Is God active at all in the reprobate?

[5solas]

My only question on this is in what sense God is mercy to the reprobate?

I would say "temporal" benefits just for this life on this earth - keeping them alive, possibly prevent illness, giving food & clothing etc.

Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11 are of course beautiful verses that refer to God's unwillingness to suffer the death of the elect in wickedness. The same is not true of the reprobate.

ok - I agree; but you surely cannot give me any verse that shows us how God delights in the death of the reprobate, or can you?

 

[cygnusx1]

Ah, an equivocation! Judas was not one of the elect (in the salvific sense), but was chosen to be a part of Jesus's temporal ministry, "so that the Scripture may be fulfilled." You are trying to equate Judas being chosen to betray Judas as being chosen for salvation, but this is a clear ambiguous use of "elect." This is to be expected, though, as you have consistently equivocated on other terms, especially desire.

Unbelievable!!!
I simply showed you that using Israel/Elect to equate God's desire to save only ISRAEL (VIEWED AS ONE COMPLETE BODY) is a foolish arguement , one might as well say Judas was Elect , which he clearly was but not unto salvation ...... in your haste you have clearly totally reversed my point , attempting to make me look the fool ............

So that passage in Ezekiel which you were so keen to apply the ELECT motif to , is a mixed bunch : Reprobates and Elect , for not all Israel are Israel!

conclusion :
If the passage (Ezekiel 18) means only Elect Israel instead of men in general ......... it proves too much , for then God would be still as unhappy , and not desiring the death of a reprobate Jew , which is tantamount to saying He does not enjoy the death of anyone , even Ninevites!!!

Ezekiel 18 lays out the concept that God does not enjoy the death of anyone. How can you say that he "can't wait to destroy the wicked"?scholar in training

No, it does not. Ezekiel 18 lays out the concept that God does not enjoy the death of the elect (Israel). Ezekiel 18 is a proof text for Perseverance of the Saints, wherein God shows the path that he makes the righteous man walk, so that he should not die in wickedness, for in this the Lord has no pleasure.

The hatred of the Lord is simply his righteous anger, his wrath, which will be released upon the wicked in due time. Hate these days has higher negative connotations than Biblical hate. Hate today means pretty much to abhor without reason. God does not abhor anyone for no reason. God is entirely justified in his wrath against the wicked. They hate him! In turn, he hates them, and has prepared an eternity of punishment for their wicked rebellion against the Most High. Jon

I will be returning to John Calvin later , D.V.
sufficient to say at the moment I don't see a problem.

 

[Jon_]

I would say "temporal" benefits just for this life on this earth - keeping them alive, possibly prevent illness, giving food & clothing etc.

But the Bible does not call this "mercy." The Bible calls it "kindess, long-suffering, forebearance." The biblical meaning of mercy is compassion (literally, pity) and the sparing of justice. For instance, when Jesus was approached by the two blind men they cried out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!" (Mt. 15:22). They were seeking compassion and pity for their affliction. No one ever cried out to Jesus, "Have mercy on me, Son of David, I might get sick next week!" In fact, just a quick search of the AV using e-Sword does not even show the terms mercy and "food, money, clothing, or poor" even in the same verses together in the New Testament. There are only two instances (Prv. 14:21, 31) in which the Heb. chasan--the literal term for mercy--is used toward the poor, but in both cases the subject of the sentence is not God but man.

In fact, the Bible tells us that God is not merciful to the wicked.

(Ps. 59:5 AV) Thou therefore, O LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel, awake to visit all the heathen: be not merciful to any wicked transgressors. Selah.

​

ok - I agree; but you surely cannot give me any verse that shows us how God delights in the death of the reprobate, or can you?

Surely I can!

(Prv. 16:4 AV) The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

(Ps. 115:3 AV) But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
​

Read these two verses together and you'll see that God has made the wicked for the day of evil because he was pleased to do so. I can also convert it into a syllogism.

Premise #1) If God does whatever he pleases.
Premise #2) If God made the wicked for the day of evil.
Conclusion) Then God is pleased to condemn the wicked at the day of evil.
​

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

Unbelievable!!!

I simply showed you that using Israel/Elect to equate God's desire to save only ISRAEL (VIEWED AS ONE COMPLETE BODY) is a foolish arguement ,

Then I don't understand what you were trying to show at all. In the one sense, you quoted, "They are not all Israel that are of Israel," but here it looks like you're saying that all Israel is elect, or the whole world is elect, or something. I have no idea what you're trying to convey, actually.

one might as well say Judas was Elect , which he clearly was but not unto salvation ......

This does not follow at all. The elect, by definition, will be saved. To say that Judas was elect but was not saved is to speak a contradiction. You might as well say that white is black.

in your haste you have clearly totally reversed my point , attempting to make me look the fool ............

I'm biting my tongue on this one...

So that passage in Ezekiel which you were so keen to apply the ELECT motif to , is a mixed bunch : Reprobates and Elect , for not all Israel are Israel!

That's only true if you assume that "Israel" in that passage refers to the nation or to the elect. I say it refers to the elect on the basis of "They are not all Israel that are of Israel." Moreover, Calvin agrees with me.

If the passage (Ezekiel 18) means only Elect Israel instead of men in general ......... it proves too much , for then God would be still as unhappy , and not desiring the death of a reprobate Jew , which is tantamount to saying He does not enjoy the death of anyone , even Ninevites!!!

This is only true if you assume that all of Israel is elect. This was never true. God ordained that from Israel his elect would be chosen, just as now God has ordained that his elect will be chosen from all people. Do you really mean to tell me that you believe that? That all people in all the world are elect, but that they are only saved if they have faith? If they are all elect, then one would assume God would regenerate them all.

No, Cygnus, this is another good example of you reading too much into the text.

I will be returning to John Calvin later , D.V.

sufficient to say at the moment I don't see a problem.

No, of course you don't. Just as you don't see a problem making the Bible contradict itself. As long as it fits into what you want it to say, then everything's alright.

I would caution you against your reliance on Reformed fathers to make your points. In the first, the topic that we are discussing is relatively recent. John Calvin didn't even write on it. Therefore, we must turn to his writings regarding those that God desires to be saved, which Calvin clearly indicates are the elect only. When you try to read your unscriptural assertion of God's "multiple desires" into Calvin, you are altering the text in a manner never intended by Calvin. He didn't write on the subject, so your appeal to him is only of limited value. In the second, appeal to past Reformed theologians in lieu of biblical arguments really makes it look like you can't prove your point from the Bible, so you're just going to go find someone that sounds like he agrees with you. I could list off a half dozen passages from PRC authors that corroborate what I am saying, but you would immediately dismiss them out of hand because you disagree with them. So, there's not much point in quoting people when it is not their arguments that solidify the doctrine, but the Bible.

Sola Scriptura, Cygnus. The Bible is the only rule of faith. It is the only document suitable for doctrine, correction, and reproof. I would encourage you to read God's word and see if what you assert is found there, not the words of men who but commented on God's word.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[mlqurgw]

Jon; would you agree or disagree with what I postulated?

 

[Jon_]

Jon; would you agree or disagree with what I postulated?

I would agree with everything except the assertion that God does not love the reprobate. I must believe, on account of Mt. 5:45-48 and others that God does love the reprobate in some sense, but not salvifically. He loves them as his creatures, but not as his children. Other than that, I think we're on the same page.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cygnusx1]

Then I don't understand what you were trying to show at all. In the one sense, you quoted, "They are not all Israel that are of Israel," but here it looks like you're saying that all Israel is elect, or the whole world is elect, or something. I have no idea what you're trying to convey, actually.


This does not follow at all. The elect, by definition, will be saved. To say that Judas was elect but was not saved is to speak a contradiction. You might as well say that white is black.

You still haven't grasped that when someone pointed out that text in Ezekiel , you sought to argue that it wasn't a general will of God that He does not delight in the death of the wicked , but only Israel (Elect) , but Israel were an Elect tribe and contained many who were not Elected to life , but reprobates , so your arguement is clearly inconsistant!

I'm biting my tongue on this one...

Yes I politely didn't finish the sentence ..........

That's only true if you assume that "Israel" in that passage refers to the nation or to the elect. I say it refers to the elect on the basis of "They are not all Israel that are of Israel." Moreover, Calvin agrees with me.

You said Israel .......... as opposed to the World ........... Covenant love and all that ....... Now you are going for Spiritual Israel , which is nothing like the text ....... yes you have a habit of reading too much into the text ..... if it looks a problem just place an Elect sticker over it even if it makes no sense. a good example :
"Do good to all men (the elect) especially those who are Elect "

This is only true if you assume that all of Israel is elect. This was never true. God ordained that from Israel his elect would be chosen, just as now God has ordained that his elect will be chosen from all people. Do you really mean to tell me that you believe that? That all people in all the world are elect, but that they are only saved if they have faith? If they are all elect, then one would assume God would regenerate them all.

Context context context ..........

No, Cygnus, this is another good example of you reading too much into the text.

No, of course you don't. Just as you don't see a problem making the Bible contradict itself. As long as it fits into what you want it to say, then everything's alright.

see above !

I would caution you against your reliance on Reformed fathers to make your points. In the first, the topic that we are discussing is relatively recent. John Calvin didn't even write on it. Therefore, we must turn to his writings regarding those that God desires to be saved, which Calvin clearly indicates are the elect only. When you try to read your unscriptural assertion of God's "multiple desires" into Calvin, you are altering the text in a manner never intended by Calvin. He didn't write on the subject, so your appeal to him is only of limited value. In the second, appeal to past Reformed theologians in lieu of biblical arguments really makes it look like you can't prove your point from the Bible, so you're just going to go find someone that sounds like he agrees with you. I could list off a half dozen passages from PRC authors that corroborate what I am saying, but you would immediately dismiss them out of hand because you disagree with them. So, there's not much point in quoting people when it is not their arguments that solidify the doctrine, but the Bible.

Sola Scriptura, Cygnus. The Bible is the only rule of faith. It is the only document suitable for doctrine, correction, and reproof. I would encourage you to read God's word and see if what you assert is found there, not the words of men who but commented on God's word.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Too late for that John , you have made some really amazing claims about my Calvinism being Unorthodox , The Gospel Offer being Arminian ...... etc .... so I will be posting heaps of Reformers and Puritans and Calvinist Dogmatic scholars , and you may search for as many authors as you can find who deny The Gospel Offer ..... we will then see who has The Orthodox Calvinism and who has the Neo Calvinism of the modern PRC movement , and let the reader decide which is the legitimate Calvinism and which is the heretical.

 

[Jon_]

You still haven't grasped that when someone pointed out that text in Ezekiel , you sought to argue that it wasn't a general will of God that He does not delight in the death of the wicked , but only Israel (Elect) , but Israel were an Elect tribe and contained many who were not Elected to life , but reprobates , so your arguement is clearly inconsistant!

No, your response is inconsistent. Do you not know what "they are not all Israel who are of Israel" means? It means that not all of Israel was elect! This is such a simple, basic doctrine that I can't understand why you are glossing over it. I suppose it's par for the course.

You said Israel .......... as opposed to the World ........... Covenant love and all that ....... Now you are going for Spiritual Israel , which is nothing like the text ....... yes you have a habit of reading too much into the text ..... if it looks a problem just place an Elect sticker over it even if it makes no sense. a good example :

"Do good to all men (the elect) especially those who are Elect "

Wow, you love your strawmen, don't you? I said nothing of the sort, nothing even close to it. "Spritual Israel?" Where are you getting these ideas? Your reply doesn't even make sense.

Context context context ..........

see above !

Have you forgotten that the whole of the Bible is in context with itself? You cannot simply interpret a passage in its immediate context without considering the context of the whole Bible. That is where you fall short. You are trying to take each verse at face value instead of incorporating the whole of God's revelation regarding his will toward the reprobate and the elect. That is why you are wrong.

Too late for that John , you have made some really amazing claims about my Calvinism being Unorthodox , The Gospel Offer being Arminian ...... etc .... so I will be posting heaps of Reformers and Puritans and Calvinist Dogmatic scholars , and you may search for as many authors as you can find who deny The Gospel Offer .....

This is utter nonsense. You cannot prove your claims from the Bible, so you think that quoting theologians that are prior to the "genuine offer" debate will affirm your arguments? What happened to "context context context"? Quoting early Reformed and Puritan authors is ripping them out of context of their original writings.

we will then see who has The Orthodox Calvinism and who has the Neo Calvinism of the modern PRC movement , and let the reader decide which is the legitimate Calvinism and which is the heretical.

So you now make the gauge of orthodoxy and heresy the Reformed theologians? Shame upon you and more shame. Whatever happened to sola Scriptura? Whatever happened to using the Bible as the sole rule of faith?

This last series of comments literally disgusts me. Allow me to put you on notice right now that I won't be responding to any of your posts from Reformed or Puritan authors. If you have Scripture or logical arguments to put forth then make them, but I will not allow you to tarnish and taint the works of authors by ascribing them to positions that they did not hold. I will not make an attempt to refute them because you are taking them out of context and putting words into their mouths. I have too much respect for them than to assume that your understanding of what they wrote is correct and applicable to this discussion.

If you have something original to say in your own defense, then feel free to make it known.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

I believe this masterful quotation by William Cunningham--who I now quote not to lend authority to the statement, but for the excellence with which he put it--duly addresses the practice of "name-dropping" in Reformed circles:

In almost all theological controversies, much space has been occupied by the discussion of extracts from books and documents adduced as authorities in support of the opinions maintained; and there is certainly no department of theological literature in which so much ability and learning, so much time and strength, have been uselessly wasted, or in which so much of controversial unfairness has been exhibited. Controversialists in general have shown an intense and irresistible desire to prove that their peculiar opinions were supported by the fathers, or by the Reformers, or by the great divines of their own church; and have often exhibited a great want both of wisdom and of candor in the efforts they have made to effect this object . . . . There is no man who has written much upon important and difficult subjects, and has not fallen occasionally into error, confusion, obscurity, and inconsistency; and there is certainly no body of men that have ever been appealed to as authorities, in whose writings a larger measure of these qualities is to be round than in those of the Fathers of the Christian church. . . .

In adducing extracts from eminent writers in support of their opinions, controversialists usually overlook or forget the obvious consideration, that it is only the mature and deliberate conviction of a competent judge upon the precise point under consideration that should be held as entitled to any difference. When men have never, or scarcely ever, had present to their thoughts the precise question that may have afterwards become a matter of dispute, when they have never deliberately examined it, or given a formal and explicit deliverance regarding it, it will usually follow, 1st, That it is difficult if not impossible to ascertain what they thought about it, -- to collect this from incidental statements, or mere allusions, dropped when they were treating of other topics; and, 2nd, That their opinion about it, if it could be ascertained, would be of no weight or value. A large portion of the materials which have been collected by controversialists as testimonies in favor of their opinions from eminent writers, is at once swept away as useless and irrelevant, by the application of this principle, the truth of this principle is so obvious, that it has passed into a sort of proverb, "Auctoris aliud agenis parva est auctoritas." And yet controversialists in general have continued habitually to disregard it, and to waste their time in trying to bring the authority of eminent writers to bear upon questions that they have never examined; and have not scrupled, in many cases, to have recourse or to make them speak more plainly. The opinion even of Calvin, upon a point which he had never carefully examined, and on which he has given no formal deliverance, is of no weight or value, and would scarcely be worth examining; were it not that so much has been written upon this subject, and that his views upon many points have been, and still are, so much misrepresented.

In dealing with authorities, then, it is necessary to ascertain, whether the authors referred to and quoted have really formed and expressed an opinion upon the point, in regard to which their testimony is adduced. It is necessary further to collect together, and to examine carefully and deliberately, the whole of what they have written upon the subject under consideration, that we may understand fully and accurately what their whole mind regarding it really was, instead of trying to deduce it from a hasty glance at partial and incidental statements. And in order to conduct this process of estimating and applying testimonies in a satisfactory and successful way, it is also necessary, that we be familiar with the whole import and bearing of the discussion on both sides, as it was present to the mind of the author whose statements we are investigating. Without this knowledge, we shall be very apt to misapprehend the true meaning and significance of what he has said, and to make it the ground of unwarranted and erroneous inferences. . . . To manage aright this matter of the adduction and application of testimonies or authorities requires an extent of knowledge, a patience and caution in comparing and estimating materials, and an amount of candor and tact, which few controversialists possess, and in which many of them are deplorably deficient. (The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (Banner of Truth, 1979), pp. 400ff.)
​

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cygnusx1]

No, your response is inconsistent. Do you not know what "they are not all Israel who are of Israel" means? It means that not all of Israel was elect! This is such a simple, basic doctrine that I can't understand why you are glossing over it. I suppose it's par for the course.

how sad that you have resolved to go down the root of sarcasm and bitterness , your posts from the last two days have been decidely downhill , much like the most recent two ........
You say that you are opposed to the practice of quoting Reformed Theolologians , unless you think it helps your case , Calvin yesterday , Cunnigham today. who tommorrow ? Hoeksema?
If you were really honest you would admit that the reason you do not want me to quote Calvinist's is that you would be overwhelmed by the evidence that the ''Gospel Offer'' is Calvinistic , and your position isn't!
Instead you attempt a premptive strike by saying I will quote out of context ....that is an ugly assumption.... or these Calvinists don't count , because they weren't around when the PRC was expelled ..........
These are the arguements of a man on the defensive ......... it is perfectly clear that the Gospel Offer is a long standing doctrine within Calvinism , and when the doctrine has been discussed , mainstream Calvinist's maintained it , and those who deny it are sidelined ...... see the English Strict Baptists , long before Engelsma and Hoeksema were even born .Nothing is new under the sun , I have seen your style of arguement before.

Wow, you love your strawmen, don't you? I said nothing of the sort, nothing even close to it. "Spiritual Israel?" Where are you getting these ideas? Your reply doesn't even make sense.

Go back and read your response to a reasonable statement made by another Christian concerning Ezekiel .......... I believe you know exactly what I am talking about ............ ''Israel'' is used by some Calvinists without considering the implication of Reprobates within her.
The text states something about God , His attitude , and the sinners death!

Have you forgotten that the whole of the Bible is in context with itself? You cannot simply interpret a passage in its immediate context without considering the context of the whole Bible. That is where you fall short. You are trying to take each verse at face value instead of incorporating the whole of God's revelation regarding his will toward the reprobate and the elect. That is why you are wrong.

roughly translated , ''I am right you are wrong , you use the scriptures so do I , but I am sure I am using them better than you .......''

This is utter nonsense. You cannot prove your claims from the Bible, so you think that quoting theologians that are prior to the "genuine offer" debate will affirm your arguments? What happened to "context context context"? Quoting early Reformed and Puritan authors is ripping them out of context of their original writings.

I have shown you quite clearly that Reprobates are invited in The Gospel to come and partake of salvation.
You say you believe in the OUTWARD CALL , I would very much like you to tell us all exactly what that outward call consists of ?

So you now make the gauge of orthodoxy and heresy the Reformed theologians? Shame upon you and more shame. Whatever happened to sola Scriptura? Whatever happened to using the Bible as the sole rule of faith?

This is good , you claim my views are Unorthodox , that they are not Calvinistic , that they are Armininan !!!.......... and just where can one measure your claim if not by examining it against Calvinistic Orthodoxy ....... it may have escaped your notice , but there isn't a book in the Bible called Calvinistic Orthodoxy ... you have to study what Calvinists have said for years to find that...... and your arguement degenerates into a subtle underhand attack on my views of Sola Scriptura , as if the Reformed creeds just disappeared
, these are the remarks of someone on the run.

This last series of comments literally disgusts me. Allow me to put you on notice right now that I won't be responding to any of your posts from Reformed or Puritan authors. If you have Scripture or logical arguments to put forth then make them, but I will not allow you to tarnish and taint the works of authors by ascribing them to positions that they did not hold. I will not make an attempt to refute them because you are taking them out of context and putting words into their mouths. I have too much respect for them than to assume that your understanding of what they wrote is correct and applicable to this discussion.

see above .......... I am not too happy that you are making FALSE claims against me and then deciding the grounds and conditions for my response ..... something smells.

If you have something original to say in your own defense, then feel free to make it known.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I will ............. Your arguement is fatally flawed , to be revealed.

 

[cygnusx1]

You demand of me only scripture is used but then you love to use human philosophy with all it's complexities and obscurities (the reader is asked to consider post #119) ......... what happened to Sola Scriptura Jon?

 

[cygnusx1]

''If God desired that we obey the law, then we would, for God does whatever he desires.'' Jon


I earlier asked ''anyone else spot a problem with that which I have underlined and enboldened'' ?

I have been reflecting upon this all day , my conclusions are as follows.

The H/Calvinst is guilty of confusing God's desire ( ''what He will do'' ) with His desire for what OTHERS SHOULD DO!

When one confuses God's Desire as a fixed decree it rules out conditionality and opportunity and even realtionships.

If God commands all men to repent , it is a desire from God showing what He would have OTHERS DO ... NOT , what He Himself can do!

Why should God's Love of Reprobates be excluded from the Gospel message ?
In other words If God loves all men , then why is there a problem saying God Loves all men enough to offer them salvation , not just enough to keep them alive in sin ?

Romans 2 clearly spells out common graces do not end when the preaching of The Gospel begins ... it is a natural outflowing of common Grace to have the Gospel message presented..... the good things of this world come from a Loving hand in order to lead you ro repentance .

Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

Romans 2 :4-6

 

[5solas]

(Prv. 16:4 AV) The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

(Ps. 115:3 AV) But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.





Read these two verses together and you'll see that God has made the wicked for the day of evil because he was pleased to do so. I can also convert it into a syllogism.

Premise #1) If God does whatever he pleases.

Premise #2) If God made the wicked for the day of evil.
Conclusion) Then God is pleased to condemn the wicked at the day of evil.​

Very interesting indeed!

I have the understanding (from the language) that "whatever he pleases" means "whatever he intended and planned to do". You cannot conclude that it necessarily means that He enjoys/has fun doing it.
I do not believe that God is celebrating and having fun/joy in His heart when He has to put the reprobate into the everlasting fire, rather He is furious and full of anger. On the contrary there is a celebration everytime a sinner repents.
I think this time your logic trapped you, because you mixed two different meanings of a word.

Concerning the meaning of "mercy" you are probably correct if you narrow it to it's usage in the Bible only but I will have to check this up with all the possible hebrew and greek translations occurring.
Kindness, long-suffering, forebearance show that God is slow to judgement, He "tolerates" sin up to the extent He decided before; so it is "a kind/some sort of mercy" in common language - but not a saving "mercy" of course.....


PS: Here is an example (from our Semper Forum) how mercy could be understood:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2182466-ministries-of-mercy.html



btw:

Read these two verses together and you'll see that God has made the wicked for the day of evil because he was pleased to do so. I can also convert it into a syllogism.

Brother, read these two verses together and you'll see that......
Gen 4:8 Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.

Jdg 7:17 And he said to them, "Look at me, and do likewise. When I come to the outskirts of the camp, do as I do.

well,....... (sorry it's a little unfair )





​

 

[cygnusx1]

For those who want to know just what the Calvinist's throughout History have to say about The Gospel Offer , I started a thread Months ago ;

because it has been said this doctrine is Arminian , it has fallen to me to show clearly that it is NOT , and why should any Calvinist want to so easily give over truth to the Arminians????

Far from making The Calvinist's appear stronger , it will have the reverse effect , it will show that some will cast out in a hurry that which is considered incompatible based upon philosophical deductions and not God's Word.

I hope to update it on a regular basis , and perhaps after a few Months a clear picture will emerge.
D.V.

here is the link

http://www.christianforums.com/t2036620-the-sincerity-of-the-gospel-offer-.html

 

[Jon_]

You demand of me only scripture is used but then you love to use human philosophy with all it's complexities and obscurities (the reader is asked to consider post #119) ......... what happened to Sola Scriptura Jon?

On what point do you charge with me "human philosophy"? If my position is that of the human philosopher, then on what basis did Martin Luther say this:

Unless I can be convinced by Scripture and plain reason, I will not recant.
​

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

I earlier asked ''anyone else spot a problem with that which I have underlined and enboldened'' ?

I have been reflecting upon this all day , my conclusions are as follows.

Have you not read what I wrote?

Premise #1) If God is a desire-doer.
Premise #2) If I am a God-desired-law-doer.
Conclusion) I will God's-desired-law-do.
​

Respond to this argument, if you think you can. I am getting tired of your incessant assertions.

The H/Calvinst

I ask you politely to stop using this term in reference to me. It is inapplicable and I do not accept it. How would you like it if I started referring to you as "The Arminian"? I realize that this is not a direct reference, but an indirect one still carries the same meaning.

is guilty of confusing God's desire ( ''what He will do'' ) with His desire for what OTHERS SHOULD DO!

Show us in Scripture where the two are distinguished. Don't just assert it. Show it.

Moreover, the distinction you have shown is mostly the distinction between desire and commandment.

Desire - What God has decreed to do and will do.
Command - What God has decreed that men should do.

Desire is what he does, command is what he requires others to do. Your error lies in assuming that God always desires all his commandments be obeyed.

When one confuses God's Desire as a fixed decree it rules out conditionality and opportunity and even realtionships.

This does not follow. God's desires can absolutely be made conditional. For instance, he desires to save those that believe in Christ. What cannot be inferred is that this desire applies to all men. This is yet another assertion that has failed to be substantiated in even the smallest detail.

If God commands all men to repent , it is a desire

No, it isn't. You have asserted and reasserted this over and over and I have shown you more than once that you are illogical and unscriptural in this assertion. If you think it is true, then show it from Scripture! Until then, I will refer to this as the "Cygnus fallacy," since it seems to be your favorite.

Why should God's Love of Reprobates be excluded from the Gospel message ?

Who ever said it should be?

In other words If God loves all men , then why is there a problem saying God Loves all men enough to offer them salvation , not just enough to keep them alive in sin ?

Nothing I disagree with here. God commands all men to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. Although, you and I doubtlessly disagree with what is meant by "offer" here, which is the topic of this debate.

Romans 2 clearly spells out common graces do not end when the preaching of The Gospel begins ... it is a natural outflowing of common Grace to have the Gospel message presented..... the good things of this world come from a Loving hand in order to lead you ro repentance .

Define "common grace." That's a term that so terribly ambiguous it could mean almost anything.

Romans 2 :4-6

Are you saying that man can be saved by general revelation at all? Because that's what this verse refers to (general revelation). It refers to God providing rain, food, clothing, relative peace on earth for all men out of love for them. Are you saying that these things of general revelation are on par with the Gospel call? Are the blessings of the Father enough to convert men? No, of course not, and I would never think that you actually believe that. But that is precisely what your reference here implies. You are saying that the fact that God bestows kindness upon all men should cause them to repent. That is just plain wrong. Only special revelation brings the message of sin and repentance. General revelation cannot express these things.

In any case, I have already discussed this passage (well, v. 4, which is the meat of your argument). The verse expresses a moral ought, not an efficient cause unto repentance. God does these things for men and they are obligated to obey his commandments. But because they do not, they are storing up wrath and God will repay them for their evil deeds. This is the clear and simple explanation of the verse. It does not say that rain compels men to repent.

And this is one of the main reasons why you are wrong. All you have to support your position are a few verses that have been misinterpreted and read to agree with how you feel about the Gospel. You are allowing your feelings regarding God and the Gospel to influence how you interpret the texts. You cannot understand how God could not want all men to be saved. You cannot understand that God has made some men precisely for the purpose of being the objects of his wrath, even though the Scriptures say it in many places, especially Romans 9. You cannot understand this, you refuse to accept it, so you distort the Scriptures to mean otherwise to your own satisfaction. You then slap the "H/Calvinist" label on any one that presents a more conservative view, or an "Arminian" label on any one that presents a more liberal view. You have this neat and tidy little box in which you practice your emotional-existenial theology and are utterly obstinate toward those that challenge your position.

It wouldn't be nearly so bad if you would at least stop to consider what I have been arguing, but you haven't even done that. You just skip right over my points and continue to assert your misinterpretations and religious emotionalism until you get sick of it for the day. Then you come right back into it rehashing the same debunked arguments and reasserting those points that have already been shown to be wrong. I am honestly stupified. I have never met someone as irrational and persistent as you. It's a baffling combination.

But I have naught to do but be obedient. Therefore, I will consistently oppose you on this point until you shall recant or agree to be silent on it.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

Very interesting indeed!

I have the understanding (from the language) that "whatever he pleases" means "whatever he intended and planned to do". You cannot conclude that it necessarily means that He enjoys/has fun doing it.
I do not believe that God is celebrating and having fun/joy in His heart when He has to put the reprobate into the everlasting fire, rather He is furious and full of anger. On the contrary there is a celebration everytime a sinner repents.

I think this time your logic trapped you, because you mixed two different meanings of a word.

An equivocation? No, I do not think so. Not in this case, anyway.

When I use desire I use it in the same sense that you understand it, i.e. "whatever he intended and planned to do." I do not use desire to refer to how God feels. For the narrow scope of this discussion, I am not concerned to elaborate on that.

Brother, read these two verses together and you'll see that......
Gen 4:8 Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.

Jdg 7:17 And he said to them, "Look at me, and do likewise. When I come to the outskirts of the camp, do as I do.

well,....... (sorry it's a little unfair )

Yes, it was a little unfair.

The two verses have to be applicable, of course. The two verses that I provided both spoke about those things that God has done and desires to do. The sense is specifically God's work. Allow me to put it into a syllogism to make it more clear:

Premise #1) God does everything that he desires. (Ps. 115:3)
Premise #2) God did make the wicked for the day of evil. (Prv. 16:4)
Conclusion) Therefore, God did desire to make the wicked for the day of evil.
​

We see that the Scripture says that God desired that the reprobate be made for destruction.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

Far from making The Calvinist's appear stronger , it will have the reverse effect , it will show that some will cast out in a hurry that which is considered incompatible based upon philosophical deductions and not God's Word.

Philosophical deductions?

(1:6) The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

If you level charges of human philosophy against me, then you level charges of human philosophy against the framers of the Westminster Confession.

I have made no deductions that did not take their premises immediately from the Scripture. I would not make any deductions that were not rooted in Scripture because the Scripture is the only infallible rule of the Christian faith. You, on the other hand, insist in making assertions with little or not scriptural support. In the least, you do not provide any in the immediate context of your quotes.

In other words: practice what you preach, lest you be called a hypocrite.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

I offer yet another argument against the opposition.

Hear the words of our Lord Jesus Christ:

(Luke 5:32 AV) I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (cf. Mt. 9:13, Mark 2:17)
​

Now, we may say that this is obvious. The righteous do not need repentance, for they already have it. It is sinners that must repent and have faith in order to be righteous. But this makes Christ's statement nonsense. Paul declares to us:

(Rm. 3:10 AV) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
​

And, of course, Jesus also knew this, knowing the Scriptures, as this verse in Paul is a quotation of Psalm 14. And Jesus certainly knew this:

(Jn. 2:24, 25 AV) But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 25) And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.
​

Being God, he knew even more that there are none righteous among the sons of men. So what did he mean by this statement? He meant the "outwardly righteous." He meant the hypocritcal scribes and Pharisees.

(Mt. 23:28 AV) Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
​

Paul also talks about the "righteousness" of Israel:

(Rm. 10:3 AV) For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
​

Jesus says that he has not called these outwardly hypocritical "righteous" persons to repentance, but sinners. Those who have been regenerated.

(Jn 3:3 AV) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

(Jn. 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.

(Jn. 8:43, 45 AV) Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 45) And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

(Jn. 10:26-28 AV) But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

(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.

(Jn. 6:63, 65 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. 65) And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

(Mt. 16:15-17 AV) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

(Jn. 3:19, 20 AV) And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20) For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
​

The Scriptures are abundantly clear on this subject. Jesus came to call not the self-righteous of this world--not those who see no need for a Savior, but those who acknowledge their transgressions and repent of their wickedness. And who will repent? Only those that are regenerated by the Holy Spirit according to the will of the Father. The natural man receives nothing from the Gospel message, for the words of Christ are spirit, which the natural man cannot hear. Even more, Christ exclaims that those who do not hear or understand cannot because they are not of his sheep. For his sheep hear his voice and respond. He is the good shepherd.

Therefore, the Gospel is only truly applicable to those that have been elected by God unto salvation. No other interpretation is possible. There are too many verses, too much Scripture to warrant a denial of this doctrine. To deny it is to deny the truth of the word of God.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cygnusx1]

I think we have got way past the point of any reasonable debate here Jon , all I can see is ''I am right you are wrong and more harsh criticism" (''sentementalism'' etc ) .


I have made my case . You have rejected it .

All I can do is repeat what I have said ,and show that The Gospel Offer is Calvinistic and your position is Hyper Calvinism a distortion of Calvinism.

It is not just a distortion of the Gospel because you deny the Gospel Offer , that is bad enough , but to assert God commands sinners but He doesn't desire they obey is just plain Stupidity of the highest order , as I think most Christians reading this would agree.



I will no longer debate with you , if you feel you have won something ........ then time will tell.

I will of course continue to update my thread on The Gospel Offer as and when I have time , and I just ask that we leave without animosity.

Cygnus