Is God active at all in the reprobate?

[cygnusx1]

Thankyou 5solas for quoting that text


2Co 5:19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 2Co 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.


To often the H/Calvinist has been content to hide behind an idea that it is OK to preach the Gospel to all , because we don't know who the Reprobate are ........... a subtle ploy to still allow God room to make men to set them on fire!

But your text shows it is God calling the sinner to repent , the preacher is merely a useful tool! (which is the essence of Calvinism)

 

[Jon_]

and just why would God be pressing a moral obligation , if He is not showing kindness ?

Who ever said he is not showing kindness?

and if He is showing kindness , he is showing it for a reason ............... you have the reason spelled out for you in the text ......... to lead them to repentance ....... not condemnation , they are already condemned!

This does not follow. You are committing the fallacy of affirming the consequence, commonly known as post hoc. Because the moral obligation to repent comes after God's showing forth of kindness, you assume that this is the reason that God shows kindness. This is not correct. God shows kindess because it is in his nature to do so. God is love. Love is a volition, one that is acted upon. God makes his love known by showing forth kindness. As our Lord says in Matthew's Gospel:

(Mt. 5:45-48 AV) That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46) For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47) And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48) Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
​

Why does God do this?

(Rom. 2:11 AV) For there is no respect of persons with God.
​

Moreover,

(Rom. 9:22, 23 AV) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23) And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
​

And what is God's disposition toward those he has afore prepared for destruction?

(Ps. 5:6 AV) Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

(Ps. 11:5 AV) The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
​

Is it even true that the Lord hears the cries of the wicked? No, he does not:

(Ps. 18:41 AV) They cried, but there was none to save them: even unto the LORD, but he answered them not.
​

Why not?

(Heb. 2:17 AV) Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
​

Faith in Christ Jesus secures him as our personal High Priest before the Father. The wicked do not have the gift of faith.

(Eph. 2:8 AV) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
​

Faith is the gift of God and it is denied to the reprobate.

(John 6:65 AV) . . . Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

(John 8:42, 43 AV) Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43) Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

(Mt. 7:21 AV) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

(John 6:40 AV) And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
​

I do not know how much more clear it can be. The Scriptures clearly teach that Christ's work on the cross is intended solely for the elect. If Christ only died for the elect, then how in the world can one say that God nevertheless desires the repentance of the reprobate? The Scriptures also teach that God's purpose for the reprobate is judgment and destruction. He has constructed both vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy.

I am just at a completely loss as to why anyone would want to contradict the Bible on this. It certainly does nothing to protect the character of God (as if God needed our theological formulations for his character to be guarded). It anything, it involves God in a deceptive and disingenuine offer of salvation to those that are incapable of even hearing the Gospel. Let us read the account of Ezekiel in the valley of bones:

(Eze. 37:3b AV) . . . Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest.
​

In v. 3, God asks and Ezekiel answers that bones cannot live. Who are the bones? The unregenerate.

(Gen. 2:17 AV) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

(Rom. 6:23a AV) For the wages of sin is death. . . .

(Eph. 2:1) And you . . . were dead in trespasses and sins;
​

What is required for them to live? No, even more, what is required for them to even hear?

(Eze. 37:5 AV) Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:

(John 6:63 AV) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

(1 Co. 2:14 AV) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

(Titus 3:5 AV) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
​

Of especial note is 1 Co. 2:14, wherein the apostle Paul even says that the natural man cannot even receive the things of the Spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned. Without the washing of regeneration and the rebirth into the kingdom of God, the reprobate cannot even hear the spiritual call of the Gospel. They are spiritually dead! The dead neither hear nor respond.

How then can God genuinely offer salvation to corpses! They are already dead! Does he desperately hope the dead man will repent even though he naught but bones and dust? How can dry bones do anything even approaching repentance?

Do you understand my difficulty with your position, cygnus? What appeal can you possibly make in light of these scriptural evidences? What argument can you bring forth that will harmonize your doctrine with the biblical doctrine of the Gospel? You can appeal to nothing but contradiction.

But I stand by sola Scriptura and say that the Bible contains no contradictions.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

jon . we have been through this before , and I have shown you that God desires you to be perfect , for God commands it , should you say God commands what He doesn't desire , it is you , not me who makes God act with dulpicity!

H/Calvinist's confuse the results of God's interactions with His intentions.

Do you need a long list of Reformed Christians throughout history who openly support The Gospel offer , all the Puritans, do you need me to begin quoting the Reformers to show you how far you have drifted ?

If so , just say the word!

Ho, ho! You suppose that quoting Reformers out of context so that their words support your view will enable you to weasel your way out of providing biblical evidence and arguments for your position? I think not! I too have plenty of quotes from some of the same Reformers that you would use against me--John Calvin included! The fault lies with you in disharmonizing their teaching from the Bible. You cannot provide evidence from the Scriptures to support your view, so you appeal to out of context quotes from Reformers hoping to make your point that way.

Well, you certainly do make a point that way, but not the one you want to make. The point you make is that you cannot form a biblical argument in support of your position, therefore, you can do nothing but appeal to tradition and previous authors. I rest my case on the infallible foundation of Holy Writ. On which is yours based?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

I agree with you. Man ought to repent but nevertheless OUR job does not only consist of "hellfire-preaching":

2Co 5:19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 2Co 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Of course this news is only for the elect - but WE do not know which are the elect - only God knows; so we have to preach this to everyone we meet.

I also agree that nowadays one hears too little about damnation and hell and a good presentation of the Gospel must include the message of eternal damnation (no question about that) but one must be careful not to become unbalanced either. We must keep on the middle of the road....

Thanks 5 Solas.

Many people misunderstand my intentions when I bring up this subject. They infer that I am somehow saying that we shouldn't preach to all people. This could not be further from the truth. My position is that only the elect will hear and believe in the Gospel. This is nothing more than biblical truth. The reason I have again confronted Cygnus is because he continues to advance an unscriptural view of God's disposition toward the reprobate. God does not desire the reprobate to repent and believe because he has denied them the regenerating work that would enable them to do so.

Now, we are not God and we have no idea who is elect. We do not even know if we are elect because to know so we would have to be privy to God's hidden decree of election, which we are not. (Nevertheless, we can have assurance of our election, but this is different.) For this reason, we are called to spread the Gospel indiscriminately and I believe and obey this command with my whole heart. Never would I deign to deliver the good news of Jesus Christ because I suspected someone was unregenerate.

This is a far cry from holding the position that God is seeking the repentance of all men, though. God is at work in the world reconciling the elect to himself, not all men. We should be honest to the teaching of the Gospel, not hiding these essential truths, or worse, inventing false doctrines that portray God as janus-faced.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

To often the H/Calvinist has been content to hide behind an idea that it is OK to preach the Gospel to all , because we don't know who the Reprobate are ........... a subtle ploy to still allow God room to make men to set them on fire!

But your text shows it is God calling the sinner to repent , the preacher is merely a useful tool! (which is the essence of Calvinism)

Again, you show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the doctrine of the Gospel. You call yourself a Reformer and are yet unfamiliar with the outward call of the Gospel over against the inward call of the Gospel?

Observe, Cygnus, the outward call:

(Acts 2:38 AV) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
​

And the inward call:

(John 5:21 AV) For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
​

The outward call is that temporal linguistic formulation wherein we proclaim in human words the work of Christ. The inward call is that spiritual breath through which God resurrects the dead and directs them to Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cygnusx1]

Again, you show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the doctrine of the Gospel. You call yourself a Reformer and are yet unfamiliar with the outward call of the Gospel over against the inward call of the Gospel?





Observe, Cygnus, the outward call:

(Acts 2:38 AV) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.




​

And the inward call:

(John 5:21 AV) For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.




​

The outward call is that temporal linguistic formulation wherein we proclaim in human words the work of Christ. The inward call is that spiritual breath through which God resurrects the dead and directs them to Christ.



Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

We have been through this before jon ........ you are just repeating yourself , of course I know there is a difference between the outward call and the inward call .............. but you have continually failed to grasp that the outward call comes from God !
It is Not the preacher alone that calls all men to Repent and be reconciled to God , it is God Himself!

Your logic is that of the Arminian , He say's God cannot call all to Repent if He grants it only to the Elect , you say God does Call all , but NOT really God , it is the preacher ............ what you have done with your philosophy is build a gap between what we preach and what God wants to say!

The same goes for the warped view that God cannot be sincere if He doesn't Regenerate the Reprobate ........... classic Arminian faulty logic and yes I oppose it and God willing I will continue to oppose it!

 

[cygnusx1]

''Yes, that is true. But that doesn't mean that God is desirous that all be saved.'' Jon

here we have a case where we can be desirous to have our friends and family saved , we can do good , love them and pray for them to be saved , and yet be totally out of step with God's desire!

I wondered years ago how I was meant to behave toward men in general , and the concept (which I am in no way new to) that God only desires the Elect to be saved and the Gospel is only for the Elect ............ (yes you can talk till the cows come home about you believe in preaching to all men , it doesn't make any sense) that God has no desire , goodwill , love , compassion toward any unless He Regenerates them is post hoc.

Are not all men commanded by God to Repent ?
why would God command and promise Eternal life to all men if He didn't have any desire to save them ?
Why would Noah be sent to preach for 100 years if God had no desire to save anyone except for Noah and his family ? Your view Doesn't make sense , it is illogical and anti-scriptural.


The idea that we should weep over sinners , is incongrous with worshipping a God who made them to set them alight!

I reject every attempt at making God out to be mean spirited , and I consider it as much perhaps more heresy than even the Arminans to say God only makes the Reprobate to damn them.
I wonder what spirit you are of?

 

[cygnusx1]

Here folks , meet the High Calvinist in scripture , the ones who always will quote God's anger against Reprobates not His compassion for them!



Luk 9:54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" 55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. "And they went on to another village.

 

[akolouthein]

woa , Alot has happened in here since I've been sleeping .
I was reading this yesterday by Spurgeon:
(taken from http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm)

This error stems from a failure to differentiate between God's redemptive love, which is reserved for the elect alone, and His love of compassion, which is expressed in the goodness He shows to all His creatures (cf. Matt. 5:44-45; Acts 14:17). For an excellent antidote to the notion that God loves no one but the elect, see R. L. Dabney's superb article, "God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy."

 

[Jon_]

We have been through this before jon ........ you are just repeating yourself ,

Yes, I know. This is part of the reason why I am so stunned that you are continuing to maintain this position. Nevertheless, because you insist on proliferating an incorrect interpretation of the Scriptures, I must continue to refute you, less other members hear your words and be deceived.

of course I know there is a difference between the outward call and the inward call .............. but you have continually failed to grasp that the outward call comes from God !
It is Not the preacher alone that calls all men to Repent and be reconciled to God , it is God Himself!

So, the outward call is delivered by God and the inward call is delivered by man? An interesting arrangement. You seem to appeal greatly to the works of the Reformers. Which of them wrote to this effect?

Moreover, if both the outward and inward call is made by God himself, then where does man fit in here? You do violence against God's ordination of the proclamation of the Gospel. If the words are God's, then why does man need to speak at all? More importantly, you violate another foundational Reformed doctrine, namely that there is no new revelation. If it is God that is speaking through the man, then this amounts to new revelation, for no one has ever shared the Gospel solely by quoting Scripture.

Your logic is that of the Arminian ,

This cracks me up!

If anyone is being Arminian here, it is you. I had tried to avoid using language of that persuasion, but you forced my hand. Your insistence that God offers salvation to all necessitates a universal atonement because he absolutely could not offer salvation to those that he still suffers wrath against (cf. Psalm 2). Remember, Christ is the propitation for our sins. God's wrath toward the elect has been appeased. His wrath is still stored up against the reprobate, though. He has foreordained them to judgment and eternal hellfire. He has not even provided them the necessary atonement to forgive their sins.

Your logic would result in this:

If a reprobate were to repent, as God wants him to, then the reprobate would still go to hell because he is not covered by the blood of Christ. But this is a perversion of the Gospel, which says that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved! What a dangerous position you are in! Either you must fully embrace Arminian soteriology or repudiate your inaccurate doctrine.

He say God cannot call all to Repent if He grants it only to the Elect , you say God does Call all , but NOT really God , it is the preacher ............ what you have done with your philosophy is build a gap between what we preach and what God wants to say!

What God wants to say is expressed through the preacher! God has not given the Gospel unto the world that it should be sought out independently by men. It has been given to men to spread to other men! The preacher is God's instrument for spreading the Gospel. The man, not knowing God's hidden decree of election, faithfully delivers the good news of Jesus Christ without regard of persons. The Lord, knowing those that are his, regenerates those he has foreordained to belief at the time of the preaching. In this way, God works through our obedience to call his sheep to him. No gap is built here, rather the unity between the work of Christ and the work of men is made complete. For we are disciples of Christ sent forth unto all the nations.

The same goes for the warped view that God cannot be sincere if He doesn't Regenerate the Reprobate ........... classic Arminian faulty logic and yes I oppose it and God willing I will continue to oppose it!

Now we see the classic Cygnus argument coming to bear once again! Devoid of substance and all arguments being thoroughly disassembled, the name-calling begins! If you cannot win through reason or Scripture, then you will discredit me by accusing me of "Arminian logic," right Cyg? Well, I will not play that game.

Your arguments have been refuted. You have offered next to nothing by way of counter-argument, but what little you have has been inconsistent, incomplete, or just plain wrong. Until you are prepared to offer something substantive, an argument that isn't founded upon eisegesis, irrationality, and subjective disposition, then please let me know. Until then, I would appeal to you to stop spreading this doctrine, for I simply cannot cease refuting you. To do so would be disobedient to the word of God.

If this is insufferable, then we should both agree not to discuss this issue.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

I should probably make this my last post on the subject. I do not want to incite anything or come to be on bad terms with you, Cygnus. Indeed, I love you as a brother in Christ and nothing could prevent that from me.

My last proof will be a simple logical argument using truths that everybody can agree to and cygnus's premise. If I can form valid deductive arguments from these premises, then the conclusions will be inescapable.

Here is my argument. It is called a "sorites," which is a term for an extended argument that contains more than one conclusion, with each conclusion providing the premises for the following conclusion.

Premise #1) If faith is required for salvation.
Premise #2) If regeneration is required for faith.
Conclusion #1) Then all who have faith will be regenerated.

Premise #3) If God does all that he desires.
Premise #4) If God desires the reprobate receive salvation.
Conclusion #2) Then God will regenerate the reprobate.

Premise #5) If God does not regenerate the reprobate.
Conclusion #3) Then God does not desire the salvation of the reprobate.

The first three premises are universally agreed to by all Calvinists:

1) Faith is required for salvation.
2) Regeneration is required for faith.
3) If God does all that he desires. (Job 23:13, Ps. 115:3; 135:6, Dan. 4:35)

The fourth is Cygnus's premise:

4) God desires the reprobate be saved.

The fifth is another universally agreed upon premise:

5) God does not regenerate the reprobate.

We see then that the conclusions follow inexoribly from the premises. This is sound logic and can only be repudiated with an appeal to irrationality. Now, if anyone should make that appeal, I cannot stop them, but to warn them of where that conclusion leads. An appeal to contradiction or irrationality is an appeal to an unknowable truth. But if it is unknowable, how can we know it is unknowable?

This position is scripturally and logically indefensible.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cygnusx1]

woa , Alot has happened in here since I've been sleeping .
I was reading this yesterday by Spurgeon:
(taken from http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm)

This error stems from a failure to differentiate between God's redemptive love, which is reserved for the elect alone, and His love of compassion, which is expressed in the goodness He shows to all His creatures (cf. Matt. 5:44-45; Acts 14:17). For an excellent antidote to the notion that God loves no one but the elect, see R. L. Dabney's superb article, "God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy."

Thanks akolouthein

I have read R.L. Dabney with great profit .............. it was partly his writing that delivered me away from 'abstract decretal philosophy' into a more balanced Spiritual Calvinism .

also highly recommeded are

Christ Freely Offered / KW Stebbins
and the excellent work of John Piper.

Not to forget the soul winner , C H Spurgeon who was constantly opposed by all extremists ... Arminian as well as H/Calvinist .

My concern is to please Christ , I take His example towards sinners be they whatever and pray for mercy.... for all , except apostates.

We show Love because God does .

It is true that there is a small movement who deny God has any desire for the non-elect to be saved , but they also deny God does anyone good except the elect ...PRC.... for they see God's kindness as NOTHING MORE than a means to an end ........ to turn up the flames of hell upon these poor blind unsuspecting reprobates!

If the God we worship is not Love , then we have lost sight of the Gospel.

Just how is it that men can throw up their hearts and hands in praise that God so loved them that He sent Jesus to be crucified for them , and that God's compassion extends no further than the elect , the rest God made just to burn them is just too much for any compassionate mind ............

"thank you Lord for showing your great Love to me ............ and thankyou Lord for making my family and friends for nothing other than fire wood ... Amen"

 

[cygnusx1]

I should probably make this my last post on the subject. I do not want to incite anything or come to be on bad terms with you, Cygnus. Indeed, I love you as a brother in Christ and nothing could prevent that from me.

thankyou Jon ......... we may heartily disagree , I have a heart even for the reprobate , I leave you to figure out your heart toward them (even if you and I may only see them abstractly , they still exist)

My last proof will be a simple logical argument using truths that everybody can agree to and cygnus's premise. If I can form valid deductive arguments from these premises, then the conclusions will be inescapable.

Here is my argument. It is called a "sorites," which is a term for an extended argument that contains more than one conclusion, with each conclusion providing the premises for the following conclusion.

Premise #1) If faith is required for salvation.
Premise #2) If regeneration is required for faith.
Conclusion #1) Then all who have faith will be regenerated.

True , yet it is begging a question ........... can men logically cry to God for faith? (I know that the reprobate morally cannot , but physically they can)

Premise #3) If God does all that he desires.
Premise #4) If God desires the reprobate receive salvation.
Conclusion #2) Then God will regenerate the reprobate.

Not necessarily , for it is based upon an assumption ....... that there are not multitudes of desires in God!
If a man is going to choose between chopping his right hand off and his wife being put to death , he will if he loves her have his right hand cut off .
Are we to assume the man wanted his right hand cut off ?
Yes ......................... and No!

Premise #5) If God does not regenerate the reprobate.
Conclusion #3) Then God does not desire the salvation of the reprobate.

see above

The first three premises are universally agreed to by all Calvinists:

If that were true , all Calvinists would deny the ''well meant offer of the Gospel'' , it is only a small minority who do .

1) Faith is required for salvation.
2) Regeneration is required for faith.
3) If God does all that he desires. (Job 23:13, Ps. 115:3; 135:6, Dan. 4:35)

The fourth is Cygnus's premise:

4) God desires the reprobate be saved.

The fifth is another universally agreed upon premise:

5) God does not regenerate the reprobate.

We see then that the conclusions follow inexoribly from the premises. This is sound logic and can only be repudiated with an appeal to irrationality.

I disagree , you are saying that Logic determines doctrine , Revelation does that , and revelation may take years , synods , arguments , heated debates , even wars , before men agree ....... see The Trinity!

Now, if anyone should make that appeal, I cannot stop them, but to warn them of where that conclusion leads. An appeal to contradiction or irrationality is an appeal to an unknowable truth. But if it is unknowable, how can we know it is unknowable?

This position is scripturally and logically indefensible.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Your argument , clever as it is , is based upon presuppositions.
1. That God has only one desire.
2. That men who have not faith cannot call upon God for it.
3. That doctrine is acceptable by the measure of Logic , instead of revelation by faith.

I do not understand the Trinty , I challenge you to say you do!
I may agree with it , I may grasp parts of its sublime truth , but I am just a man , I cannot tell you how God cannot be tempted and Jesus can .......... yes you can rationalise it , and say you have the truth , the truth is we all know in part , we all see through a glass dimly (thank God for the glass though) and we all have gaps in our theology , humility demands we say it is so.

Maybe I cannot tie up all lose ends , maybe my view appear irrational to you , I keep reminding myself just how irrational Calvinism was to me , before I was granted it's sublime light ........ yet I could not rationally grasp it.

The same as you have given no explanation for why the Gospel message which includes both warning and invitation........ with many promises proffered to , unto even the Reprobate.
You may continue to say , it is only the preachers blindeness that permits him to preach to the reprobate , yet as I have endevoured throughout this thread to show , It is not the preacher , It is God .And Jesus preached openly to all men , and He KNEW ALL THE TIME who was Elect and who was not.... yet His message remained the same.

As shall mine God willing.

greetings and may God Guide amd keep you brother
Cygnus

 

[Jon_]

thankyou Jon ......... we may heartily disagree , I have a heart even for the reprobate , I leave you to figure out your heart toward them (even if you and I may only see them abstractly , they still exist)

Tsk, tsk. I too have a heart for the reprobate.

True , yet it is begging a question ........... can men logically cry to God for faith? (I know that the reprobate morally cannot , but physically they can)

I'm sorry, but you do not understand what "begging the question" means. To beg the question is to make a circular argument, i.e. to reuse your conclusion in your premises. That is not at all what I am doing.

Not necessarily , for it is based upon an assumption ....... that there are not multitudes of desires in God!

The only way this refutation holds is if God can have contradictory desires, viz. that God can desire the reprobate be saved and desire that the reprobate not be saved. If you wish to make this argument, then all I can ask is how Job 23:13, Ps. 115:3; 135:6, Dan. 4:35 can all be true if God both does something does not do something. That is an impossibility.

God cannot have created the earth and not created the earth.

If a man is going to choose between chopping his right hand off and his wife being put to death , he will if he loves her have his right hand cut off .

Are we to assume the man wanted his right hand cut off ?
Yes ......................... and No!

This does not apply to God. God is omnipotent and can do all that he pleases. Your argument assumes that the man was someone unable to both keep his hand and save his wife. These are not limitations that God suffers under.

If that were true , all Calvinists would deny the ''well meant offer of the Gospel'' , it is only a small minority who do .

No, it wouldn't. It would mean that those who do not accept it are being irrational. That's human nature, though. We are created rational beings, but the noetic effects of sin frequently interfere with our ability to understand things rationally.

I disagree , you are saying that Logic determines doctrine , Revelation does that , and revelation may take years , synods , arguments , heated debates , even wars , before men agree ....... see The Trinity!

Oh, poor Cygnus. Do you not understand how integrated logic is into everything? Do you not understand that in order to even communicate requires logic? The fundamental law of contradiction assumes that A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same sense. This literally means that true cannot also be false. If that were true, we could not know truth. If dog also meant cat, then whenever someone said "dog," you would not know if they were referring to a dog or a cat. Do you see how fundamental logic is in everything? Without logic, we could not even understand revelation. Without logic, we could not formulate doctrine. It is not superior to revelation, it works in conjunction with it. Just as the Holy Spirit illuminates the word to us when we read it, we use logic to understand things.

Your argument , clever as it is , is based upon

presuppositions.

Every argument is based on presuppositions.

1. That God has only one desire.

See the above problem concerning contradictory desires. If you have a proof for it, be my guest.

2. That men who have not faith cannot call upon God for it.

This is irrelevant. I am speaking about the abstract concept of elect and reprobate. The reprobate are, by definition, those who will never have faith.

3. That doctrine is acceptable by the measure of Logic , instead of revelation by faith.

Again, see the argument above. Logic is necessary for everything.

I do not understand the Trinty , I challenge you to say you do!

I understand all the aspects of the Trinity that have been revealed to us. What more can I say than that, though?

I may agree with it , I may grasp parts of its sublime truth , but I am just a man , I cannot tell you how God cannot be tempted and Jesus can .......... yes you can rationalise it , and say you have the truth , the truth is we all know in part , we all see through a glass dimly (thank God for the glass though) and we all have gaps in our theology , humility demands we say it is so.

Maybe I cannot tie up all lose ends , maybe my view appear irrational to you , I keep reminding myself just how irrational Calvinism was to me , before I was granted it's sublime light ........ yet I could not rationally grasp it.

The same as you have given no explanation for why the Gospel message which includes both warning and invitation........ with many promises proffered to , unto even the Reprobate.

You may continue to say , it is only the preachers blindeness that permits him to preach to the reprobate , yet as I have endevoured throughout this thread to show , It is not the preacher , It is God .And Jesus preached openly to all men , and He KNEW ALL THE TIME who was Elect and who was not.... yet His message remained the same.

As shall mine God willing.

greetings and may God Guide amd keep you brother
Cygnus

If you are looking to grow in your understanding of revelation, I would encourage you to study logic. Thinking rationally will enable you to fully understand an appreciate the doctrines of the word.

In any case, my argument holds rock solid.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cygnusx1]

Tsk, tsk. I too have a heart for the reprobate.

and God doesn't!

I'm sorry, but you do not understand what "begging the question" means. To beg the question is to make a circular argument, i.e. to reuse your conclusion in your premises. That is not at all what I am doing.

The only way this refutation holds is if God can have contradictory desires, viz. that God can desire the reprobate be saved and desire that the reprobate not be saved. If you wish to make this argument, then all I can ask is how Job 23:13, Ps. 115:3; 135:6, Dan. 4:35 can all be true if God both does something does not do something. That is an impossibility.

As I have shown , a man may forfeit his right arm to save the life of his wife ......... to say the man only had one desire , to have his arm chopped off is not only illogical but false.
For truly he desired to keep his arm , but a stronger desire (to keep his wife) demanded he permit that which he did not desire.

So in that which he did not desire , he had his desire fulfilled.

This does not apply to God. God is omnipotent and can do all that he pleases. Your argument assumes that the man was someone unable to both keep his hand and save his wife. These are not limitations that God suffers under.


No, it wouldn't. It would mean that those who do not accept it are being irrational. That's human nature, though. We are created rational beings, but the noetic effects of sin frequently interfere with our ability to understand things rationally.

Of course it applies to God , when you read God was grieved , God was sorry , or God was angry , you make it your buisness to dismiss those truths as anthropomorphisms .......... which roughly translated means God was neither sorry , grieved or angry.......... such is the logic that you are using.

Oh, poor Cygnus. Do you not understand how integrated logic is into everything? Do you not understand that in order to even communicate requires logic? The fundamental law of contradiction assumes that A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same sense.

I didn't say the same time and in the same sense , that is what you are reading into what I have said........... if I had said , God decrees to save all and He decrees to save only the Elect , your point would stand, I haven't said anything like that. ....... so cut out the "poor cygnus routine" , thanks.

This literally means that true cannot also be false. If that were true, we could not know truth. If dog also meant cat, then whenever someone said "dog," you would not know if they were referring to a dog or a cat. Do you see how fundamental logic is in everything? Without logic, we could not even understand revelation. Without logic, we could not formulate doctrine. It is not superior to revelation, it works in conjunction with it. Just as the Holy Spirit illuminates the word to us when we read it, we use logic to understand things.

Every argument is based on presuppositions.


See the above problem concerning contradictory desires. If you have a proof for it, be my guest.

see above!

This is irrelevant. I am speaking about the abstract concept of elect and reprobate. The reprobate are, by definition, those who will never have faith.

It is far far from irrelevant , the reason they will have no faith is because they love sin ........... a lack of faith is blameworthy , it is THE most common accusation levelled against both saint's and sinners throughout the Gospels.

Again, see the argument above. Logic is necessary for everything.

Well I didn't need much logic when I accepted Christ , faith was sufficient.
As it is for babies and idiots too!

I understand all the aspects of the Trinity that have been revealed to us. What more can I say than that, though?


If you are looking to grow in your understanding of revelation, I would encourage you to study logic. Thinking rationally will enable you to fully understand an appreciate the doctrines of the word.

In any case, my argument holds rock solid.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

You know what Luther said of Logic ............ ''it is the devil's harlot''!

Greetings
Cygnus

 

[Jon_]

Not necessarily , for it is based upon an assumption ....... that there are not multitudes of desires in God!

Oh, I forgot to point out in my last post that what you are proposing results in the formal fallacy of equivocation. Whenever you use a word in more than one sense, you commit a formal fallacy of ambiguity. Within an argument, you can only speak of one desire, so your protest that I am not taking into account that God can have multiple desires is actually fallacious.

If that were true , all Calvinists would deny the ''well meant offer of the Gospel'' , it is only a small minority who do .

I was also too quick to concede this point. I do not necessarily think that the denial of the well meant offer is only held by a minority of Calvinists. Rather, I think that most of them have never even really considered the issue. If you were to pose the question to every Calvinist you met in completely and totally unbiased language, I would wager more people would agree with me than you.

So, let's take a look at your three objections again:

1. That God has only one desire.

A fallacy of equivocation.

2. That men who have not faith cannot call upon God for it.

I do not even know what this means.

3. That doctrine is acceptable by the measure of Logic , instead of revelation by faith.

A misunderstanding of the fundamental cooperation of logic and revelation. That is, without logic, you cannot understand revelation, and without revelation, you cannot understand logic (its purpose and utility).

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cygnusx1]

Oh, I forgot to point out in my last post that what you are proposing results in the formal fallacy of equivocation. Whenever you use a word in more than one sense, you commit a formal fallacy of ambiguity. Within an argument, you can only speak of one desire, so your protest that I am not taking into account that God can have multiple desires is actually fallacious.

you have never shown multiple desires in God as a belief you hold , and it is clear God does have them.

I was also too quick to concede this point. I do not necessarily think that the denial of the well meant offer is only held by a minority of Calvinists. Rather, I think that most of them have never even really considered the issue. If you were to pose the question to every Calvinist you met in completely and totally unbiased language, I would wager more people would agree with me than you.

Are you aquainted with the History of the well meant offer , and the rejection of this view by the PRC which got them ''excommunicated from the Reformed Church's ?
What you are proposing is that Preachers tell men something that may be false .......... Repent and Trust The Lord you will be saved....... for it is clear you deny God has any desire to save them.. (unless they be elect)

just Why do we preach The Good News To Elect and Reprobate ?
(try answering without repeating , ''because God says so'' )

 

[Jon_]

and God doesn't!

Oh, no! More ambiguity!

As I have shown , a man may forfeit his right arm to save the life of his wife ......... to say the man only had one desire , to have his arm chopped off is not only illogical but false.

For truly he desired to keep his arm , but a stronger desire (to keep his wife) demanded he permit that which he did not desire.

So in that which he did not desire , he had his desire fulfilled.

Mmm, more fallacies of distraction. You have completely avoided the main point of my counter-argument, viz. that the man is incapable of doing both, whereas God is capable of doing both. Your illustration fails to even establish a basis for the comparison.

Of course it applies to God , when you read God was grieved , God was sorry , or God was angry , you make it your buisness to dismiss those truths as anthropomorphisms

Anthropopathisms, actually. I misused the term back when we originally discussed this.

.......... which roughly translated means God was neither sorry , grieved or angry.......... such is the logic that you are using.

No, it means God was not humanly sorry, grieved, or angry. Two different senses—no contradiction.

In any case, you haven't refuted the argument at all. All you have done is introduced another subject (anthropopathisms) in an attempt to distract from my main argument, which you cannot answer.

I didn't say the same time and in the same sense , that is what you are reading into what I have said........... if I had said , God decrees to save all and He decrees to save only the Elect , your point would stand, I haven't said anything like that. ....... so cut out the "poor cygnus routine" , thanks.

There is only one applicable sense to the subject, Cygnus: the salvation of the reprobate. There is only one desire: God's desire regarding the salvation of the reprobate. You cannot equivocate on this by saying God has multiple desires with regards to the salvation of the reprobate. That is just to speak nonsense.

It is far far from irrelevant , the reason they will have no faith is because they love sin ........... a lack of faith is blameworthy , it is THE most common accusation levelled against both saint's and sinners throughout the Gospels.

No, I understand your point there. What I don't understand is how this relates to God desiring the salvation of the reprobate. For the elect, he regenerates them and gives them the gift of faith. For the reprobate, he denies them both.

Well I didn't need much logic when I accepted Christ , faith was sufficient.

As it is for babies and idiots too!

Yes, you did. Without logic, you wouldn't even know what "Christ" means. For instance, if the law of contradiction doesn't exist, then there is no basis for saying that "Christ" is Christ and not "bacon." Since you have eliminated the universal rule that says nothing can contradict, and by extension, the law of identity which says that something is what it is, then you can completely abandoned the foundation from which you can judge anything to be true. If the laws of logic are not true, then A does not have to equal A, A can be non-A and nothing must either be A or non-A.

You still are showing that you do not understand how logic is completely integrated into every thought and deed of mankind.

You know what Luther said of Logic ............ ''it is the devil's harlot''!

Cite your source, please.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

you have never shown multiple desires in God as a belief you hold , and it is clear God does have them.

Ah, you still fail to grasp the concept.

I never said God does not have multiple desires, I said that my argument only refers to one desire: God's desire regarding the salvation of the reprobate. Obviously, his desire regarding where I should go for lunch today is completely irrelevant to that argument. Please try to stay on topic.

Are you aquainted with the History of the well meant offer , and the rejection of this view by the PRC which got them ''excommunicated from the Reformed Church's ?

Yes, I am! The PRC is the most doctrinally sound church that I have ever found, in fact. And it is the CRC (Christian Reformed Churches) from which they separated. They left willingly before be excommunicated--that came after the fact.

What you are proposing is that Preachers tell men something that may be false .......... Repent and Trust The Lord you will be saved....... for it is clear you deny God has any desire to save them.. (unless they be elect)

Oh, no, another fallacy. Repent and you will be saved is a message of consequence. It is a logical argument! Look and see:

Premise #1) If you repent.
Premise #2) If you believe on Jesus Christ as your Savior.
Conclusion) You will be saved.

So you don't need logic to believe in the Gospel, eh! How do you satisfy the two premises in order to get to the conclusion, then? The preacher's proclamation is not a personal promise to every individual. The preacher's message is that if you do this, this will happen.

just Why do we preach The Good News To Elect and Reprobate ?

(try answering without repeating , ''because God says so'' )

I would challenge you to give me justification to do anything without saying, "because God says so." If you presume that there are other reasons besides that, then I question your moral basis for saying so.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cygnusx1]

Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661)
God's Will & Gospel Offer
An answer on how God's will and the Gospel Offer work together. ​

The Will of God and the Gospel Offer
by Rev. Samuel Rutherford
​

God's serious and unfeigned ardency of desire that we do what is our duty

It's much worthy of observation, how that sweet evangelic invitation is conceived, Isa. 55:1, Ho, everyone that thirsts, come to the waters, and he that hath no silver, come buy, and eat: as if the Lord were grieved, and said, Woe is me, Alas that thirsty souls should die in their thirst, and will not come to the water of life, Christ, and drink gratis, freely, and live. For the interjection, Ho, is a mark of sorrowing, as ah, or woe, everyone that thirsts. It expresseth two things, 1. A vehemency and a serious and unfeigned ardency of desire that we do what is our duty, and the concatenation of these two, extremely desired of God, our coming to Christ and our salvation. This moral connection between faith and salvation is desired of God with his will of approbation, complacency, and moral liking, without all dissimulation, most unfeignedly [margin: What the revealed will of God is]; and whereas Arminians say, we make counterfeit, feigned, and hypocritical desires in God, they calumniate and cavil egregiously, as their custom is. 2. The other thing expressed in these invitations is a sort of dislike, grief, or sorrow (it's a speech borrowed from man, for there is no disappointing of the Lord's will, nor sorrow in him for the not fulfilling of it), or an earnest nilling and hating dislike that these two should not go along, as approved efficaciously by us, to wit, the creature's obedience of faith and life eternal. God loveth, approveth the believing of Jerusalem and of her children, as a moral duty, as the hen doth love to warm and nourish her chickens; and he hateth, with an exceeding and unfeigned dislike of improbation and hatred, their rebellious disobedience and refusing to be gathered: but there is no purpose, intention, or decree of God, holden forth in these invitations called his revealed will, by which he saith he intendeth and willeth that all he maketh the offer unto shall obey and be saved. But it's to be observed, that the revealed will of God, holden forth to all, called voluntas signi, doth not hold forth formally that God intendeth, decreeth, or purposeth in his eternal council, that any man shall actually obey, either elect or reprobate; it formally is the expression only of the good liking of that moral and duty conjunction between the obedience of the creature and the reward, but holdeth forth not any intention or decree of God, that any shall obey, or that all shall obey, or that none at all shall obey.

And what Arminians say of Christ's intention to die for all and every one, and of the Lord's intention and catholic good will to save all and every one, to wit, that these desires may be in God though not any be saved at all, but all eternally perish, which maketh the Lord's desires irrational, unwise, and frustraneous — that we say with good reason of God's good will, called voluntas signi, it might have its complete and entire end and effect though not any one of men or angel obey, if there were not going along with this will of God another will, and eternal decree and purpose in God, or working by free grace in some chosen ones what the Lord willeth in his approving will.

Now this desire of approbation is an abundantly sufficient closing of the mouth of such as stumble at the gospel, being appointed thereunto, and an expression of Christ's good liking to save sinners. Expressed in his borrowed wishes, Deut. 5:29. O that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep my commandments. Ps. 81:13. O that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel walked in my ways. Which wish, as relating to disobeying Israel, is a figure, or metaphor borrowed from men, but otherwise showeth how acceptable the duty is to God, how obligatory to the creature. But the Lord's expostulations, Ezek. 18:31. Why will ye die, O house of Israel? Verse 32. For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dies. In the Lord's crying to sinners, Prov. 1:20. Wisdom cries, she uttereth her voice in the streets. The word is to cry with strong shouting, either for joy, Ps. 81:2, or sorrow, Lam. 2:19, which expresseth Christ's desire to save sinners.

[Margin: No lip-love, nor any empty love in God, but that which is effectual and real to work the good he desireth to the party loved.] We are hence taught to acknowledge no love to be in God which is not effectual in doing good to the creature; there is no lip-love, no raw well-wishing to the creature which God doth not make good. We know but three sorts of love that God has to the creature, all the three are like the fruitful womb; there is no miscarrying, no barrenness in the womb of divine love.

[Margin: A threefold love in God effectual.] He loves all that he has made, so far as to give them a being, to conserve them in being as long as he pleaseth. He had a desire to have sun, moon, stars, earth, heaven, sea, clouds, air. He created them out of the womb of love and out of goodness, and keeps them in being. He can hate nothing that he made.

There is a second love and mercy in God, by which he loves all men and angels, yea, even his enemies, makes the sun to shine on the unjust man as well as the just, and causeth dew and rain to fall on the orchard and fields of the bloody and deceitful man, whom the Lord abhors, as Christ teacheth us, Matt. 5:43-48. Nor doth God miscarry in this love. He desires the eternal being of damned angels and men; he sends the gospel to many reprobates, and invites them to repentance and with longanimity and forbearance suffereth pieces of froward dust to fill the measure of their iniquity, yet does not the Lord's general love fall short of what he willeth to them.

[Margin: Christ's love of election cannot miscarry.] There is a love of special election to glory; far less can God come short in the end of this love. For the work of redemption prospereth in the hands of Christ, even to the satisfaction of his soul; saving of sinners (all glory to the Lamb) is a thriving work and successful in Christ's hands.

​

​

​

​

http://www.apuritansmind.com/SamuelRutherford/SamuelRutherfordGodsWillGospelOffer.htm​

​

​

Rutherford shows here (sorry about the quaint olde English) that there is a desire in God for all to repent and for none to perish.​

He further shows clearly , that this desire , is NOT the same type of desire that you have assumed I have been speaking of Jon.​

For If It were God's absolute desire to save all mankind , then certainly He would do it! (on this point we both agree) ​

Yet , should it be said , because God has no absolute desire to save every man , then He has no desire to save every man , then that would be false.​

The desire God has , that all are saved is a desire is complacent , unfeigned and a desire of approval.​

viz, that Men would repent and not suffer for their sin is pleasing to God.​

as I attempted to show by my illustration of the man losing his arm to save his wife , he desired to keep His arm (considered from a desire of complacency and approval) He desired to lose his arm (considered from a desire of action)​

These are both desires , but not in the same sense.​

​