Romans 1 and reprobation

Just checked in. . . you guys are having some heavy discussion.

...Bob

 

Not one of those men referred to the elect as being reprobates. You know as well as I that many Calvinists believe and use the term reprobate as synonymous with non-elect. You were using the term as a condition of man prior to being saved, which is not what all Calvinists do.

I'm not just now "getting it." I've affirmed from the beginning that you believed that Paul was addressing what all MEN WOULD BE if NOT for their being elect...(i.e. "REPROBATE"). I was only getting your use of that term in that manner. The fact that you can't, or are just so wrapped up in winning a debate that you won't, understand that fact is more of a reflection upon either your lack of intelligence or character. Either way, it disqualifies you from being worthy of a conversation.

Good I hoped it got on your keyboard because I'm done with this non-sense. When you want to have an honest and object conversation let me know and maybe we will talk. I freely choose not to engage with purposefully divisive and crude individuals...or I was decreed to not want to engage with you, either way this conversation is over.

 

You may have responded with what YOU believe, but you certainly did not respond with what WE (meaning those opposed to Calvinism) believe.

Some indeed... But if you do not believe that God elects those who He foresees, then, why do you take up and argue the point with those who say that God foresees those who will believe?

Here is a quote from you in another thread (bolded text by me):
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1650412&postcount=34

Same thread, Winman said this:

You know as well as I that election is according to foreknowledge. That is beyond dispute.

When challenged by several people, this response:

Back to Skandelon, in this thread you said this:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1640853&postcount=33

Same thread, John Toppass said this:

Robert Snow copied Toppass' entire post and said this, clearly agreeing:

He followed up with this:

Winman again:

I can, if I take the time, find MANY other examples, as this same line of reasoning is argued by those apart from the Reformed perspective ALL THE TIME by virtually everyone who does not self-identify as a Calvinist.

 

From the Theologica discussion "Were You Ever a Reprobate":

 

For the record and for those following along this was my first reply to this subject of who is being addressed by Paul in Romans 1:

Even Hodge who is later quoted agrees with this assessment by writing:

"The apostle’s object is to prove the doctrine of the preceding verse, viz., that righteousness is by faith. To do this it was necessary to show that men in themselves are exposed to condemnation, or are destitute of any righteousness which can satisfy the demands of God. His argument is, God is just; he is determined to punish sin, and as all men are sinners, all are exposed to punishment. Hence this verse is connected by gar to the preceding one. Men must be justified by faith, for the wrath of God is revealed"

I, like Hodge, acknowledge that Paul is addressing the sinfulness of ALL MANKIND, in that all are exposed to condemnation due to their breaking of God's law, thus men must be justified by faith.

Likewise, MacArthur supports this view, "Obviously, some people are morally better than others, but even the most moral and upright person falls far short of God’s standard of perfect righteousness."

Like I have argued, all men have fallen short of God's law, thus righteousness must come through faith. But, Paul goes on in chapter 1 to talk of those who do reject God in unbelief, this wouldn't include believers, just non-believers. As MacArther acknowledges when he goes on to say, "...though they knew God through this natural, general revelation, unbelieving men still rejected Him."

Notice the distinction MacArthur is willing to acknowledge that others here on this board are not. Those rejecting and rebelling are unbelievers, not believers.

He goes on to say, "The natural tendency of unregenerate mankind is to "proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived."

Notice, that once again he makes the distinction of what an unregenerate man does verses what a regenerate man does.

Now, that was my point in my very first reply. Our point of contention is NOT about whether all man are sinful or not, or whether all men are naturally under God's wrath or not, or whether all men have fallen short of God's demands of the law. Our point of contention is about how one becomes a believer (regenerate) or not. Those who do become believers (whether through an effectual work of God or not) don't "reject him," or "proceed from bad to worse" as MacArthur even affirms.

 

Consider your entire post cited here.

You are now on board with "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," but you condition the effects of that sin by using the word "faith."

Contextualize faith -- and is it before one is "in Christ or after" -- does it take God's election or not? Your answer will eventually color your doctrine concerning "all have sinned" as to whether those who have sinned are in fact "dead in their sin and trespasses" or merely sin sick, and able to respond to God before regeneration.

 

Well, if you (Calvinists) have created a straw-man Arminian who believes God's election/predestination is merely His foreseeing of men's faith and then choosing them, then have at it. I'll even help you kick the straw crap out of that b#st@rd! (and I use that particular "curse" word on purpose, because that belief is not of the "father" in my opinion)

When did I take up and argue in support of that point? This link is my rebuke of that point. Reread it and maybe you can see that. No one would deny that God could foresee man's faith, but my point was that is not what election/predestination is about from the scholarly Arminian perspective.

So? How does that support the view of foresight based election?
I'm not responsible for what other non-Calvinists argue on this board, only for what I have claimed.

 

You know what glf, I welcome this question, because finally it actually addresses our point of contention. You get it! Thank YOU!

By the way, I've NEVER been OFF BOARD that "we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." I acknowledged that in the first post and almost every post since.

Not everyone who is a sinner and has broken God's law has also refused to believe in God, that is just a plain FACT that cannot be denied, which is why I listed a bunch of believers (a distinction even MacArthur makes in his commentary)

So, the point of contention for us, as you correctly assert in this post, is about the means by which men come to faith. This is why you ask about the order of salvation...or what caused faith... We can discuss the answer to that on a new thread, you have proven my point with regard to Romans 1, thanks.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. BTW, there are many definations online that support the idea that a "reprobate" is synonymous with "non-elect."

Reprobation, in Christian theology, is a corollary to the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election which derives that some of mankind (the elect) are predestined by God for salvation. Therefore, the remainder are left to their fallen nature and eventually to eternal damnation. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprobate

One rejected by God; a sinful person; An individual with low morals or principles; To have strong disapproval of something; to condemn; Of God: to abandon or reject, to deny eternal bliss; To refuse, set aside; Rejected; cast off as worthless; Rejected by God; damned, sinful; Immoral, having no ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reprobate

reprobation - rejection by God; the state of being condemned to eternal misery in Hell
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

reprobation - The Calvinist term for damnation
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reprobation

abandon to eternal damnation; "God reprobated the unrepenting sinner"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In fact, one would be hard pressed to find it used as a term for the elect prior to being regenerated (though I'm sure it is somewhere), but whether or not all Calvinists use these terms equally is really beside the point. It's a matter of being willing to meet people half way in a discussion in order to come to some kind of understanding about terms. If only one party is willing to do that it makes the fruitfulness of the discussion next to impossible.

 

You know, Peter tried the same thing on the night of Christ's trial. Didn't work for him either...

You fail to see that you are still arguing for this exact point, albeit (as I said above) couched in theological language.

We can clear that up right here and now, and I'll publically state it...

Is election by God and for God's purposes alone, or does God respond to actions He sees in mankind, including but not limited to faith before regeneration, works of righeousness before salvation, etc.?

I understand that you speak for yourself... I explained above.

 

I would not limit my explanation of divine election/predestination to either of those categorizations, but at the same time find nothing in which to specifically disagree with either. In other words, you don't say enough to cover any point of contention, thus I would have to speculate as to what you mean when you say, "election is by God and for God's purposes alone," because I have absolutely no qualm with that statement in and of itself.

I've already told you how I would explain divine predestination...go back and read it.

 

Not to be vain, but I've "gotten it" all along. It is you that I struggle with, and that largely because your preferred technique in debate is to find "common ground" where there really is no common ground, because you seem to have a contextual application for the terms you use that is distinct from the same terms used in Reformed theology, or commonly in Christendom.

We DO have a point of contention wrapped around your view (ultimately) of faith and regeneration, that also ultimately effects your view of "all have sinned." Note that this contention is not between you and I, but rather is an historical issue that began before the Remonstrance. I can no more hold you responsible for your holding those views than you can for my holding Calvinist views, but of course, you are actively working to refute Calvinism, while most Calvinists are merely refuting your active efforts.

But you HAVE qualified that statement, as you do below. That is my issue.

You are here attempting once again to hold common ground with someone who is a well-known Calvinist, but I'll not comment further on that issue here.

About your actual statement, it is essentially meaningless, for ALL who eventually are born anew in Christ were first sinners -- period. Any who God draws to Himself have indeed not refused to believe in God, so you have not really said anything. But, if I grasp the point you are trying to make, you are saying that some were not "reprobate" enough to actually hinder their coming to God. But, of course, no one "comes to God" whether "reprobate enough" or not. God comes to us.

Can't say it more simply than that, and even the Arminian holds that as truth -- or at least that is what the articles of the Remonstrance say. If you are holding another form of Arminianism, like Wesleyan, then please let us know that so we can accurately represent your position.

You are most welcome...