Arthur Brain
Well-known member
As long as you deny there is actually such a person as reprobate you will continue to struggle here. All are born sinners. None are born morally neutral and become sinners when they sin. None born deserve universal mercy, for then the very word has changed. No one wants to live in a world where mercy is obligatorily extended to all malefactors. Think about it and it will come to you.
The logical extension of your argument would apply to babies, those who die as children also. I've spoke to plenty a Calvinist who believes that a 'reprobate' child would be lobbed into a fiery hell just as much as any adult if not chosen to be part of the 'elect', such is the nature of the 'beast' where it comes to such a theology. To be fair that isn't just Calvinism as some would believe that an unbaptized child would rot in the same way, such again is the nature of 'hell doctrine'. If none are born morally neutral then what marks out the 'elect' to begin with? Why are you picked when your neighbour isn't? Why are you shown mercy if you're actually no better than any person standing next to you? On the face of it that's just God playing dice. He could equally choose that man next to you and leave you to rot as a 'reprobate' correct? So aren't you as lucky as a lottery winner? Or is there something special about you to be spared the pains you believe will befall others?
Sure, I don't want to live in a world where a rapist is given the same sentence as someone who owes a parking fine, but in context there is no comparison here.
If you deny the doctrine of Adam's original sin and its consequences, you will also struggle with these matters. Such is the issue with holding to error upon error that will cascade into full-blown heterodoxy and even heresy.
Eh, you're on a predominantly open theism board and are regarded as a heretic yourself by plenty, a blasphemer by some so your measure of error is simply that of a man, a well educated one but still a man, no matter how learned in certain ways. Such an accusation on your part holds little merit with me. I'll have no truck with capriciousness or cruelty no matter how such can be couched in 'intellectualism'.
The promiscuous sharing of the Gospel brings shame upon the reprobate, hence the phrase, "heap coals upon their head", per the ancient Egyptian custom in which a person who wanted to show public contrition carried a pan of burning coals on his head. The coals represented the burning pain of his shame and guilt. When believers lovingly share the Good News with all persons, it should bring shame to some people for their hate and animosity of God. Those that truly feel this shame are among the elect. Those that do not are among the reprobate, for the same sun that melts the snow (unregenerated elect), hardens the clay (reprobate).
Understand it now?
AMR
I understood exactly what you said to begin with and in context. How you think it's any the less sickening is rather bemusing though. My nieces could be part of the 'reprobate' under your belief system and you'd gladly bring these burning coals on their heads and they wouldn't be able to do anything as they weren't decreed part of the 'elect'.
You have any idea how putrid such a notion is to anyone who loves their family etc?
Do YOU get it now?