Straightening out a point on reprobation

[Butch5]

The saints go to be with the Lord when they die until the resurrection. Even if you're a soul-sleeper, take it as synecdoche and don't derail the thread.

Even if I accepted your premise, it's a simple matter. He didn't choose them.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I take it you are a soul sleeper, and don't understand synecdoche.

 

[Butch5]

I take it you are a soul sleeper, and don't understand synecdoche.

You'll have to tell me how you define soul as I've seen multiple definitions in these threads. What do you mean by "sleep"? According to the Scriptures when one dies he is dead. He remains that way until the resurrection. So, yes, I understand synecdoche, but, I don't see going to be with the Lord at death in the Scriptures either.

 

[Epiphoskei]

"when one dies he is dead" is basically the soul-sleeper's version of "all means all." Yes, the dead are dead. But since death doesn't mean oblivion until the resurrection, this doesn't get you anywhere.

Take it as synecdoche for the Resurrection then.

 

[Butch5]

"when one dies he is dead" is basically the soul-sleeper's version of "all means all." Yes, the dead are dead. But since death doesn't mean oblivion until the resurrection, this doesn't get you anywhere.

That is why I asked for your definition the terms. Would I be correct is believing that you believe in some sort of conscious existence after death and before the resurrection?

Take it as synecdoche for the Resurrection then.

Or the Kingdom of God. The answer then would be that He didn't choose them.

 

[Epiphoskei]

That is why I asked for your definition the terms. Would I be correct is believing that you believe in some sort of conscious existence after death and before the resurrection?

Yes, but that's completely off topic.

The answer then would be that He didn't choose them.

More properly, that's not something God did, so the answer is nothing. But Synergists keep saying we say something other than nothing in other threads, so it's important we get people on record explaining what they imagine Calvinists teach.

 

[Butch5]

Yes, but that's completely off topic.

Which goes to my point that the questions is irrelevant.

More properly, that's not something God did, so the answer is nothing. But Synergists keep saying we say something other than nothing in other threads, so it's important we get people on record explaining what they imagine Calvinists teach.

Not so, not choosing someone is an act also, unless you want to say God had no knowledge of them.

 

[Butch5]

Yes, but that's completely off topic.




More properly, that's not something God did, so the answer is nothing. But Synergists keep saying we say something other than nothing in other threads, so it's important we get people on record explaining what they imagine Calvinists teach.

What Calvinists teach? I guess that would depend on which one you asked. I've seen Calvinist's both affirm and deny what Calvin taught. I suspect it's like most things people take what they like and leave the rest.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Not so, not choosing someone is an act also, unless you want to say God had no knowledge of them.

Not acting is not an act. If it were, not acting would be acting, not not acting.

 

[Butch5]

Not acting is not an act. If it were, not acting would be acting, not not acting.

I didn't say not acting, I said, not choosing. Rejecting one is an act.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Choosing is an act. Therefore, not choosing is not an act.

 

[Butch5]

Choosing is an act. Therefore, not choosing is not an act.

That a non sequitur.

 

[Epiphoskei]

A simple non-existence is nothing but the negation of an existence and all its properties. It's true that if A∈B, C can still ∈B where C is a different thing from A, but the simple rejection of the premise A only relates to B in that something which is a member of set B is not happening.

It perhaps would have been better to write that choosing is an act, therefore if one doesn't choose, and doesn't do anything else, one is not acting.

 

[Butch5]

A simple non-existence is nothing but the negation of an existence and all its properties. It's true that if A∈B, C can still ∈B where C is a different thing from A, but the simple rejection of the premise A only relates to B in that something which is a member of set B is not happening.

It perhaps would have been better to write that choosing is an act, therefore if one doesn't choose, and doesn't do anything else, one is not acting.

Lol, sometimes the extreme you guys go to gets me. Rather than just admit the obvious you guys are determined to protect those doctrines.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Is there a point in that?