I have gave you a list of men to read. I cannot speak for all Calvinist, but I know of no Calvinist that would say Paul is NOT talking about ALL OF MANKIND in Romans 1-3. For you to just now "get it" does not make my view unorthodox. I would suppose you have never really listen to understand Calvinist. You have claimed to once be a Calvinist, but your lack of knowing its doctrines tells another story. I can say this based on the threads you start, when the questions posed.
This made me spit my coffee as a laughed when reading it. You say this after two threads and countless post telling you are wrong. You manage to see one new truth, and you are cutting to the chase? Now you must admit that is funny. The better attitude would be, "I see tell me more" .
You are amazingly lazy in you remembrance of events. For pages now you have said that Romans 1 does not include ALL MEN. The fact that it does include all men happens to be a Major Difference.
Yes you have said this, but again you point to a state that "WILL HAPPEN" if God does not step in. I say that state IS NOW UPON men not "WILL HAPPEN IF" God does not elects. A Major Difference.
The detail of Abrahams rejection is not given, so we must rely on what Scripture tells us of other men. We are all born sinners, rejecting God from the start,
This is something I cannot for the life of me understand why you asked. After pages and pages of going through this and you say "OK…I GET IT", you post something like this telling me you do not. You are bound to your logic.
Let me handle it this way. Romans 1 list the sins of the reprobate, one of which is "they disobey their parents". You ask when Abraham rejected God to this level the answer is when he was a child and disobeyed his parents.
When did you disobey your parents? We don't have to do the whole lot to be a reject God. One sin will do.
Yes they do. The reason that we have other faiths, is that men reject the true faith. Every time the truth is given and man rejects it, it hardens the heart. But this does not mean a greatly harden heart cannot be saved. This also does not mean a lesser harden heart has a better chance. No one will be saved unless God changes the heart.
This is not true. One rejection of truth can harden the heart. This is why the writer of Hebrews tells believers not to harden their hearts. You can lie as a believer and harden your heart. That lie if gone unconfessed will lead to other sins, with more hardening. But Christ chastens those he loves, and will bring his sheep back to the fold.
This is what Scripture say, why would you change this?
I'm glad you asked this. Lets clear up another misunderstanding.
Here is the text...
"Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." 16And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.1st, Christ never tells us to BECOME a child on our own. What does "receive like a child" mean?
Well notice verse 17…
17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"Jesus was up and leaving. He didn't just leave the children there on their own. In verse 13 it says…"they were bring children to him". Who were "they"? It had to be parents, or Jesus would have address kidnapping.
When Jesus stood up and walked away, where were the children? They had to be back with their parents. Here is the point, what follows in verse 17-22 is another setting. But I believe you will see that Christ is still teaching the same truth.
Notice verse 24…
24And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God!1) who is Jesus calling "Children"?
A….. It was his disciples.
2) Why did he call them "Children?
A…to tell them he was about to make the point of his statement just before about Children.
Jesus goes on….
25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." 26And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, "Then who can be saved?"Now is it child like faith?
Is it being as poor as a child?
Is it only children before they get a job and make money and have all of life to deal with?
I don't believe any of these are the main point. The point follows in the next verse…
27Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God."Can we have childlike faith? Yes, I believe we can, if we are stripped of all our pride. But 1st this does not happen on our own. But also, to have childlike faith does not make you a believer. If this were the case all people would be saved, because all people were once children.
Can we be as poor as a child? Yes, many homeless people. But to be homeless does not make you a believer.
Can a person remove cares of the world and be as innocent as a child? Yes, we have some that drop out, so to speak and just do what it takes to get by. But being what some call a "dead beat", does not make you a believer.
So what is it, that makes a man a child, and is only from the work of God?
How about the new birth?
Verse 29 talks about leaving "CHILDREN" to follow Christ. So its something greater than just being like a child, or the common "child like faith" you here about. Whatever it is, it is impossible for man, but only comes from the work of God.
Romans 1 and reprobation
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Jarthur001, Feb 25, 2011.
Page 5 of 6
-
-
-
Just checked in. . . you guys are having some heavy discussion.
...Bob
-
Lets look at another misused passage.
Psalm 127...
If a mans house, please tell me how the more kids you have ...the less chances they will have in being shamed when they contend with their enemies in the gate? -
-
-
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
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1640853&postcount=33
-
-
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:
"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. -
Also, Theologica is ran by DTS, or students from that school. They are not reformed but closer to Hypothetical universalism, better known as Amyraldism. -
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. -
I had asked in the OP...In Light of where Paul goes with this later, is this talking about all men?He replied with all men who reject, BUT SOME are not given over....
Here are his very words...
Reject God and you are given over to sin. -
I'm not responsible for what other non-Calvinists argue on this board, only for what I have claimed. -
-
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. -
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. -
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've already told you how I would explain divine predestination...go back and read it. -
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.
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.
-
Here is another. Loraine Boettner is an REFORMED THEOLOGIAN.
Here s what he says...
Notice....LEAVESOME IN SINS....this is the posterity of ALL MEN that Gd has given over to sin, found in Romans 1-3.
Notice...THE WHOLE RACE WAS ONE MASS OF PERDITION.
This means ALL MEN were reporbate given over to sin.
That's two...
How about the canons of dordt? The CANONS OF DORDT is a rather large REFORMED statement of faith. It was writen by THEOLOGIANS.
That's 3...
How about LBC 1689? LBC of 1689 is a BAPTIST STATEMENT OF FAITH BY BATIST THEOLOGAINS.
Notice...TAKE AWAY THEIR HEART OF STONE....(this means harden heart)
That's four in just a few moments. Next time you have problem finding things, just ask an theologian.
Maybe stay away from the encyclopedia when it comes to things of God.
Page 5 of 6