Reprobates

[cheapchampion]

To clarify some earlier comments, the word repentance means to turn or to change one's mind. It is not some religious term, nor is it automatically a good thing. A person can go eat an apple, repent of that and instead eat an orange. Totally morally neutral repentance. A person can also repent of doing good. They could be attending church regularly, repent of that and start sleeping in instead. The weight of the word comes with the context of what is being repented of.

As far as being faith alone, I too am faith alone, but regardless of belief, a person repents of unbelief the moment they've believed. So there is no such thing as believing something without repenting - because they've turned from unbelief or a different belief.

I believe anyone can be saved, whosoever. I also don't think Romans 1 is expressly ABOUT sodomites. There are so many sins counted in that chapter, homosexuality being of them. I do believe it's a worse sin than two heterosexuals fornicating because it's more of a perversion. And I also think it's more likely that a homosexual is a reprobate than a heterosexual, but again, I don't think it's automatic. I believe there are actually more reprobates in religion. Some probably think that about Steven Anderson. Personally I just think, he's right about some things and wrong about other things, like any other man/preacher.

 

[Blade Runner]

Never is the human will said to be "free."

You continue to play semantic games. I don't think any nuanced or intelligent thinker fails to recognize that there are many things that constrain, or even restrict us in the world. That doesn't mean we don't make decisions of our accord in that context, however. That's what people are talking about when they refer to "free will".

I have a copy of the Orthodox Study Bible. Everywhere the New Testament talks about man's incapacity, man's inability, the OSB is silent. Why is that?

You'll have to give an example of this in order to explain what you mean, or what you criticize.

 

[Rodion]

Well, they wouldn't be able to say that for free will, since the New Testament never teaches it. That's not a question of interpretation, that's just pointing out that the raw data is not there. Never is the human will said to be "free."

The NT talks a lot about love, which is not possible without free will, neither is genuine faith.

I have a copy of the Orthodox Study Bible. Everywhere the New Testament talks about man's incapacity, man's inability, the OSB is silent. Why is that?

You still haven't backed up your claim that the sixth ecumenical council condemned predestination in favor of free will. It wasn't even a topic of conversation at the council.

I misspoke, the sixth council condemned monotheletism, and declared that Christ has a human will and a divine will as an extension on the doctrine of the two natures. The denial of free will comes very close to monotheletism and dodgy Christology.

But again, what’s the epistemic justification that your interpretation of scripture is above that of the entire church prior to the reformation?

 

[Blade Runner]

So there is no such thing as believing something without repenting - because they've turned from unbelief or a different belief.

And this is the point, mental assent, or what is called "faith" is meaningless without action, without works (that's what repenting is, changing to the proper supports of right belief - orthodoxy). Confusing the word "works" because it was used in a particular context (pharisaical works) in the Bible is a mistake. What you do in life, and this is evident to every man in the world, is what matters. Not (necessarily) what you say. The saying "talk is cheap" is considered valuable precisely because so few back their beliefs up with action (much harder to do, of course, thus rarer).

Congratulations! You have agreed with us that "faith alone" is the wrong way to think about things, beyond not being in the Bible.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The NT talks a lot about love, which is not possible without free will, neither is genuine faith.

According to which verse? That's the humanistic, extra-Biblical definition being read into the text. The only genuine faith is the faith that is gifted by the Holy Spirit, it's possible because God is willing, it's not possible without Him.

But again, what’s the epistemic justification that your interpretation of scripture is above that of the entire church prior to the reformation?

"The entire church prior to the Reformation." So no church father or council affirmed predestination? Augustine, Clement of Rome? None of them believed in Election? More importantly, the Bible doesn't teach it?

You're falling for a line here.

 

[fortyfive]

I love interpretation wars. Who is currently winning?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I love interpretation wars. Who is currently winning?

Only God knows.

 

[Rodion]

According to which verse? That's the humanistic, extra-Biblical definition being read into the text. The only genuine faith is the faith that is gifted by the Holy Spirit, it's possible because God is willing, it's not possible without Him.


"The entire church prior to the Reformation." So no church father or council affirmed predestination? Augustine, Clement of Rome? None of them believed in Election? More importantly, the Bible doesn't teach it?

You're falling for a line here.

The Bible doesn’t teach double predestination according to my interpretation, I justify this by claiming that it is in-line with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ himself.

I’m just trying to demonstrate that, when you proclaim that the Orthodox are not biblical etc, your position doesn’t even get off the ground because Protestantism has no way of discerning one interpretation over the other.

“That’s what the Bible says” isn’t a justification when it’s the very thing at stake. “You just don’t like what the Bible says” is meaningless when someone with a different interpretation believes that about you.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The Bible doesn’t teach double predestination according to my interpretation, I justify this by claiming that it is in-line with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ himself.

I’m just trying to demonstrate that, when you proclaim that the Orthodox are not biblical etc, your position doesn’t even get off the ground because Protestantism has no way of discerning one interpretation over the other.

“That’s what the Bible says” isn’t a justification when it’s the very thing at stake. “You just don’t like what the Bible says” is meaningless when someone with a different interpretation believes that about you.

I know what you're trying to do. But at the end of the day, God is going to discern between you and me. Romans 9 is pretty clear to me in that it teaches double predestination. God mercies whom He mercies and hardens whom He hardens, not according to the will of man but the will of God alone. You can deny that, but you do so at your own risk.

If you want to go with the "historical" Orthodox position. There's nothing I can do to stop you. God will judge our intent and all will be revealed. But because of that, my desire is to warn you that it won't avail you in the last day.

If you want to go pure historic, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris conceded that Eastern Orthodoxy has gone the way of nominalism, and that everything Reformed theology teaches is nothing more than the Biblical truth. He was set up and killed by his fellow bishops for his efforts.

I don't think it's rocket science to see who's interpretation accounts for what the Scripture says, or when it goes off into areas that the Scripture doesn't even talk about.

As far as I can tell, Eastern Orthodoxy, along with all other works-based salvation religions, ends up fulfilling all the the Scripture warns against. "They see but don't perceive. Hear but don't understand. Lest they turn and be forgiven."

I've been wrong before, but it all checks out with what the Scriptures say.

 

[Blade Runner]

As far as I can tell, Eastern Orthodoxy, along with all other works-based salvation religions,

I'm always curious about these types of statements, since you know that we don't teach concretely that you are "saved by works". It's like a muslim that keeps saying "you don't believe in one God" over and over when you try to explain that you believe God is one in three persons. Don't you see that? In this fashion, much of protestantism, including sola scriptura, is akin to Islamic approaches to the world, scriptures, and simpleton-ism. What's more, it has all sorts of personality leaders that claim they have the right interpretation, while 30,000 dudes walk around with followings.

I don't know how or why you refuse to see this after all of these years.

 

[Rodion]

I know what you're trying to do. But at the end of the day, God is going to discern between you and me. Romans 9 is pretty clear to me in that it teaches double predestination. God mercies whom He mercies and hardens whom He hardens, not according to the will of man but the will of God alone. You can deny that, but you do so at your own risk.

If you want to go with the "historical" Orthodox position. There's nothing I can do to stop you. God will judge our intent and all will be revealed. But because of that, my desire is to warn you that it won't avail you in the last day.

If you want to go pure historic, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris conceded that Eastern Orthodoxy has gone the way of nominalism, and that everything Reformed theology teaches is nothing more than the Biblical truth. He was set up and killed by his fellow bishops for his efforts.

I don't think it's rocket science to see who's interpretation accounts for what the Scripture says, or when it goes off into areas that the Scripture doesn't even talk about.

As far as I can tell, Eastern Orthodoxy, along with all other works-based salvation religions, ends up fulfilling all the the Scripture warns against. "They see but don't perceive. Hear but don't understand. Lest they turn and be forgiven."

I've been wrong before, but it all checks out with what the Scriptures say.

I’m asking for an account and justification of the reformed interpretation being objectively true.

It is not self-evident at all that Romans 9 teaches double-predestination. In the Homiles of St. John Chrysostom (who was heralded as the mouth of St Paul) on Romans, he is clear that St. Paul is in no way saying humans do not possess free-will.

Ver. 20, 21. "Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus? Hath not the potter (Read Jer. xviii. 1-10) power, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?"


Here it is not to do away with free-will that he says this, but to show, up to what point we ought to obey God. For in respect of calling God to account, we ought to be as little disposed to it as the clay is. For we ought to abstain not from gainsaying or questioning only, but even from speaking or thinking of it at all, and to become like that lifeless matter, which followeth the potter's hands, and lets itself be drawn about anywhere he may please. And this is the only point he applied the illustration to, not, that is, to any enunciation of the rule of life, but to the complete obedience and silence enforced upon us. And this we ought to observe in all cases, that we are not to take the illustrations quite entire, but after selecting the good of them, and that for which they were introduced, to let the rest alone. As, for instance, when he says, "He couched, he lay down as a lion;" (Numb. xxiv. 9) let us take out the indomitable and fearful part, not the brutality, nor any other of the things belonging to a lion.

And again, when He says, "I will meet them as a bereaved bear" (Hos. xii. 8), let us take the vindictiveness. And when he says,
"our God is a consuming fire" (Deut. iv. 24; and Heb. xii. 29), the wasting power exerted in punishing. So also here must we single out the clay, the potter, and the vessels. And when he does go on to say, "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same Jump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?" do not suppose that this is said by Paul as an account of the creation, nor as implying a necessity over the will, but to illustrate the sovereignty and difference of dispensations; for if we do not take it in this way, divers incongruities will follow for if here he were speaking about the will, and those who are good and those not so, He will be Himself the Maker of these, and man will be free from all responsibility. And at this rate, Paul will also be shown to be at variance with himself, as he always bestows chief honor upon free choice.

There is nothing else then which he here wishes to do, save to persuade the hearer to yield entirely to God, and at no time to call Him to account for anything whatever. For as the potter (he says) of the same lump makes what he pleaseth, and no one forbids it; thus also when God, of the same race of men, punisheth some, and honoreth others, be not thou curious nor meddlesome herein, but worship only, and imitate the clay. And as it followeth the hands of the potter, so do thou also the mind of Him that so ordereth things. For He worketh nothing at random, or mere hazard, though thou be ignorant of the secret of His Wisdom. Yet thou allowest the other of the same lump to make divers things, and findest no fault: but of Him you demand an account of His punishments and honors, and will not allow Him to know who is worthy and who is not so; but since the same lump is of the same substance, you assert that there are the same dispositions. And, how monstrous this is!

And yet not even is it on the potter that the honor and the dishonor of the things made of the lump depends, but upon the use made by those that handle them, so here also it depends on the free choice. Still, as I said before, one must take this illustration to have one bearing only, which is that one should not contravene God, but yield to His incomprehensible Wisdom.

And elsewhere he summarises:

Whence then are some vessels of wrath, and some of mercy? Of their own free choice. God, however, being very good, shows the same kindness to both. For it was not those in a state of salvation only to whom He showed mercy, but also Pharaoh, as far as His part went. For of the same long-suffering, both they and he had the advantage. And if he was not saved, it was quite owing to his own will: since, as for what concerneth God, he had as much done for him as they who were saved. Having then given to the question that answer which was furnished by facts, in order to give his discourse the advantage of other testimony in its favor, he introduces the prophets also making the same declarations aforetime.

The whole homily is worth reading, as is anything by St John Chrysostom. He, out of piety and love for St Paul, wrote this commentary because it is self-evident that scripture can be twisted and misinterpreted and that it is not always easy to understand (hence the numerous differing interpretations of scripture among different branches of Protestantism, each claiming the same standard.)

Predestination was obviously not defined in the same way as the reformers, and the idea of double-predestination did not even occur to the Christians at the time, as they didn’t read St Paul in the light of Blessed Augustine’s dispute with the Pelagians or other issues which occurred centuries later.

It is also not isolated to St John Chrysostom. The majority of second century apologists affirmed human free-will, here are some lazy quote-mines (however this is still true)

For the coming into being at first was not in our own power; and in order that we may follow those things which please Him, choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith

- St Justin the Martyr

Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith

- St Irenaeus of Lyon, a Bishop who was a generation removed from the Apostles and even knew St Polycarp, who was ordained by John the Theologian.

For He who holds sovereignty over the universe permitted something to be subject to our own control, over which each of us alone is master. Now this is the will: a thing that cannot be enslaved, being the power of self-determination

- St. Gregory of Nyssa

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orth...-1-calvinism-presents-a-dehistoricized-bible/

I also found this interesting blog post, in part 2 the author raises an objection to the notion of reprobates pertinent to the original poster of this thread

Most supralapsarian Calvinists (and quite a few non-supralapsarians) will agree with Herman Horksema that “Reprobation exists in order that election may be realized. Reprobation is necessary to bring the chosen to the glory which God in His infinite love has appointed for them…” The idea here is that God could not have properly saved the elect, let alone demonstrated His justice to them, without having a group of people with whom He can be angry for all of eternity.

Imagine a potter who labors continually until he has created a number of excellently wrought vessels of great beauty. But he is not satisfied with that—he must also construct a second class of vessels in order to smash them into a hundred bits. This proves to everyone that he has strength. The God of Calvinism is like this potter; he must have two classes of people: One group with which to demonstrate His love and mercy, and another group with which to demonstrate His wrath and hatred of sin.

In the end, this amounts to saying that God hates sin so much that He wanted it to enter His creation eternally so that He could always be punishing it. But consider carefully what this actually means. Because His hatred of sin is so great, He must create it and it must go on existing eternally in those subjects He is forever punishing.

According to such a theory, if God had chosen to prevent the existence of evil in the first place this would have been a worse state of affairs then the endless perpetuation of evil in an everlasting hell since there would then have been no way for us to know that God is just (for the Calvinist, we cannot know that God is just unless He has something to be angry about). Hence, what this amounts to saying is that God hates evil so much that He must ensure its eternal existence.

The problem is that this idea of justice is imported from philosophy into the Bible. It comes from the philosophical notion that God is absolutely simple in his divinity. Once you accept the premise that God is an absolutely simple essence, the rest of the argument unfolds as follows (at least, as it has been represented to me by Calvinist friends):

1. Since God is simple, his attributes are non-divisible, as only compound objects—not simple objects—can be divided;
2. Since God’s attributes are non-divisible, He must always be expressing every aspect of His character at all times;
3. Both justice and hatred of sin are essential aspects of God’s character;
4. Therefore, God must be eternally expressing His justice and hatred of sin in order to be absolutely simple, and therefore to be truly God.

 

[Wutang]

If double pre-destination is true then the best course of action would to be an anti-natalist. It seems wicked to bring children into the world for them to only be "vessels of wrath" for God to punish and according to Calvinist doctrine it appears that most people are destined to be just that rather than part of the elect. I've actually seen Calvinists use the quote from Christ on Judas where he said "it would be better if that man was never born" to describe these "reprobates" so it seems like to me, if you are a Calvinist you should also be anti-natalist in the same way some of these other sects like the Cathars were.

 

[Blade Runner]

If double pre-destination is true then the best course of action would to be an anti-natalist. It seems wicked to bring children into the world for them to only be "vessels of wrath" for God to punish and according to Calvinist doctrine it appears that most people are destined to be just that rather than part of the elect. I've actually seen Calvinists use the quote from Christ on Judas where he said "it would be better if that man was never born" to describe these "reprobates" so it seems like to me, if you are a Calvinist you should also be anti-natalist in the same way some of these other sects like the Cathars were.

Yes. It is another idea, of many, that shows how ridiculous this theology really is.

It is a mystery enough to contemplate why the demons are allowed any power to tempt or abuse humans, but even so we can explain this potentially through providence, with testing to overcome, eliciting trials to induce love and purification. Of course, we choose whether we want to entertain the demons or evil ideas, which is the point (free will). God has his plan for us and the demons, and he is doing everything he can to provide repentance and salvation for all. Whether we accept what has been done for us, and continue in that path, is up to us. It's pretty clear that this process will continue throughout eternity, which is another support for Orthodox theology.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I'm always curious about these types of statements, since you know that we don't teach concretely that you are "saved by works".

Your reply to @cheapchampion shows that you do believe salvation is of works. That's because you reject the Biblical categories of faith being described as a gift of the Holy Spirit, something that God works in His Elect.

It is not self-evident at all that Romans 9 teaches double-predestination.

What is Election and Hardening in your view?

Comparing Chrysostom and Augustine on this issue shows that Augustine was far more Biblical in this area. Moreover, his theology was approved by council. Pelegianism is heresy. Man needs Grace in order to be saved, he cannot save himself by his own will.

If double pre-destination is true then the best course of action would to be an anti-natalist.

This doesn't logically follow. Calvinists have always understood God's predestination as an affirmation of everything that they do, from rearing a family, or working unto the glory of God (the Calvinist work ethic). The fact that God Elects some and Hardens others, even before they're born and do anything good or bad according to Romans 9, does not put a hamper on their family rearing or evangelism. Also, the most active groups against the anti-natalists in this country are led by Calvinists.

 

[Wutang]

In the Calvinist view, would Calvinist parents think that they were ordained to bring forth children for the purposes of them to be given over to destruction and even though "it would have been better for them to never be born", it still has to come to pass anyway because God has decreed that the child must be born since there must exist "vassals of wrath" for God to pour his punishment into and for reasons only known to the Calvinist God these parents were chosen to bear these vassals? To me it almost seems like a Christian version of pagans having kids so they could sacrifice them in the flames to Molach.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

In the Calvinist view, would Calvinist parents think that they were ordained to bring forth children for the purposes of them to be given over to destruction and even though "it would have been better for them to never be born", it still has to come to pass anyway because God has decreed that the child must be born since there must exist "vassals of wrath" for God to pour his punishment into and for reasons only known to the Calvinist God these parents were chosen to bear these vassals? To me it almost seems like a Christian version of pagans having kids so they could sacrifice them in the flames to Molach.

Calvinists believe that God is covenantal and His covenantal promises are for "you and your children, and for all whom God will call to Himself." They believe that God is faithful to the families of His Elect, just as He was in the Old Covenant. They don't believe that they make babies just so God can send them to Hell.

Nevertheless, apostasy is real. God has pronounced judgement on all apostates. So if a Calvinist has a kid who grows up into an apostate, they will ultimately say "whatever God does is right." It's the opposite of the non-Biblical, free-will view where God is only considered good if He behaves within the parameters of what man's will allows Him to do.

 

[Blade Runner]

That's because you reject the Biblical categories of faith being described as a gift of the Holy Spirit, something that God works in His Elect.

I do not.

Nevertheless, apostasy is real. God has pronounced judgement on all apostates. So if a Calvinist has a kid who grows up into an apostate, they will ultimately say "whatever God does is right." It's the opposite of the non-Biblical, free-will view where God is only considered good if He behaves within the parameters of what man's will allows Him to do.

This concept isn't that hard to understand, which is why I'm constantly confused by things like your second sentence there. God is good regardless, it's up to us to align with him as the source of Life.

I also can't figure out why you can't understand that retrospective analysis is at best hokey and impractical. Platitudes that carry a similar phenomenon that I also criticize are "God won't give you anything you can't handle". That's just telling people to endure, because quite obviously a lot of people check out, and we see it all the time. Acting like you know (the details of) what's going on, referring to the end state of things is not only bizarre, quite frankly, it's stupid, because any honest man knows you don't. But this is also from the same people that presume they already know God's judgment, so it's not novel.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

it's up to us to align with him as the source of Life.

Says no verse in the Bible.

I also can't figure out why you can't understand that retrospective analysis is at best hokey and impractical. Platitudes that carry a similar phenomenon that I also criticize are "God won't give you anything you can't handle". That's just telling people to endure, because quite obviously a lot of people check out, and we see it all the time. Acting like you know (the details of) what's going on, referring to the end state of things is not only bizarre, quite frankly, it's stupid, because any honest man knows you don't. But this is also from the same people that presume they already know God's judgment, so it's not novel.

All this to say that you pay lip-service to God's providence, purpose, plan, etc, but you don't really believe it. You are trusting in yourself to make the difference, which is consistent in how you jump from one idol to another, in the various threads you engage in.

It is not necessary to know exactly how God's plan will play out, nor does anyone even suggest that they do, that doesn't mean that Christians who are saved shouldn't believe that "God works all things according to the counsel of His will, to the praise of His glory."

Not knowing the finer details of God's providence does not mean we should talk about it as least as possible as @JCSteel suggested. To the contrary, we should follow in the footsteps of the Apostles, who taught that predestination is true and that because of that, the believer is confirmed in His work to strive after God.

 

[JCSteel]

Says no verse in the Bible.


All this to say that you pay lip-service to God's providence, purpose, plan, etc, but you don't really believe it. You are trusting in yourself to make the difference, which is consistent in how you jump from one idol to another, in the various threads you engage in.

It is not necessary to know exactly how God's plan will play out, nor does anyone even suggest that they do, that doesn't mean that Christians who are saved shouldn't believe that "God works all things according to the counsel of His will, to the praise of His glory."

Not knowing the finer details of God's providence does not mean we should talk about it as least as possible as @JCSteel suggested. To the contrary, we should follow in the footsteps of the Apostles, who taught that predestination is true and that because of that, the believer is confirmed in His work to strive after God.

Christians walking in communion with God should speak as Paul did in Ephesians 1 regarding God's sovereignty and His kindness towards those who believe.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.


For unbelievers and those without assurance I don't see how those verses apply. I don't think Paul ever separates God's providence from faith in Christ. Predestination has a limited pastoral application.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

As for unbelievers and those without assurance I don't see how any of those verses applies.

They don't. But never preaching them deprives the believer of his assurance. The Gospel message is two-pronged: grace and mercy for the believers, wrath and justice for the non-believers. It is necessary to preach the whole counsel of God, not just the parts we like.

Notice Paul never separates God's providence from faith in Christ.

Which is why I stress that faith is a gift, lest anyone presume that it is their own work, which leads to boasting, spiritual pride on their part.

Predestination has a limited pastoral application.

Sure, but I am not saying to only preach predestination. I wish that it were preached at all.