up with all your big words and the multitude of verses at one time. I'd like to address one at a time, but it never ends up that way. I honestly don't think it's that non-Calvinists don't have answers, but that most simply get over-whelmed by things that go beyond basic Bible truths. My eyes start glazing over with the terms. I'm just not sure you could ever dumb it down enough for me to actually discuss something. Not that I wouldn't like to. It seems like we can't really get past the Gospel and why we preach it. Someone like Clete on a one on one, perhaps. Or maybe just one point of TULIP at a time.....

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Dialogos View Post
                                The bible says that apart from Christ we are all dead in trespasses and sins following the devil and were by nature children of wrath.
                                Condemned to die for sins, but not so dead we cannot seek God, and not so dead we cannot hear God. And how about the Gentiles who do by nature the things contained in the law?


                                If this doesn’t convince you that, apart from Christ, we are all dead to God as Intojoy stated, then I don’t know what would convince you.

                                Glorydaz, if this doesn't prove that we are dead to God apart from Christ then can you please tell us what our relationship is to God as unbelievers?

                                What would it mean to be "dead to God" if being separated from Christ doesn't make us "dead to God?"
                                "Dead to God" is your term. Where is that found in the Bible?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X