Romans 1 and reprobation

[Robert Snow]

I gave you one passage. Lets look at that again and look at another.


Isaiah 51:1, 2


Gen 31

This story in Genesis 31 shows that Abraham's relatives still owned and cherished idols at least three generations after God had called Abrahamout of Mesopotamia.

It was Abraham whom God chose to be the father of many nations. Believers are like Abraham. There is nothing in us to commend us to God. And yet God loves us. Just as He sought Abraham, He seeks to draw us into fellowship with Himself.


Abraham's faith was preceded by God's call. God called him when he was without faith and promised to bless him. Abraham believed God and set out on the journey to Canaan.



Actually, the call to Abraham came twice, once when he was in Ur of the Chaldees (Acts 7:2-4), and once, years later, when he was in Haran.

I don't have a problem with what you are saying. I will add, God called Abraham and Abraham chose to obey God's calling.

The only disagreement here between us is that I believe we can reject God's call and you probably don't.

 

[Jarthur001]

NO I'M NOT. Please pay attention brother. I really am trying to find common ground but it's like you just want to disagree with me so badly you can't understand my words.

brother....you want me to agree with you, but you are wrong. Why would I want to do this?

Abraham is just a sinful as anyone.

Here is the common ground if that is what you want. NOW...Therefore Abraham was a reprobate. Therefore he was “given over to sin”. Therefore he was in rebellion to a holy God.

He has fallen short and if not for the grace of God he would die and go to hell, OK????

Therefore a reprobate. Therefore “given over to sin”. Therefore he was in rebellion to a holy God.

What else do I have to say to get you to understand my affirmation of that.

We will see if you mean this.

We are in agreement on this point. The break the law and according to the law of righteousness the ALL fall short. Even Abraham and all the examples I have point to. OK?????

Therefore Abraham was a reprobate. Therefore “given over to sin”. Therefore he was in rebellion to a holy God.

Finally!!! YES. This is all I have been saying. This is our point of contention. You acknowledge that ABE does "come to God," while the people in Romans 1 denied Him as God.

No..I said God came to Abraham the reprobate.

So he didn't do what the people in Rom. 1 did, he SINNED (broke the law) but he still acknowledged God and "came to him."

No...he did just as all men in Romans 1, because he too was a reprobate.

You teach that is because God elected him and effectually caused him to do so, which is fine.

The reason, ...this is what the Bible says.

I know that is what you believe,

This we agree on

but it still provides a qualification that there were some men who did acknowledge God as God and who didn't deny Him as those in Rom. 1 did. Do you understand NOW?
Yes..I have always understood you here. This is why I say you are wrong. Do you understand this? NOW?

Abraham was reprobate just as all men, just as Paul says, just as I showed you the OT says he is......understand?

Follow me without trying to find disagreement at every turn:

ok

All are sinners and unrighteous according to Law! (even Abraham)

Yes..and therefore reprobate. Given over to sin. In rebellion to God.

Some are justified according to their faith. (like Abraham)

The elect are...yes. The others remain reprobates. Election is God acting up on the desire to sin by all men, to hinder it's control power on man, which God has allowed so far to sin. But when the eyes are open, man sees himself as a sinner and desires to be saved from the sin. Otherwise, nothing changes in the sinner

The point of our contention why some believe and other don't (freely/effectually)

Election

Now, this is our point of contention. Finally we are getting there. We are in disagreement over the ability of man to "freely" believe the revelation of God, NOT WHETHER OR NOT ALL MEN ARE SINNERS (UNRIGHTEOUS) OR NOT.

ok...then you mean all men are reprobates...given over to sin.....rebellion to God.

Now that we have both acknowledge that not all men are unbelievers who have rebelled to the point of being "given over to their unbelieving rebellion" we can move on to talk about why some believe and others don't, rather than IF some believe and others don't.

I would never say this. Why can't you get this?????? They have rebelled. They are all reprobates. They are all given over to sin. That is Pauls point. You keep wanting me to agree with you when you wrong.

I know, I know, I still don't "get it," but I know what you are saying. You are saying Abraham would have been an unbeliever and would have rebelled like those in Romans 1

NO you don't get it. I'm saying ABRAHAM WAS in full rebellion...given over to sin. HE WORSHIPED OTHER GODS!!!!!!!!

if God hadn't chosen him and effectually called him to faith, but if you go back and read what I've been saying from the beginning I have acknowledged that all along as your view and as being the point of our contention. It is not that difficult.

I agree, believers too can grown hardened, and that brings up a whole new list of arguments. Such as, is it even possible for the elect to grow hardened and rebel?

No its not a new list, its the same list. If you rebell you become hard to God.

The elect are reprobates too?

DING DING DING!!!! I have said this from the start!!!! Helloo??

I know you believe all WOULD be reprobates if NOT for God's electing them (which I acknowledge before), but surely you are not saying all people, even the elect, are reprobates, are you?

Yes I am saying this. On the other thread you asked for other reformed believers that teach this, and I gave you a list of maybe 10. Why didn't you read this after asking for it? Why can you not understand??
reason (As I said before)...you don't know what hardening is.

I know he is not talked about, he is merely an example of someone who lived and died while acknowledging, loving, believing in and pleasing God (unlike the people of Romans 1).

Not unlike, but just like the Romans 1 people.

I'm not asking you to agree with me...just UNDERSTAND WHAT I"M SAYING. Can you not do this??

 

[glfredrick]

Of course ALL people are reprobates -- yes, even the elect -- until GOD regenerates them and makes them a NEW CREATION.

And yes, I'm Reformed in my doctrine and I'm saying this.



Jarthur001, how about we cut to the chase and just say what those who wish for some special class of people who can "see God" and/or "join God" before God does a work in them for what they really believe:

GOD HELPS THEM WHO HELP THEMSELVES

I'd love to see a proof-text for that! :wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

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.

However, lets just cut to the chase. You still aren't saying anything different from what I've been attempting to show. 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.

But tell me, when did Abraham (or many of the others I've listed) refuse to acknowledge God as God? When did he rebel to the point described in Romans 1? When did a lot of people who were born and raised in church rebel to this level of rebellion against God?

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.

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. Yes, they sin and yes they fall short of the demands of the law. Why? Because as you said already, if you've broken one you are just as guilty as if you broke them all, but that doesn't mean you are just as affected as if you broke them all. A man who does all those sins is different than a man who has only been covetous and disobedient to his parents, not in regard to his guilt before the law of God, but in regard to how his heart is affected. One has GROWN calloused.

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

 

[quantumfaith]

Of course ALL people are reprobates -- yes, even the elect -- until GOD regenerates them and makes them a NEW CREATION.

And yes, I'm Reformed in my doctrine and I'm saying this.



Jarthur001, how about we cut to the chase and just say what those who wish for some special class of people who can "see God" and/or "join God" before God does a work in them for what they really believe:

GOD HELPS THEM WHO HELP THEMSELVES

I'd love to see a proof-text for that! :wavey:

GL, Are you here seeking to get "whomever" to agree that "regeneration" must occur before being born again? Is that the reason for your emphasis here?

 

[glfredrick]

Not trying to get "whomever" to say anything.

Not really sure they can...

But, I am pointing out a simple fact. The way the Arminian position of faith before regeneration is often presented in these debates equals "God helps them who help themselves."

Not sure that is even possible... In fact, I'm quite sure it is not. :thumbsup:

 

[J.D.]

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.

However, lets just cut to the chase. You still aren't saying anything different from what I've been attempting to show. 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.

But tell me, when did Abraham (or many of the others I've listed) refuse to acknowledge God as God? When did he rebel to the point described in Romans 1? When did a lot of people who were born and raised in church rebel to this level of rebellion against God?

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.

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. Yes, they sin and yes they fall short of the demands of the law. Why? Because as you said already, if you've broken one you are just as guilty as if you broke them all, but that doesn't mean you are just as affected as if you broke them all. A man who does all those sins is different than a man who has only been covetous and disobedient to his parents, not in regard to his guilt before the law of God, but in regard to how his heart is affected. One has GROWN calloused.

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

I don't think even a double-predestinarian would use Romans 1 as a proof text. If they did it would be a mistake.

The key is, as JArthur has masterfully explained, the context determines the meaning of the word. In this case, it is a general reprobation which mankind has brought upon himself through his own willful sin.

And as for children, a child may enter the kingdom before an adult because the child can more easily grasp the simplicity of faith. You seem to imply that a child can enter into the kingdom because they have within themselves some greater degree of purity that makes them worthy.

 

[Skandelon]

I don't think even a double-predestinarian would use Romans 1 as a proof text. If they did it would be a mistake.

That wasn't my point.

And as for children, a child may enter the kingdom before an adult because the child can more easily grasp the simplicity of faith.

Why? Is he not born just as totally depraved?

You seem to imply that a child can enter into the kingdom because they have within themselves some greater degree of purity that makes them worthy.

Not purity. They are sinful and in need of a savior. But there is clearly a distinction. The one you already admitted to. They can "grasp" (understand) and "accept" it, while those who have grown hardened in their rebellion have much more trouble. If they are born Totally Depraved this distinction wouldn't exist.

 

[J.D.]

That wasn't my point.

Why? Is he not born just as totally depraved?


Not purity. They are sinful and in need of a savior. But there is clearly a distinction. The one you already admitted to. They can "grasp" (understand) and "accept" it, while those who have grown hardened in their rebellion have much more trouble. If they are born Totally Depraved this distinction wouldn't exist.

Yes, but don't separate the means from the cause and effect. God may use the means of Gospel simplicity to reach the child, but only if God causes the awakening the child from its depravity, with the effect being salvation.

 

[saturneptune]

Not purity. They are sinful and in need of a savior. But there is clearly a distinction. The one you already admitted to. They can "grasp" (understand) and "accept" it, while those who have grown hardened in their rebellion have much more trouble. If they are born Totally Depraved this distinction wouldn't exist.

The Light given in Romans 1 is for the purpose of realizing that there is a Creator, and we aer without excuse. The Gospel, saving faith, comes from hearing the Scripture. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. So how can infants, toddlers, children under the age of understanding right from wrong, grasp something and accept it when they have not heard it? You seem hung up on the phrase totally depraved. Why dont you use the term in Romans 3:10, no one is righteous? So, this person cannot grasp or accept, not only because he has not heard the Gospel, but because he is not righteoous.

If they were totally depraved???????????? If a grasshopper had a machine gun, the birds wouldn't eat him.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

When a man is regenerated he loves GOd and wants to be like him. He begins a process of renewing his mind and becoming more like Christ. He has compassion where before there was none. He has love where before there was only selfishness.

A christian is spiritually fearless. There is no fear or cowardice in Jesus. The more a man becomes like the lord the more he hates sin, loves God and fears nothing.

It is not fear that brings a man to Christ. It is the love of God who took him away from death and gave him life in Christ. The Holy Spirit snatches the man away from death and tells him to "come forth". He gives him a new life, a new heart, and makes him a new creation. Once a man actually sees for the first time with his God given regenerate eyes he loves the GOd he sees and rejoices in his glory and love and joyfully accepts Christ and follows him as lord.

There is still the body of death a man is trapped in until the time he is shead of it. BUt the spirit is alive and Christ is stronger than death. There is no regenerate person who will not ultimately defeat teh flesh because there is victory in Jesus and he has won. NO more death, pain, or hurt in Jesus, only life truth love.

If a man is following Jesus out of fear of his justice and he is doing that regretfully wishing the whole time he could just go sin, he has no faith at all. That is simply cowardice. He is not trusting Jesus, he is submitting against his will. He is not loving Jesus, he is secretly bitter that Jesus hates the things he loves.

A regenerate man does not love sin. He hates sin and loves God. He fights tooth and nail against his diseased body that is sinful corruption and prays for Christs swift return and destruction of evil.

A regenerate saved man is all in for Christ. He wants what CHrist wants and loves what Christ loves. The more he becomes like Christ the more he is selfless and fearless.

 

[webdog]

Actually, James did a great job of crushing Skandelon's kumbaya arguements.

Yes, if you feel ad hominems are what wins debates

 

[webdog]

True that, Quantum, but that is not the way those in the Arminian camp typically argue, is it? God is first, except that God only does what He sees humans doing first... Isn't that it?

Maybe some Arminians believe this...but I haven't come across one on this board that doesn't believe God acts first. Acts 17:26-27

Why do you keep regurgitating such tripe?

 

[glfredrick]

Maybe some Arminians believe this...but I haven't come across one on this board that doesn't believe God acts first. Acts 17:26-27

Why do you keep regurgitating such tripe?

Because that is essentially what every debate concerning Arminianism/Calvinism comes down to. God elects those people that God SEES accepting Him in faith. Just try to tell me that has never been said on this board -- or by you.

 

[webdog]

Because that is essentially what every debate concerning Arminianism/Calvinism comes down to. God elects those people that God SEES accepting Him in faith. Just try to tell me that has never been said on this board -- or by you.

I will without a shadow of a doubt tell you I have never said that as I do not believe it. I actually recall discussing this with you already, but I guess you just like to continue to regurgitate that which is untrue.

 

[Skandelon]

Yes, but don't separate the means from the cause and effect. God may use the means of Gospel simplicity to reach the child, but only if God causes the awakening the child from its depravity, with the effect being salvation.

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.

 

[Skandelon]

Because that is essentially what every debate concerning Arminianism/Calvinism comes down to. God elects those people that God SEES accepting Him in faith. Just try to tell me that has never been said on this board -- or by you.

Webdog is right glf. This is a mischaracterization of the scholarly view of most non-Calvinists.

We believe in election and predestination, but just not in the way Calvinists do. We believe God has predestined all believers to be adopted (something we all look forward to at the end of our life) and to be conformed to the image of God (again something being accomplished in us throughout life. So God is not predestining individual lost people to believe, but instead he is expressing that all those who choose to believe will be adopted and conformed.

A coach can determine before his team is assembled that his team will be the most well conditioned team in the league. In other words, he can predetermine what will happen to those on his team. This is no way suggests that he will be the one effectually making individuals join his team, but only that he has predetermined what those on his team will become.

That is not a "foresight" of faith view.

 

[glfredrick]

Webdog is right glf. This is a mischaracterization of the scholarly view of most non-Calvinists.

We believe in election and predestination, but just not in the way Calvinists do. We believe God has predestined all believers to be adopted (something we all look forward to at the end of our life) and to be conformed to the image of God (again something being accomplished in us throughout life. So God is not predestining individual lost people to believe, but instead he is expressing that all those who choose to believe will be adopted and conformed.

A coach can determine before his team is assembled that his team will be the most well conditioned team in the league. In other words, he can predetermine what will happen to those on his team. This is no way suggests that he will be the one effectually making individuals join his team, but only that he has predetermined what those on his team will become.

That is not a "foresight" of faith view.

Of course it is... God "sees" who will accept Him, so He chooses those.

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.

 

[Skandelon]

Of course it is... God "sees" who will accept Him, so He chooses those.

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.

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?

 

[Skandelon]

BTW, what you are doing is just like if we were to quote a bunch of hypers and ascribe their views to you. How would that make you feel? How would you react to that?