|

|
|
|
Posts: 706
Joined: May 2016
|
|
|
|
Forums31
Topics8,376
Posts56,576
Members992
| |
Most Online4,295 May 22nd, 2026
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,047 Likes: 286
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,047 Likes: 286 |
My illustration (of drowning) was a slight modification of an illustration used by a staunch Reformed guy to explain such things to me. Unfortunately, this "staunch Reformed guy" has adopted an Arminian illustration which Billy Graham often uses. Again, the illustration is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Reformed Faith (Calvinism). If you prefer to weave total depravity into the illustration, that's certainly fine, and it doesn't seem to me to alter the main point. Again, its another distinction without a difference, as far as I can tell. Whether at the bottom of the ocean, drowned and dead, or at the top, certain to drown and die, it remains that God chooses to save some from eternal torment and chooses not to save some from eternal torment. With the former, He chooses not to resurrect some to life (and therefore from eternal torment.) With the latter He chooses not to save some persons from drowning (and therefore from eternal torment.) It isn't that I prefer to weave total depravity into the illustration but rather I prefer to be faithful to Scripture on such critical doctrines. God's predestination and election to salvation in Christ was of "sinners" (Infralapsarian), e.g., Ephesians 1:3-5 (ASV) "Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ: even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,..." Note that God's choosing was IN CHRIST with the intent that those whom God chose should be holy and without blemish. The elect were not 'innocent', without sin, but were already sinners in the eternal decree to save them IN CHRIST. The application or the bringing to pass of their election in time once again necessitates their regeneration for the very reason that they are spiritually "dead": Ephesians 2:1-5 (ASV) "And you [did he make alive,] when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:-- but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved)," (cf. Rom 5:12-18) In either case, God chooses some for eternal torment, though Calvinists (at least in my experience) prefer to use phrases like "God passes by" or "God leaves" instead of "God chooses," and understandably so. Yes, it is very common for Calvinists to use the phrase "pass by" rather than speaking of God preordaining/decreeing that the majority of mankind should be damned. Much confusion can and does result from the latter. However, the fact remains that the reprobation of the non-elect is no less decreed; a specific determination of God that certain individuals should not be saved but rather they should receive the just judgment they deserve. On the matter of Reprobation, you might benefit from consulting the following: - Reprobation- Reprobation Asserted- Objections Against the Absolute Decree of Predestination Answered
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Entire Thread
|
Should be obviously wrong, right?
|
lost
|
Tue May 24, 2011 6:12 AM
|
Re: Should be obviously wrong, right?
|
Newman
|
Wed May 25, 2011 6:22 PM
|
Re: Should be obviously wrong, right?
|
Pilgrim
|
Wed May 25, 2011 8:22 PM
|
Re: Should be obviously wrong, right?
|
Newman
|
Wed May 25, 2011 9:34 PM
|
Re: Should be obviously wrong, right?
|
Pilgrim
|
Wed May 25, 2011 11:28 PM
|
Re: Should be obviously wrong, right?
|
Newman
|
Thu May 26, 2011 12:00 AM
|
Re: Should be obviously wrong, right?
|
Pilgrim
|
Thu May 26, 2011 2:03 AM
|
Re: Should be obviously wrong, right?
|
Pilgrim
|
Thu May 26, 2011 12:53 PM
|
Re: Should be obviously wrong, right?
|
AC.
|
Thu May 26, 2011 5:37 PM
|
Re: Should be obviously wrong, right?
|
Reformation Monk
|
Thu May 26, 2011 7:24 PM
|
Re: Should be obviously wrong, right?
|
AC.
|
Thu May 26, 2011 10:44 PM
|
Re: Should be obviously wrong, right?
|
AC.
|
Thu May 26, 2011 5:53 PM
|
Re: Should be obviously wrong, right?
|
Pilgrim
|
Thu May 26, 2011 6:35 PM
|
Re: Should be obviously wrong, right?
|
AC.
|
Thu May 26, 2011 6:44 PM
|
Re: Should be obviously wrong, right?
|
AC.
|
Fri May 27, 2011 1:48 PM
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
253
guests, and
22
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|