Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

[Sonnet]

Free agency is not libertarian. It is spontaneity. All are free to choose according to their greatest inclinations at the moment they so choose. That is as free as we can be. The unbeliever possesses no inclinations towards the righteousness of God. Their inclinations are only to sin more or sin less. Hence they will never choose to call upon the name of the Lord and be saved until God, the Holy Spirit quickens them from their state of spiritual death (Eze. 36:26). Only then will the unbeliever be capable of believing.

God is not predestinating those He knows will call upon His name. God is not peeking ahead in time and rubber-stamping men's choices. God is not a debtor to man.

For your further review:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...n-vs-Enyart)&p=1535765&viewfull=1#post1535765

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...n-vs-Enyart)&p=1535835&viewfull=1#post1535835

AMR

That you believe faith is not morally neutral is because...?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Surely, the very point Paul makes at the beginning of Romans 10 is the assertion that the law is above our reach - so it can hardly be the case that Deut. 30 is affirming the opposite. Indeed, Paul is reproving his kinsmen for thinking they might do so alone.

That was my point, no? Deuteronomy 30 is making the case that fulfillment of all the law is not within the reach of anyone without God's help.

But we know Romans 4:1ff don't we?

What in that passage argues that libertarian free-will is operative in Abraham's belief? The passage is teaching that the way of salvation of the OT saints is no different from that of the NT saints. The latter only see more clearly without the need of types and shadows.

Indeed - the very argument Paul is making in Romans 10. You seem to have forgotten that you put the very Gospel itself beyond some men's reach.

Paul here speaks to believers who are caught up in thinking that obeying the law perfectly is the warp and woof of their walk of faith. This only leads to despair and Paul reminds them of their Father's provision of the Gospel wherein the Son has met the burden that would lead them to despair.

You accept that the Holy Spirit comes and acts on all men but for some reason you've decided that isn't enough.

The Spirit restrains the evil of the depraved mind, but does not snuff it out, as the daily news will testify. This is the common grace of the Spirit. It is not efficacious saving grace disposed upon the regenerated.

I'm not following this.

You offered up Deut. 30 in hopes of support for libertarian free will. I noted that the discussion therein is not about that at all. Rather it is about a nation chosen to keep the deposit of God's special revelation. Paul draws upon the passage to note the believers mistaken view of nominanism and the need for superaddition to their mere knowledge by God.

AMR

 

[Sonnet]

Paul here speaks to believers who are caught up in thinking that obeying the law perfectly is the warp and woof of their walk of faith. This only leads to despair and Paul reminds them of their Father's provision of the Gospel wherein the Son has met the burden that would lead them to despair.

You deny that Paul is speaking to all his kinsmen in Romans 10?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Nothing precludes inferring that those foreknown are those God has always known (outside of time of course) would exercise faith.

The notion is precluded by the full counsel of Scripture concerning the attributes of God. He is not a debtor to man. We have discussed this. See Job. Accordingly, God's "love before time" of His chosen is not based upon any foreseen merit in them at all, rather just His own good and wise counsel. Those He chose were out of a contemplated fallen in Adam mass of humanity. All deserved justice, not mercy.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Acts 18:15-18
.

Where in that post have I quoted the passage?

BTW, I pointed you to two thorough expositions in my post. Your responses give no hint that you reviewed them. You seem to just move the goal posts to other verses in hopes what has been given is ignored.

I am taking the time and effort to actually respond to your many posts. You appear to cherry-pick my responses and press onward. This leads to just talking past one another and redundancies.

AMR

 

[Sonnet]

Where in that post have I quoted the passage?

BTW, I pointed you to two thorough expositions in my post. Your responses give no hint that you reviewed them. You seem to just move the goal posts to other verses in hopes what has been given is ignored.

I am taking the time and effort to actually respond to your many posts. You appear to cherry-pick my responses and press onward. This leads to just talking past one another and redundancies.

AMR

Have edited post. Apologies.

 

[Sonnet]

The notion is precluded by the full counsel of Scripture concerning the attributes of God. He is not a debtor to man. We have discussed this. See Job. Accordingly, God's "love before time" of His chosen is not based upon any foreseen merit in them at all, rather just His own good and wise counsel. Those He chose were out of a contemplated fallen in Adam mass of humanity. All deserved justice, not mercy.

AMR

Obviously I don't agree and we continue to debate this.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have no idea what you are saying here.

You quoted from the NIV Eze. 36:37, esp. the part so translated therein that you boldfaced:

I will yield to Israel’s plea..."

Your apparent intent was to argue that despite my claim of unbelievers needing a new heart to call upon the name of the Lord, that somehow this verse shows folks entreating God, presumably unbelieving folks. Also note that the NIV has mangled the passage terribly. A better and more accurate read is along the lines of "I will also let the house of Israel inquire of Me to do this for them". God is not sitting around waiting for folks to call upon Him. He already knows past, present, and future. He knows this because He ordained it. Had it not been ordained there would be no object of His knowledge to know.

As I stated:

Try not to confuse prophecy (Ezekiel) with history (Deuteronomy). You cannot grab up verses here and there and cobble them together to make an argument unless you have considered the genres and contexts. And why run all the way to the NIV for Eze. 36:37? Again this is not related to libertarian free will at all. It is about a called out people in the prophecy of Ezekiel: the Israel of God.

BTW, when you respond to my posts and quote my responses stagged throughout your posts, please do not drop the quote tags. This makes it hard for me and others to track things down or reuse what you are quoting in rejoinders where you are wondering about this or that. Note that in all my quotes of your posts in a response each one contains the quote tags such that you need only click the little arrow and return to the original post in question.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

No idea why you are quoting John 6:44-45.

Let's stop this. Why must I explain each passage as if you are not capable of following a plain text? The passage clearly states no one possesses moral ability to call upon the name of the Lord unless God acts beforehand. Only those given ears to hear will hear.

Please make a specific point regarding http://www.reformed.org/documents/shaw/shaw_10.html.

No. TI fear explanations explanatory of things explained. My post quoted from the WCF and included Scripture citations, not a few of which you keep asking me "why this verse?"

Spoiler

All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, (Rom. 8:30, Rom. 11:7, Eph. 1:10-11) by His word and Spirit, (2 Thess. 2:13-14, 2 Cor. 3:3,6)

out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; (Rom. 8:2, Eph. 2:1-5, 2 Tim. 1:9-10)

enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, (Acts 26:18, 1 Cor. 2:10,12, Eph. 1:17-18)

taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; (Ezek. 36:26)

renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, (Ezek. 11:19, Phil. 2:13, Deut. 30:6, Ezek. 36:27) and

effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: (Eph. 1:19, John 6:44-45)

yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace. (Song 1:4, Ps. 110:3, John 6:37,Rom. 6:16-18)

The exposition provides the answer behind the Scripture citations.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You are redefining free will.

Well, I am encouraged we are finally coming around to yet another fundamental issue (original sin being another one).

I am defining the liberty of spontaneity, that is, the ability to choose according to one's greatest inclinations at the moment one so chooses. That is the only definition of free will found in the full counsel of Scripture.

Libertarian free will, the liberty of indifference, claimed by Arminians, open theists, and others, is the so-called ability to choose contary to one's inclinations, to do otherwise. To choose other than what one is inclined to choose. This is logical nonsense. Such a view implies we could acceptably choose to receive Christ without having a desire to receive Him, despite the clear teachings of the Scriptures to the contrary.

For more see my:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...n-vs-Enyart)&p=1535835&viewfull=1#post1535835

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What do you mean IF (Judas) was present? Are you saying he wasn't? Please respond before I deal with this post. Thanks.

It matters not whether he was present or not present. The passage in Matthew from which you are appealing is actually an amalgamation of accounts occurring at different times recorded by Matthew. The passage is not a single event wherein our Lord is quoted. Consult a trusted commentary for more details to confirm what I have stated.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

This is a straw man. I never suggested that God peeks in such a way for we know that God knows all outside of time.

On the contrary, you are doing exactly that each time you suggest God knows who will choose to call upon His name and hence chose these persons exercising their libertarian free will. This is the popular Arminian view. If you are an open theist it is even worse, for they would claim God does not know the future at all as it has not yet happened. God is apparently learning new things each moment in time, such that the God of Moses is less informed than the God of right now. To them God is just very, very, smart and manages to stay one step ahead of His autonomous creatures, Outwitting, Outlasting, and Outplaying them probabilistically—The Survivor® God. Sigh.

AMR

 

[Sonnet]

It matters not whether he was present or not present. The passage in Matthew from which you are appealing is actually an amalgamation of accounts occurring at different times recorded by Matthew. The passage is not a single event wherein our Lord is quoted. Consult a trusted commentary for more details to confirm what I have stated.

AMR

Mark 4:10-12
When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, “ ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’ ”

You say it doesn't matter, but clearly it does. Dordt's use of Isaiah 6:9,10 to affirm their definition of reprobation is untenable because Judas - the man Calvinist's affirm as a reprobate - is in the wrong group.

 

[Sonnet]

On the contrary, you are doing exactly that each time you suggest God knows who will choose to call upon His name and hence chose these persons exercising their libertarian free will.

But you didn't show this to be so.

 

[Sonnet]

Well, I am encouraged we are finally coming around to yet another fundamental issue (original sin being another one).

I am defining the liberty of spontaneity, that is, the ability to choose according to one's greatest inclinations at the moment one so chooses. That is the only definition of free will found in the full counsel of Scripture.

Libertarian free will, the liberty of indifference, claimed by Arminians, open theists, and others, is the so-called ability to choose contary to one's inclinations, to do otherwise. To choose other than what one is inclined to choose. This is logical nonsense. Such a view implies we could acceptably choose to receive Christ without having a desire to receive Him, despite the clear teachings of the Scriptures to the contrary.

For more see my:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...n-vs-Enyart)&p=1535835&viewfull=1#post1535835

AMR

According to your definition we will all be choosing the one option (or one among several equal options) that fits our 'greatest inclination at the moment one so chooses'.

That equates to pre-programming - especially if we also allow your definition of original sin - born guilty of sin and unable to not sin.

This leaves man without any recourse...unless elect. His fate is sealed.

 

[Sonnet]

Let's stop this. Why must I explain each passage as if you are not capable of following a plain text? The passage clearly states no one possesses moral ability to call upon the name of the Lord unless God acts beforehand. Only those given ears to hear will hear.

No reference to moral ability is found in those scriptures. That is why I said I didn't understand why you quoted it.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Zero scriptures say that.

1 John 2:2 etc say the opposite.

We have discussed the "all" and the "world" verses. They cannot possibly mean each and every person in each and every verse they are used. Hence, those that appeal to 1 John 2:2, etc., are not being honest with themselves, for they choose to import each and every person only in the cases that are convenient for their view.

See:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-John-Calvin&p=4568222&viewfull=1#post4568222

Interesting but baffling use of 'sufficient'.

The sacrifice of Christ derived infinite value from the dignity of his person; it must, therefore, have been intrinsically sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole human race had it been so intended; but, in the designation of the Father, and in the intention of Christ himself, it was limited to a definite number, who shall ultimately obtain salvation.

Without particular atonement Our Lord prays for the salvation of some who will not be saved. This is even more problematic than the idea that the death of Christ was not only sufficient for the sins of the world, but also somehow efficient for all without exception either. He dies for some who won't be saved? How could divine efficiency and intention be divided?

John Owen is helpful here:

Spoiler

"The Scripture, also, to this purpose is exceeding full and frequent in setting forth the excellency and dignity of his death and sacrifice, calling his blood, by reason of the unity of his person, "God's own blood," Acts 20:28; exalting it infinitely above all other sacrifices, as having for its principle "the eternal Spirit," and being itself "without spot," Heb. 9:14; transcendently more precious than silver, or gold, or corruptible things, 1 Pet. 1:18; able to give justification from all things, from which by the law men could not be justified, Acts 13:28. Now, such as was the sacrifice and offering of Christ in itself, such was it intended by his Father it should be. It was, then, the purpose and intention of God that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth, value, and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming of all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that purpose; yea, and of other worlds also, if the Lord should freely make them, and would redeem them. Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world." - Works, Vol. X, pp. 295, 296.

No scriptures say this.

Our Lord's High Priestly Prayer, notwithstanding, of course. :AMR:

You mean you think there is a remedy for the original sin of some humans.

Let's not play these games.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Whether it's one or the total number of humans - 1 it's unconscionable.

That should be obvious shouldn't it?

Why? How is your view better? Explain it in detail. I have. You have yet to do so.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

None of these scriptures explicitly say that we are born guilty of a sin.
None of those he spoke to were babies.
You haven't proven your definition of OS.
You haven't proven it.

You have been provided the historical teachings of the church militant for over a thousand years. And you prefer to just wave it off? Like the previous issue you have with the definition of free will, an erroneous view of the original sin of Adam, will lead to all manner of tortuous doctrine. If you cannot get past these two fundamentals, we are at an impasse.

For review once more:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html

Not clear what you mean by emboldened.

The symmetry of the First and Last Adam Paul teaches must reach a terrible conclusion with your view. A view that assumes God waits until we sin to impute sin to us must necessarily claim Our Lord is not really righteous until man first responds to the Gospel. There is no other way around this. Is Paul wrong? Er, no.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Mark 4:10-12
When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, “ ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’ ”

You say it doesn't matter, but clearly it does. Dordt's use of Isaiah 6:9,10 to affirm their definition of reprobation is untenable because Judas - the man Calvinist's affirm as a reprobate - is in the wrong group.

My original post included the argument with the assumption Judas was present. You are grasping too much here.

AMR