Romans 1 and reprobation

[Jarthur001]

Ok, Jarthur, I can see now some of the reason we've had some confusion. I've been more familiar with Calvinists using the term "reprobate" as equal to the "non-elect" ....maybe more from those who hold to more of a "double predestination" view. But now I understand that you view it more as a "condition" of all men prior to their being regenerated. Not all Calvinists use the term in that manner, as I suppose you know.

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.

However, lets just cut to the chase.

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 still aren't saying anything different from what I've been attempting to show.

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.

I've said in one of my first posts to you that you are describing the nature of all mankind IF GOD DIDN'T ELECT THEM.

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.

But tell me, when did Abraham (or many of the others I've listed) refuse to acknowledge God as God?

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,

When did he rebel to the point described in Romans 1?

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 a lot of people who were born and raised in church rebel to this level of rebellion against God?

When did you disobey your parents? We don't have to do the whole lot to be a reject God. One sin will do.

Don't even Calvinistic scholars acknowledge that men grow more hardened and sinful over a period of time if they remain in rebellion? Sure they do. Many here have made that point with me several times in our discussions regarding hardening.

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.

If someone is saved at an early age there is never a time in their lives they "refuse to acknowledge God" or fall into much of the debauchery described here.

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.

You're view doesn't seem to be allowing for any time of "GROWTH" or "BECOMING" because you seem to argue they are like that from birth, when clearly that is NOT the case.

This is what Scripture say, why would you change this?

Why do you think God would point to a child as the example of what we must become to enter the kingdom?

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.

 

[Jarthur001]

Yes, if you feel ad hominems are what wins debates

Why would you say this?

 

[BobinKy]

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

...Bob

 

[Jarthur001]

If that is the case then there would be no distinction between an adult or the child, making Jesus' words in pointing to the child as an example of what we must be like meaningless.

I looked at Mark...

Lets look at another misused passage.

Psalm 127...

Unless the Lord builds the house,
its builders labor in vain.
Unless the Lord watches over the city,
the watchmen stand guard in vain.
In vain you rise early
and stay up late,
toiling for food to eat—
for he grants sleep to those he loves.
Sons are a heritage from the Lord,
children a reward from him.
Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are sons born in one’s youth.
Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their enemies in the gate.

Is this passage talking about a mans house or God's house?

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?

 

[Jarthur001]

You can couch your belief in theological terms, but it doesn't change the bottom line of your belief at all. God helps them who help themselves.

That is the cold hard facts. This is what they say over and over, yet they don't to hear it short and sweet.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

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.

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.

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.

This made me spit my coffee as a laughed when reading it

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.

 

[glfredrick]

Did you even read what I wrote, or have you just decided you must already know everything about what we actually believe?

Some of us don't believe that God merely chooses those who he foresees to believe. I've described what we believe, you can accept it or continue to make up straw men and attack them if you would like. Which will it be?

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

Just so those reading this thread are aware, this is not a scholarly view of Arminians view of predestination and election. It is NOT just about God's foresight of man's faith, and this statement oversimplifies our views to make them seem absurd. We affirm that God has predestined us (believers) to be conformed to the image of Christ and adopted as his sons, just as scripture teaches. We just don't presume that to mean God also has predestined who would and would not believe in Christ, as do Calvinists.

Same thread, Winman said this:

Election is according to God's foreknowledge, that is, it is according to God knowing something before it actually comes to pass. Being "in Him" shows that God knew who would place faith in Christ, because only believers are "in Him".

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

Non-Cals like myself can demonstrate that God knows who will believe or not before they actually do so, I just gave two examples.

When challenged by several people, this response:

It does not say foreknowledge here, but it shows foreknowledge, it shows Jesus knew from the beginning (the foundation of the world) who would believe not and who would betray him. And of course if Jesus knows who believes not, then he also knows who believes. To know something beforehand is the definition of foreknowledge, so this is foreknowledge.

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

God, by his promise, has obligated Himself to save whosoever believes in him.

Really? You don't affirm that God has obligated Himself to save whosoever believes in him? Most Calvinists seem to affirm this, why don't you? Whether or not one affirms the unconditional election of individuals or not they both typically affirm that God has chosen to save whosoever believes. Whether the individual believes as a result of a free response to the gospel's call or the result of the effectual calling doesn't change that truth.

Same thread, John Toppass said this:

The Church is made up of such creations. Those who chose to accept God as their Almighty, we do this by accepting the only way to Him and that is through His Son, Jesus Christ become the elect. The Church is the Bride and Jesus the Groom, the Bride has chosen the Groom because the Groom has Chosen His bride. Just as God has willed it!

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

Thank you for a wonderfully worded response. It saved me a lot of typing, and you said it better than I could have anyway.

He followed up with this:

Correct. The Father gives the Son the ones who will, of their own free choice, respond to the Gospel message.

Winman again:

Yes, God elects those whom he sees in his foreknowledge will believe and gives them to Jesus. That election is according to God's foreknowledge is clearly stated in 1 Peter 1:2, and that God has foreknowledge of who will believe and who will not is shown in John 6:64.

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.

 

[Jerome]

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

If they are Reformed/Calvinistic, they may not be epistemologically self-aware enough to realize that their theological tradition often uses the term "reprobate" in a very narrow categorical sense, as referencing the non-elect in some state. If someone like that asked me the question, I would answer "No, I was never a 'reprobate' in that sense," and then I would go on to explain the broader biblical usage of the term.

 

[Skandelon]

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:

I think we can all agree that this is about the general sinfulness of [all men]... the Gentiles (ch. 1) and later the Jews (ch 2-3), in that they "all have sinned" and "turned away and together have become worthless."

But clearly not everyone had at that point in history actually turned away and become "given over" in rebellion. Whether you are Calvinist or Arminian you acknowledge that Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness, and Job was found blameless, and Rahab was faithful, and David was a man after Gods own heart and Cornelius feared the Lord etc etc.

The question is how and why did these people acknowledge God and thus not rebel and become calloused in their rebellion like the rest?

The Calvinist teaches its because they were elected and thus effectually brought to this choice. The Arminian believes they freely chose to respond to God's revelation and thus are "credit" righteousness. Thus, when Paul says "none are righteous" he doesn't mean no one has ever been declared righteous, because then he would be contradicting himself when later he says Abraham was righteous. Paul is saying NNE IS RIGHTEOUS ACCORDING TO THE LAW. But there are those who are righteous according to faith.

Whether we are effectually brought to faith or not is our point of contention here, not what you all seem to be debating. And since the logic of Calvinism belief rest on the T of it TULIP, I think it would be wise to examine the fact that the people spoken of in Romans 1 weren't born "given over" and "calloused." They BECAME such only after rebellion, which suggests to the unbiased and non-indoctrinated reader that there is a time in which one might see, hear, and understand God's revelations so as to turn to him for healing prior to being "given over."

"For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'" Matt. 13

This would also explain why Jesus would point to a child as an example of what men must become like in order to enter the kingdom.

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.

 

[Jarthur001]

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

I'm not sure the point, but whatever it is, it should be noted the source. Tony Byrne is a poster on a blog. I'm not sure we should just jump at this, no matter what your point.

Also, Theologica is ran by DTS, or students from that school. They are not reformed but closer to Hypothetical universalism, better known as Amyraldism.

 

[glfredrick]

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:

<SNIP>
....

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.

 

[Jarthur001]

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.

For those that wish to read please read the very 1st reply I made to Skandelon on this thread...which is NUMBER 5 POST of the thread... LINK

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...

He is talking about all men who refuse to acknowledge God as God and are thusly given over to their rebellion.Some, like Job, Noah, Rahab, Ruth, Esther, David, Abraham etc etc, aren't ever "given over to their rebellion" and are considered righteous through faith in the sight of God.

Then the link above...again 1st reply by me.

Let me show you just one of the problems you have by not seeing it this way. Romans 3..

"None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
13"Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
14"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known."
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."
​

This is the climax Paul is been building to. He has shown in detail in chapters 1,2 and part of 3 why he makes such claims.

Now that is why "the wrath of God is revealed" verse 18 of chapter 1. But now that he has made his climactic statement, notice what follows. Its the gospel..

Chapter 3....
21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

This "ALL" have sinned in verse 23 is still ALL mankind. That has been the point all along. Paul has made the most tragic, awful, wretched, pathetic, picture of man that he can make. This is ALL men. The elect and non-elect. John Newton knew this when he wrote " Saved a wretch like me" in the song "Amazing Grace".

Romans 1....."the wrath of God is revealed"....Romans 3: 23....on ALL MEN.

Reject God and you are given over to sin.

 

[Skandelon]

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

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)

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

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.

Back to Skandelon, in this thread you said this:
"God, by his promise, has obligated Himself to save whosoever believes in him."

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.

 

[Jarthur001]

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.

The so called forsight based election is bogus claim that changes nothing. Start a thread and I will show you. Its the same as Calvinist doctrine, if taken to its end.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

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.

 

[Skandelon]

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

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.

 

[glfredrick]

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)

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

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.

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.?

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.

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

 

[Skandelon]

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 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.

 

[glfredrick]

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

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

You are most welcome...

 

[Jarthur001]

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

While wikipedia is a good site, it is hardly a source for theology. This is an encyclopedia. I would say this is what the world thinks of reprobation.

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

While I don't disagree with all of this, this too falls short. It too is an encyclopedia and not a theology book.

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

Word net, seems to be just a dictionary. This too is not the best source for theology.

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

More of the same...

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.

Lets see if we can help you here. Ever heard of John Bunyan? He is a rather well know BAPTIST theologain. The link...LINK

HAVING thus showed you that there is such a thing as a reprobation, I come now to show what it is, which, that I may do to your edification, I shall first show you what this word reprobation signifieth in the general, as it concerneth persons temporary and visibly reprobate. Secondly, more particular, as it concerneth persons that are eternally and invisibly reprobate.

First generally, as it concerneth persons temporary and visibly reprobate: thus, to be reprobate is to be disapproved, void of judgment, and rejected, etc. To be disapproved, that is, when the word condemns them, either as touching the faith or the holiness of the Gospel; the which they must needs be that are void of spiritual and heavenly judgment in the mysteries of the kingdom, a manifest token they are rejected. And hence it is that they are said to be reprobate or void of judgment concerning the faith; reprobate or void of judgment touching every good work; having a reprobate mind to do those things that are not convenient either as to faith or manners. And hence it is again that they are also said to be rejected of God, cast away and the like.

I call this temporary, visible reprobation, because these appear and are detected by the word as such that are found under the above-named errors, and so adjudged without the grace of God. Yet it is possible for some of these, (however for the present disapproved,) through the blessed acts and dispensations of grace not only to become visible saints, but also saved for ever. Who doubts but that he who now by examining himself concerning faith doth find himself, though

That's one...

Here is another. Loraine Boettner is an REFORMED THEOLOGIAN.

Here s what he says...

When some are chosen out others are left not chosen. The high privileges and glorious destiny of the former are not shared with the latter. This, too, is of God. We believe that from all eternity God has intended to leave some of Adam’s posterity in their sins, and that the decisive factor in the life of each is to be found only in God’s will. As Mozley has said, the whole race after the fall was “one mass of perdition,” and “it pleased God of His sovereign mercy to rescue some and to leave others where they were; to raise some to glory, giving them such grace as necessarily qualified them for it, and abandon the rest, from whom He withheld such grace, to eternal punishment.”

Notice the LEFT NOT CHOSEN. This means that the elect come from the pool of REPROBATION that is found in all of mankind.

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.

Article 1: God's Right to Condemn All People
Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin. As the apostle says: The whole world is liable to the condemnation of God (Rom. 3:19), All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), and The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).*

Notice here 1st in article 1 that the writers look to Romans 3 that is the end of Pauls argument that starts in ROMANS ONE.

Article 7: Election
Election [or choosing] is God's unchangeable purpose by which he did the following:
Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, he chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. He did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation. And so he decided to give the chosen ones to Christ to be saved, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ's fellowship through his Word and Spirit. In other words, he decided to grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of his Son, to glorify them.
God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of his glorious grace.
As Scripture says, God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, so that we should be holy and blameless before him with love; he predestined us whom he adopted as his children through Jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, by which he freely made us pleasing to himself in his beloved (Eph. 1:4-6). And elsewhere, Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified (Rom. 8:30).

Article 15: Reprobation
Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God's eternal election-- those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice.

Notice: The elect is pulled from the human pool of reprobates. ALL OF MANKIND WAS IN THAT POOL.

That's 3...

How about LBC 1689? LBC of 1689 is a BAPTIST STATEMENT OF FAITH BY BATIST THEOLOGAINS.

Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling

1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

Notice...Called out of STATE OF SIN...
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.