toldailytopic: The reprobate. Are some people born with no hope of salvation?

Status
Not open for further replies.

bybee

New member
Nang, you are a pervert.

Nick, I wish you would clarify what kind of "pervert" you are labeling someone. Nang is certainly not a "pervert" in the sense that most of us consider the label. If her theology is off sides to you, as it is to me, could you use another word?
Of course, right now I'm wracking my brain to come up with another label and I'm drawing a blank!
Still, I will not call another Christian a pervert. God knows the heart and He will make the last call.
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Sure. Just what Paul taught, including when he taugh from the "Old Testament".

No man is righteous, no man seeks after God. We all turned aside. So the short answer to our belief is that Jesus said when he is lifted up, he will draw all unto himself. So we all seek, some just don't admit it, and choose rebellion. Those of us in the Body of Christ didn't turn away when he drew us in. And that doesn't mean we immediately came into the body. Lots of people have trouble admitting when they are wrong. I don't pretend to be exempt in that manner. I rebelled for a long time.

So, that is my point of view. He was raised up, and drew us in. And we still had to recieve the gift. A two way street. I don't agree with what I have read the Calvinists claim. That he only draws certain people, and he has condemned certain people. That would be a sick and twisted God to such a thing. Regarding Calvinism and the Open View, the Bible is very clear that not all details are hashed out in advanced. Right from the beginning in Genesis. And the Bible is very clear that salvation is offered to all men. And the Bible is very clear that many are not found written in the book of life, so they rejected his offer of salvation.

Thanks for clarifying, Nick.
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You are convoluting the Law of God with the sinful condition of man.

Man is declared totally depraved according to the Law, because it is impossible for man to live in perfect holiness like God, and because man cannot earn or merit righteousness according to said Law. (Romans 3:20)

You are assuming that because the word of God still holds man accountable to believe and repent from sin, that God does not really condemn sinners for breaking His moral standards.

But God does just that . . .

Not causing unbelief, or because of unbelief, but through the way of unbelief.

Think about that statement for at least ten days, please . . .

Nang



Nang
Sure. 10 days it is. That'll be precisely 9 days, 23 hours, and 44 minutes longer than you thought about my statement. :chuckle:
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Here is the Reformed view of "Reprobation" (i.e. many souls are consigned by God Almighty God to hell for sin):

Reprobation is not the cause of unbelief.

Reprobation is not because of unbelief.

God accomplishes sovereignly His eternal decree of reprobation IN THE WAY OF UNBELIEF.


In this way, God's sovereignty is maintained and man's accountability is preserved.

Do not reply to this post within ten seconds, ten minutes, or even ten days.

Think about the above statements for awhile . . .

Reflect on this explanation of the doctrine of Reprobation for a decent period of time before you either reply in agreement with this position as being totally Scriptural and sound, or reject this explanation as being unbiblical and therefore wrong.

Nang

I thought about these questions for about 15 years and in the end decided that Calvinism was wrong. According to it the vast majority of human kind is predestined to damnation. That is simply what Calvinists believe. It's worse that the reason why they are predestined to damnation is to show how lovely it is for the few that are not.
This is also an internal contradiction because Calvin stated that it was not possible to know what the reasons for God's choosing of some and not others was. He didn't want anyone prying into that question in case they realised the bankruptcy of the whole doctrinal edifice.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
nang:

Not causing unbelief, or because of unbelief, but through the way of unbelief.

God is the cause of our unbelief. Yes, He uses satan for it, but unbelief is by a Judicial decision by God. Rom 11:32

For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Notice who does the concluding here ! Is it not God writes Paul ?

The word concluded is the greek word sygkleiō and means:


to shut up together, enclose

a) of a shoal of fishes in a net

2) to shut up on all sides, shut up completely


So God shut all [the elect] in unbelief, so He could demonstrate His Mercy to all of them. Paul is an example of how one of the elect use to act in unbelief and how that God through Jesus Christ had Mercy upon him.

1 Tim 1:13

Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

You see, that is what Rom 11:32 is talking about.

And Paul's conversion from unbelief to Faith or believing serves as an example of how God deals with all the elect ! 1 Tim 1:

16Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

So God is the first cause of our unbelief, and He is the reason why His elect are redeemed from it, unto Faith in Christ.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
God decreed that salvation for all His creation would come through the unbelief of man, and contrasted with the moral perfection and grace of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. I Corinthians 15:42-49

Nang, I think you dug a hole for yourself there with declaring that innocence was not the same thing as moral uprightness. It may not be, but then you need to back track on what you originally said.

Your view amounts to the statement that God decreed that he was not going to be responsible for anything bad that he predetermined would happen. If he predetermined that some would believe by the virtue of Christ's work, then he takes credit for that. if he predetermined that most would be damned, then he decrees that they were personally responsible for that and he was not.

This is the kind of thing that convinced me that Calvinism was wrong, not so much all the logical inconsistencies about eternal time and so on. It is the moral implications of the doctrine that are so repugnant.
 

Krsto

Well-known member
nang:

God is the cause of our unbelief. Yes, He uses satan for it, but unbelief is by a Judicial decision by God. Rom 11:32

For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Notice who does the concluding here ! Is it not God writes Paul ?

The word concluded is the greek word sygkleiō and means:

to shut up together, enclose

a) of a shoal of fishes in a net

2) to shut up on all sides, shut up completely


So God shut all [the elect] in unbelief, so He could demonstrate His Mercy to all of them. Paul is an example of how one of the elect use to act in unbelief and how that God through Jesus Christ had Mercy upon him.

1 Tim 1:13

Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

You see, that is what Rom 11:32 is talking about.

And Paul's conversion from unbelief to Faith or believing serves as an example of how God deals with all the elect ! 1 Tim 1:

16Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

So God is the first cause of our unbelief, and He is the reason why His elect are redeemed from it, unto Faith in Christ.

Exactly! Nang is unwittingly using smoke and mirrors in making a distinction between election "through the way of unbelief" and God causing it to happen, somehow thinking he has removed God from responsibility for the final state of those who don't believe. At least you have the integrity to admit that.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Exactly! Nang is unwittingly using smoke and mirrors in making a distinction between election "through the way of unbelief"

Careful, you are twisting what I posted. I responded to the subject of "Reprobation" not "Election. My words were:

Here is the Reformed view of "Reprobation" (i.e. many souls are consigned by God Almighty God to hell for sin):

Reprobation is not the cause of unbelief.

Reprobation is not because of unbelief.

God accomplishes sovereignly His eternal decree of reprobation IN THE WAY OF UNBELIEF.

In this way, God's sovereignty is maintained and man's accountability is preserved.





God causing it to happen,

God is the first cause of all things. God created Satan and God created Adam. Satan rebelled and Adam caused death. God was not the cause of Satan's rebellion nor the cause of Adam's fall into sin. Both creatures performed these actions according to the powers given to them by Creator God.

somehow thinking he has removed God from responsibility for the final state of those who don't believe. At least you have the integrity to admit that.

I will repeat in hopes you can grasp the answers:

Reprobation is not the cause of unbelief.

Reprobation is not because of unbelief.

God accomplishes sovereignly His eternal decree of reprobation IN THE WAY OF UNBELIEF.

In this way, God's sovereignty is maintained and man's accountability is preserved.


IOW's, there is such a thing as secondary causal agency in both angels and men that has been ordained by God.

God brings glory to His name by bringing good out of the volitional rebellion and unbelief of angels and men.

Nang
 

Brother Ducky

New member
Hi, Brother Ducky.

Because the official T of TULIP says that man is incapable of reaching up to grab the rope that is extended to save him. Yet, permeating the scriptures is the consistent message that man must grab the rope. So while I recognize that man is incapable of saving himself and is total depraved in that sense, man is commanded to choose and to obey. Therefore, he cannot be "Totally Depraved" according to the TULIP definition.

Aren't you thankful when hearing of someone who does not accept that which believes to be unbiblical?

Thanks,
Randy

Hi, Randy
While all analogies will fall apart if pressed too far, but the grab the rope and save yourself analogy does not take into consideration the concept of being spiritually dead before Christ saves us. If that is an accurate way of looking at things, then before we can "grab the rope" God has to change us from being spiritually dead to being spiritually alive. Hence the Reformed view of Regeneration preceding Repentance.

I am finding in my old age that I am a lot more tolerant of the varieties of Christian belief in others, while maintaining a firm hold on my own beliefs. I have come to understand that I might be wrong, and I hope that I would be open to changing beliefs if a sufficiently strong case could be made for an alternate belief. I am not sure that I would use the term thankful for not holding other orthodox views.

Peace,
Rick
 

frostmanj

Subscriber
I am not sure that I would use the term thankful for not holding other orthodox views.

Peace,
Rick

Being brought up Lutheran I would not consider TULIP to be orthodox. I'm sure my RCC, some Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, and Episcopal (Church of England) brothers would agree. It comes down to each person's definition of what is or is not orthodox.

Blessings
Paul
 

Brother Ducky

New member
Being brought up Lutheran I would not consider TULIP to be orthodox. I'm sure my RCC, some Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, and Episcopal (Church of England) brothers would agree. It comes down to each person's definition of what is or is not orthodox.

Blessings
Paul

Paul,
I was a little unsure about using "orthodox" there but I did not have a better single word to put there. It seems to me that reasonably mature Christian understands that there are beliefs that we do not hold, but do not put those who do believe them outside of Christianity. There are exceptions, of course.
Frinstance, I hold to Infant Baptism, but would not break fellowship with those who would insist on infant dedication.

Peace,
Rick
 

Krsto

Well-known member
Careful, you are twisting what I posted. I responded to the subject of "Reprobation" not "Election. My words were:

Here is the Reformed view of "Reprobation" (i.e. many souls are consigned by God Almighty God to hell for sin):

Reprobation is not the cause of unbelief.

Reprobation is not because of unbelief.

God accomplishes sovereignly His eternal decree of reprobation IN THE WAY OF UNBELIEF.

In this way, God's sovereignty is maintained and man's accountability is preserved.







God is the first cause of all things. God created Satan and God created Adam. Satan rebelled and Adam caused death. God was not the cause of Satan's rebellion nor the cause of Adam's fall into sin. Both creatures performed these actions according to the powers given to them by Creator God.



I will repeat in hopes you can grasp the answers:

Reprobation is not the cause of unbelief.

Reprobation is not because of unbelief.

God accomplishes sovereignly His eternal decree of reprobation IN THE WAY OF UNBELIEF.

In this way, God's sovereignty is maintained and man's accountability is preserved.


IOW's, there is such a thing as secondary causal agency in both angels and men that has been ordained by God.

God brings glory to His name by bringing good out of the volitional rebellion and unbelief of angels and men.

Nang

Read what you wrote, carefully. You defined reprobation as "many souls are consigned by God Almighty God to hell for sin." Consignment and election are the same thing, unless you want to say election refers to only the saved and consignment to the rest in which case it's just two terms for essentially the same thing, that God chose beforehand the eternal state of all souls. Yet you want to deny God is responsible for the eternal souls of men.

OK, it's not smoke and mirrors, you are living in deception just like godrulz because you don't have the ability to recogize when you contradict yourself.
 

frostmanj

Subscriber
Paul,
I was a little unsure about using "orthodox" there but I did not have a better single word to put there. It seems to me that reasonably mature Christian understands that there are beliefs that we do not hold, but do not put those who do believe them outside of Christianity. There are exceptions, of course.
Frinstance, I hold to Infant Baptism, but would not break fellowship with those who would insist on infant dedication.

Peace,
Rick

No problem. I understand your point. I also agree that orthodoxy is not synomous with right. The danger is if you stray into heresy. I am not arrogant enought, nor do I think myself in any position to call TULIP heretical. I know there are others on this board more than willing to though...:chuckle:
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hi, Randy
While all analogies will fall apart if pressed too far, but the grab the rope and save yourself analogy does not take into consideration the concept of being spiritually dead before Christ saves us. If that is an accurate way of looking at things, then before we can "grab the rope" God has to change us from being spiritually dead to being spiritually alive. Hence the Reformed view of Regeneration preceding Repentance.
It is biblical that we are spiritually dead before being saved. I agree with that. I do not agree that we have to be changed spiritually before we can grab the rope, though. The Bible is filled with exhortations from prophets, God Himself, apostles, etc for others to choose, repent, obey.

I am finding in my old age that I am a lot more tolerant of the varieties of Christian belief in others, while maintaining a firm hold on my own beliefs. I have come to understand that I might be wrong, and I hope that I would be open to changing beliefs if a sufficiently strong case could be made for an alternate belief. I am not sure that I would use the term thankful for not holding other orthodox views.

Peace,
Rick
I understand and pretty much agree with your perspective. That's why I'm not much into many of the games that are played around these parts. But I can be "tolerant" in the sense that I won't pester someone about a difference of believe...yet still call their view unbiblical if I believe it to be so. You believe that my view is unbiblical. The fact that you didn't use the actual word doesn't change the obvious view you hold about my own belief. The only difference between my post (where I made reference to the "T" being unbiblical) and yours (where you contrasted your reformed view with my view) is that I used the word "unbiblical". You believe that about me (which is okay by me); you just didn't say it.

Thanks, BD. Please take exactly 10 days to think about this post (that was a joke :chuckle:).

RA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top