Can you really BLAME them?

[seekingthetruth]

Brother,

I may not agree with everything you posted here, but I do love the graciousness in the manner of which you posted it. :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs

That is the truth:thumbsup:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

But that REALLY isn't the question the OP is asking.

The question(s) asked in the OP is about whether or not the reprobate can blame God for being a rebellious reprobate.

The answer is NO.

All other discussion is nothing but distraction and human desire to place fault into some scheme labeled arminian or calvinian.

Again, BOTH arminianistic and calvinistic views have limited atonement.

Therefore, the OP question is faulty for even suggesting that the reprobate would be justified in blaming God.

The reprobate would have to blame them self for being a reprobate before they could even assume to lay fault in God's Sovereignty.

But that REALLY isn't the question the OP is asking.

UHH.. It is indeed the question the OP is asking, its the title of the thread even. English is indeed an effective language it can successfully convey propositions... It CAN be nuanced, it isn't always. I may never have heard a more straightforward question in my life.

All other discussion is nothing but distraction and human desire to place fault into some scheme labeled arminian or calvinian.

UHH... maybe..but there are other options.. really, in the real world there are more systems..of thought... there really are.

Again, BOTH arminianistic and calvinistic views have limited atonement.

WOW.. false BY DEFINITION.... that is literally false by definition.

Therefore, the OP question is faulty for even suggesting that the reprobate would be justified in blaming God.

We will say this slowly...... The OP is suggesting something about the LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES of Calvinism. In other words. If you were to place the premises upon which Calvinism is built...see......

1. God punished them for the sin of Adam by making them be born totally unable to repent even when invited by God to do so.
2. God didn't really love them (salvifically), in fact he hated them from birth (i.e. Esau).
3. God didn't grant them what they needed to be saved.
4. God predetermined they would spend an eternity being tortured in hell prior to their even being born.

Than it asks the question....... "Can you really Blame them" Don't be too smart by half. It doesn't work for you.

 

[seekingthetruth]

UHH.. It is indeed the question the OP is asking, its the title of the thread even. English is indeed an effective language it can successfully convey propositions... It CAN be nuanced, it isn't always. I may never have heard a more straightforward question in my life.



UHH... maybe..but there are other options.. really, in the real world there are more systems..of thought... there really are.


WOW.. false BY DEFINITION.... that is literally false by definition.



We will say this slowly...... The OP is suggesting something about the LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES of Calvinism. In other words. If you were to place the premises upon which Calvinism is built...see......



Than it asks the question....... "Can you really Blame them" Don't be too smart by half. It doesn't work for you.

This is truth

John

 

[JonC]

Again, BOTH arminianistic and calvinistic views have limited atonement.

WOW.. false BY DEFINITION.... that is literally false by definition.

It’s actually not false by definition. You’ve failed to define atonement.

If you define atonement as equal to redemption, as many Calvinist (Spurgeon, for example) and many non-Calvinists( Lightner, for example), and many Arminians (Picirilli, for example) do, then both hold to a limited atonement. One sees God as limiting the atonement and the other as man limiting the atonement. Either way it is limited because only those who believe actually have their sins atoned for. Atonement is limited to those who will believe.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

If you define atonement as equal to redemption,

Why would I.....As soon as I would define a van as equating a motorcycle.

 

[JonC]

Why would I.....As soon as I would define a van as equating a motorcycle.

I didn’t say you would – I said many do. The point is that you leave the issue undefined. From the perspective of man, atonement always has to mean redemption because there is no atonement apart from faith and the Resurrection. But from the perspective of Christ as the atoning sacrifice, then it can be viewed as separate from redemption.

Personally, I do not view atonement as the same thing as redemption, so we would agree – but that does not mean that agedman’s comments were in error.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I didn’t say you would – I said many do. The point is that you leave the issue undefined. From the perspective of man, atonement always has to mean redemption because there is no atonement apart from faith and the Resurrection. But from the perspective of Christ as the atoning sacrifice, then it can be viewed as separate from redemption.

Personally, I do not view atonement as the same thing as redemption, so we would agree – but that does not mean that agedman’s comments were in error.

Fair enough: I suppose I stand corrected. My mistake agedman. Thank you Jon. I guess I remember some of those guys saying stuff like that before, I guess I didn't quite grasp what they were saying, in that I think that that is well, simply false. My curiosity is now piqued. I will go look into that more.