Donations for the month of December


We have received a total of "0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Robin
Robin
Lake Park, Georgia USA
Posts: 1,020
Joined: January 2002
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,320
Posts53,340
Members964
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,069
Tom 4,075
chestnutmare 3,087
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,820
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 24
Pilgrim 19
Meta4 4
John_C 2
Robin 1
Recent Posts
Spurgeon
by Tom - Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:43 PM
Nero
by Meta4 - Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:18 PM
Gracious High Priest
by NetChaplain - Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:05 PM
A Discourse on the Cleansing Virtue of Christ's Blood
by Pilgrim - Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:44 AM
Renewed Strength
by chestnutmare - Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:56 PM
Faith-Trials (Jas 1:3)
by NetChaplain - Mon Nov 29, 2021 3:20 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 6 of 12 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 11 12
#29655 Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:54 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Johnnie_Burgess said:
Quote
speratus said:
Can you provide a citation from "Bondage of the Will" that proves Luther taught double predestination?
From The Bondage of the Will p. 176
It belongs to the same God Incarnate to weep, lament, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, though that will of Majesty purposely leaves and reprobates some to perish.

Let's examine that passage in context:

Quote
The God Incarnate, then, here speaks thus-"I WOULDand THOU WOULDST NOT!" The God Incarnate,-I say, was sent for this purpose-that He might desire, speak, do, suffer, and offer unto all, all things that are necessary unto salvation, although He should offend many, who, being either left or hardened by that secret will of Majesty, should not receive Him thus desiring, speaking, doing, and offering: as John i. 5, saith, "The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." And again, "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." (11.) It belongs also to this same God Incarnate, to weep, to lament, and to sigh over the perdition of the wicked, even while that will of Majesty, from purpose, leaves and reprobates some, that they might perish. Nor does it become us to inquire why He does so, but to revere that God who can do, and wills to do, such things.
Nor do I suppose that any one will cavillingly deny, that that will which here saith, "How often would I!" was displayed to the Jews, even before God became Incarnate; seeing that, they are accused of having slain the prophets, before Christ, and having thus resisted His will. For it is well known among Christians, that all things were done by the prophets in the name of Christ to come, who was promised that He should become Incarnate: so that, whatever has been offered unto men by the ministers of the word from the foundation of the world, may be rightly called, the Will of Christ.

The God Incarnate being sent for the "purpose-that He might desire, speak, do suffer, and offer unto all, all things that are necessary unto salvation" is inconsistent with double predestination which assumes that salvic grace is not truly offered to the reprobate. Luther tells us not to inquire why, having offered grace to all, God "leaves and reprobates some" (which is exactly what the doctrine of reprobation does), but "to revere that God who can do, and wills to do, such things."

#29656 Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:17 AM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Quote
speratus said:

At the time of Esau's conception, God hated Esau. Although he had not as yet committed any personal sins, the inherited wickedness of Adam was imputed to him. Where's the reprobation?

Quote
speratus said;
Here is your answer, a verse that is overlooked:

22
What if God, wishing to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction?

MADE FOR DESTRUCTION. They were MADE for this purpose
Every translation I've seen uses "fitted" or "prepared". What translation are you using?
Pilgrim: Patience brother patience. Speretus is asking questions that have plagued this teaching forever. Since the translation makes no difference, I will not address that part of your response.

AS far as your understanding of Esau, I am attempting to understand. Are you saying For the 9 months in the womb is what equals "before being born?" You are seperating the beginning from the end sperry, God being eternal, starts with the end in mind, then fashions His pots according to His own purpose. You are also confusing acts of sin with reprobation. This cannot be done. May I ask what you understand reprobation to mean? The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write both phrases: Loved Jacob, HAted Esau. Now, if election to salvation was only in mind, he could have left out the hating of Esau. Then I will agree there could be room for a non active reprobating on Gods part. OF just creating out of the same lump those for salvation, and just "passing by" or "leaving the rest in their sins. BUt unless we take Jehus knife to the writ, it has to stay there. Each sperm egg creating is fitted for a purpose. I know of no potter that just makes a vessel, then decides what do do with it after he is done. No, they always have the end in mind. The clay is not put on the wheel, and with eyes closed, the potter just starts to mold it, then hours later looks and says "Hey I made an ashtray". No, While haveing the unformed lump, He knows what he is going to create before the first touch of his hand. All hinges on the fact that God purposed them not to be redeemed by Christ. They are not given to Christ. They are not enlightened savingly by the Spirit. They are not created "inferior" by nature, it is the same lump. Not one lump for elect, and another for reprobate. Paul states all man from the same blood I think somewhere in Acts. They are not created "more evil" or infused with some "frsh evil" (whatever that means) They are not created with some unreedemable sin nature. They are all equal as far as nature. But one is fitted for sal;vation, the other is fitted for destruction

#29657 Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:24 AM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Old Hand
Offline
Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Well if you read the article you would have seen this quotation from the Bondage of Will.
Quote
"Here, God Incarnate says: 'I would, and thou wouldst not.' God Incarnate, I repeat, was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do, suffer, and offer to all men, all that is necessary for salvation; albeit He offends many who, being abandoned or hardened by God's secret will of Majesty, do not receive Him thus willing, speaking, doing and offering. . . .It belongs to the same God Incarnate to weep, lament, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, though that will of Majesty purposely leaves and reprobates some to perish. Nor is it for us to ask why He does so, but to stand in awe of God, Who can do, and wills to do such things." Bondage of Will page 176

There you have it. Luther taught that God reprobated some and saved others. Obviously a hyper-Calvinist as you defined it.


Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
#29658 Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:28 AM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Old Hand
Offline
Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Quote
The God Incarnate being sent for the "purpose-that He might desire, speak, do suffer, and offer unto all, all things that are necessary unto salvation" is inconsistent with double predestination which assumes that salvic grace is not truly offered to the reprobate. Luther tells us not to inquire why, having offered grace to all, God "leaves and reprobates some" (which is exactly what the doctrine of reprobation does), but "to revere that God who can do, and wills to do, such things."

So then you are in agreement Luther taught divine reprobation. And since he does teach that then he is a hyper-Calvinist.


Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
Pilgrim #29659 Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:16 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Pilgrim said:
Once again, you have succeeded in amazing me that you claim to be a Lutheran but deny one of the very fundamental doctrines which Luther himself not only taught but personally reveled in and upon which he was assured of his own salvation. rolleyes2

The Bible clearly teaches: God's Indisputable Sovereignty.

In His grace,

Pilgrim, the problem could be is that the Lutheran church has changed its views since Luther has died in 1546. jawdrop
Melanchthon a student of Erasmus did not fully agree with Luther's view on predestination.

Peter #29660 Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:01 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 428
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 428
Just because one uses the word reprobation does not mean that he is assigning the same meaning to the word. Whether people here agree with him or not I think Speratus is very clear as to his definition of reprobation.


Grace is not common.
li0scc0 #29661 Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:22 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Quote
li0scc0 said:
Just because one uses the word reprobation does not mean that he is assigning the same meaning to the word. Whether people here agree with him or not I think Speratus is very clear as to his definition of reprobation.

Then what is it please. What is sperry;s definition of reprobation!!!!


There never was a sinner half as big as Christ is as a Savior.
Joe k #29662 Tue Dec 13, 2005 8:37 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Joe k said:

AS far as your understanding of Esau, I am attempting to understand. Are you saying For the 9 months in the womb is what equals "before being born?" You are seperating the beginning from the end sperry, God being eternal, starts with the end in mind, then fashions His pots according to His own purpose. You are also confusing acts of sin with reprobation. This cannot be done. May I ask what you understand reprobation to mean? The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write both phrases: Loved Jacob, HAted Esau. Now, if election to salvation was only in mind, he could have left out the hating of Esau.

Romans 9:10 specifies a specific time "when Rebecca also had conceived" that God hated Esau. This is understandable. All men since the fall are conceived in sin. It is also understandable that God loved Jacob. The rigtheousness of Christ was imputed to him by faith in the coming saviour. Do these verses really prove reprobation in the sense that God caused Jacob to be an object of hate? Could not God, at some time after his conception, call Esau into faith in Christ? Does the fact that he is hated at one specific point in time mean that he will always be hated?

Quote
Joe K continuesThen I will agree there could be room for a non active reprobating on Gods part. OF just creating out of the same lump those for salvation, and just "passing by" or "leaving the rest in their sins. BUt unless we take Jehus knife to the writ, it has to stay there. Each sperm egg creating is fitted for a purpose. I know of no potter that just makes a vessel, then decides what do do with it after he is done. No, they always have the end in mind. The clay is not put on the wheel, and with eyes closed, the potter just starts to mold it, then hours later looks and says "Hey I made an ashtray". No, While haveing the unformed lump, He knows what he is going to create before the first touch of his hand. All hinges on the fact that God purposed them not to be redeemed by Christ. They are not given to Christ. They are not enlightened savingly by the Spirit. They are not created "inferior" by nature, it is the same lump. Not one lump for elect, and another for reprobate. Paul states all man from the same blood I think somewhere in Acts. They are not created "more evil" or infused with some "frsh evil" (whatever that means) They are not created with some unreedemable sin nature. They are all equal as far as nature. But one is fitted for sal;vation, the other is fitted for destruction

Infralapsianism makes no sense to me. Obviously, God could not simply pass by. He must choose to pass by. Supralapsianism, while logical, does not agree with scripture regarding God's purpose toward those He damns.

All men inherit the curse of Adam. Even the elect are vessels of wrath until they are made vessels of honor by God. So, it is improper to speak of the elect as always being vessels of honor. Adam was made a vessel of honor by God and became a vessel of dishonor by Satan and himself. In none of this do I see an intention by God to make vessels of dishonor. We should look for a greater purpose here.

li0scc0 #29663 Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:03 AM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Old Hand
Offline
Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Quote
Just because one uses the word reprobation does not mean that he is assigning the same meaning to the word. Whether people here agree with him or not I think Speratus is very clear as to his definition of reprobation.

The point Steve is that Luther speaks of reprobation in the same way that Calvin speaks of it. Whether Speratus recognizes that or not means nothing. The point is that Luther taught double predestination.


Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
Peter #29664 Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:58 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Boanerges said:
Quote
Just because one uses the word reprobation does not mean that he is assigning the same meaning to the word. Whether people here agree with him or not I think Speratus is very clear as to his definition of reprobation.

The point Steve is that Luther speaks of reprobation in the same way that Calvin speaks of it. Whether Speratus recognizes that or not means nothing. The point is that Luther taught double predestination.

Section 66 was footnoted by Calvinist translator, Henry Cole, because he recognized Luther was teaching against the Calvinist doctrine of reprobation:

Quote
Here Luther's explanation of Matthew 23 is to be read with discretion. Although God and Christ have two distinct wills, their wills are not contrary to one another. An accurate exposition of this passage can be found in Calvin's Commentaries, found below.—

Cole then quotes extensively from Calvin to prove that Luther is wrong in his understanding of Matt. 23:37. But the Formula of Concord agrees with Luther (i.e., The God Incarnate "was sent for this purpose—that He might desire, speak, do, suffer, and offer unto all, all things that are necessary unto salvation"):

Quote
Formula, SD, Free Will
But if a man will not hear preaching nor read God's Word, but despises the Word and congregation of God, and thus dies and perishes in his sins, he neither can comfort himself with God's eternal election nor obtain His mercy; for Christ, in whom we are chosen, offers to all men His grace in the Word and holy Sacraments, and wishes earnestly that it be heard, and has promised that where two or three are gathered together in His name and are occupied with His holy Word, He will be in their midst.
58] But when such a person despises the instrument of the Holy Ghost, and will not hear, no injustice is done to him if the Holy Ghost does not enlighten him, but allows him to remain in the darkness of his unbelief and to perish; for regarding this matter it is written: How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings; and ye would not! Matt. 23, 37.

Last edited by speratus; Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:55 AM.
#29665 Wed Dec 14, 2005 8:56 AM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Quote
speratus said:
Quote
Joe k said:

AS far as your understanding of Esau, I am attempting to understand. Are you saying For the 9 months in the womb is what equals "before being born?" You are seperating the beginning from the end sperry, God being eternal, starts with the end in mind, then fashions His pots according to His own purpose. You are also confusing acts of sin with reprobation. This cannot be done. May I ask what you understand reprobation to mean? The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write both phrases: Loved Jacob, HAted Esau. Now, if election to salvation was only in mind, he could have left out the hating of Esau.

Romans 9:10 specifies a specific time "when Rebecca also had conceived" that God hated Esau. This is understandable. All men since the fall are conceived in sin. It is also understandable that God loved Jacob. The rigtheousness of Christ was imputed to him by faith in the coming saviour. Do these verses really prove reprobation in the sense that God caused Jacob to be an object of hate? Could not God, at some time after his conception, call Esau into faith in Christ? Does the fact that he is hated at one specific point in time mean that he will always be hated?

Quote
Joe K continuesThen I will agree there could be room for a non active reprobating on Gods part. OF just creating out of the same lump those for salvation, and just "passing by" or "leaving the rest in their sins. BUt unless we take Jehus knife to the writ, it has to stay there. Each sperm egg creating is fitted for a purpose. I know of no potter that just makes a vessel, then decides what do do with it after he is done. No, they always have the end in mind. The clay is not put on the wheel, and with eyes closed, the potter just starts to mold it, then hours later looks and says "Hey I made an ashtray". No, While haveing the unformed lump, He knows what he is going to create before the first touch of his hand. All hinges on the fact that God purposed them not to be redeemed by Christ. They are not given to Christ. They are not enlightened savingly by the Spirit. They are not created "inferior" by nature, it is the same lump. Not one lump for elect, and another for reprobate. Paul states all man from the same blood I think somewhere in Acts. They are not created "more evil" or infused with some "frsh evil" (whatever that means) They are not created with some unreedemable sin nature. They are all equal as far as nature. But one is fitted for sal;vation, the other is fitted for destruction

Infralapsianism makes no sense to me. Obviously, God could not simply pass by. He must choose to pass by. Supralapsianism, while logical, does not agree with scripture regarding God's purpose toward those He damns.

All men inherit the curse of Adam. Even the elect are vessels of wrath until they are made vessels of honor by God. So, it is improper to speak of the elect as always being vessels of honor. Adam was made a vessel of honor by God and became a vessel of dishonor by Satan and himself. In none of this do I see an intention by God to make vessels of dishonor. We should look for a greater purpose here.


What purpose would you like to look for Sperry? Do you have a mutible God? One who hates with an ever;asting hatred, then loves with an everlasting love? If everything is created by God, then how can satan create one to be a vessel of dishonor? Nowhere does scripture hint at this.

Can a sheep become a goat or a goat become a sheep? NO!!!!


There never was a sinner half as big as Christ is as a Savior.
#29666 Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:52 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Speratus, I still have a hard time with Luthernism’s predestination. If you claim single predestination as opposed to double predestination then what do you do with Romans 11:

Quote
I say then, Did God cast off his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God did not cast off his people which he foreknew. Or know ye not what the scripture saith of Elijah? how he pleadeth with God against Israel: Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have left for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. What then? that which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened: according as it is written, God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, unto this very day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, And a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, And bow thou down their back always.
Here even Luther states, "that [God] Himself is the author of the reprobation of the others, just as He Himself drove Israel into the Babylonian exile in their time." Thus, at best Luther (and Lutherans) seem very confused over this issue! Here is Luther’s quote:

Quote
I have kept for myself. They are called a “remnant” from the fact that they were left over, for God kept them for Himself. In this word we see a marvelous commendation for His grace and election. For God does not say: “They remained,” although this is true, to be sure, but this act of remaining was not the act of those who remained but of God who kept them, that it might be a matter not “of man’s will and exertion, but of God’s mercy” (Rom. 9:16). By the same expression indeed He indicates indirectly that He Himself is the author of the reprobation of the others, just as He Himself drove Israel into the Babylonian exile in their time. For the meaning of the expression “I have kept for Myself” is: “Although I myself drove out all of them, I kept for Myself seven thousand men.” He does not say: “When all were driven out, there remained, or when Nebuchadnezzar or the devil carried them all away, he left Me seven thousand,” but rather: “I myself kept them back, while I took the others away,” in order that it might be established firmly that “The potter has the right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use” (Rom. 9:21); again: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” (9:15).

Luther, Martin. Vol. 25, Luther's Works, Vol. 25 : Lectures on Romans. Edited by Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Luther's Works. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1972.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Joe k #29667 Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:52 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Joe K asks,

Quote
What purpose would you like to look for Sperry?

If God's purpose is for all things to work together for the good of elect, should we not expect that the reprobate have some role in accomplishing that good? So, God's foreordination would be more than simply causing people to sin or choosing to pass by so that He can damn them?

Quote
Do you have a mutible God? One who hates with an ever;asting hatred, then loves with an everlasting love? If everything is created by God, then how can satan create one to be a vessel of dishonor? Nowhere does scripture hint at this.


God is not mutable but man is. Sin, which God truly hates, is not of the essence of man. Pre-fall and post-glorification man don't have it.

Adam was made in the image of God, a vessel of honor, without sin. When Adam fell, he lost the image of God and became a vessel of dishonor. The sin of Adam was imputed to all of Adam's seed who are regarded as vessels of dishonor even before they sin. However, in believers, such as Jacob, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them and God regards them as vessels of honor and objects of love.

Satan is the father of unbelievers (John 8:42-45). However, Adam made himself and his seed vessels of dishonor (Romans 5:12). God foreordained the fall but did not cause it.
Quote
Can a sheep become a goat or a goat become a sheep? NO!!!!


Yes, Adam was a sheep who became a goat. The elect will become sheep.

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
J_Edwards said:
Speratus, I still have a hard time with Luthernism’s predestination. If you claim single predestination as opposed to double predestination then what do you do with Romans 11:

Romans 11 does not speak of an election of damnation but only of an election of grace. The rest being blinded is not a reference to God causing evil. We discussed early in the thread that hardening does not mean God creates fresh evil.

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Here even Luther states, "that [God] Himself is the author of the reprobation of the others, just as He Himself drove Israel into the Babylonian exile in their time." Thus, at best Luther (and Lutherans) seem very confused over this issue!

In the quote, the word "indirectly" is used with respect to reprobation. That's consistent with "Bondage of the Will" and with the Formula of Concord.

Quote
Formula, SD, ElectionMoreover, even as God has ordained in His [eternal] counsel that the Holy Ghost should call, enlighten, and convert the elect through the Word, and that He will justify and save all those who by true faith receive Christ, so He also determined in His counsel that He will harden, reprobate, and condemn those who are called through the Word, if they reject the Word and resist the Holy Ghost, who wishes to be efficacious and to work in them through the Word and persevere therein. And in this manner many are called, but few are chosen.

#29669 Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:37 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Quote
speratus said:

Yes, Adam was a sheep who became a goat. The elect will become sheep.

I know the Bible talks about sheep and about goats but I've never read a verse which talks about a sheep becoming a goat. I've heard about fallen sheep but never about a converted goat. Can you reference a text that supports the idea that Adam was a sheep and he became a goat?

Furthermore the elect do not become sheep. They are either sheep or they are not sheep. John 10:27 tells us, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me." It doesn't say those who follow Me will become My sheep. John 10:26 tells us, "you do not believe because you are not My sheep," not the other way around.

So it becomes obvious that since there are both sheep and goats God made them that way in the beginning. Interestingly enough even this example supports the idea of double predestination.


Wes


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Page 6 of 12 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 11 12

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
1 members (Pilgrim), 100 guests, and 6 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
atdcross, NetChaplain, winslowlady, Zach, Daverogk
964 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
December
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 31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,303,324 Gospel truth