Genesis 6 v 3

[...]

1 minute ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I myself agree with SOME PORTIONS of the "doctrine of reprobates" as presented above.  However, I would NOT likely call the doctrine by that name, since I question the definition for "reprobate" that appears to be being employed.  Furthermore, I would DEFINITELY have conflict with some of that which has been presented above as a part of this "doctrine."

Could you talk about those portions with which you disagree?  I'm really trying to understand this issue and it would help a great deal.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

4 minutes ago, Brother Stafford said:

Could you talk about those portions with which you disagree?  I'm really trying to understand this issue and it would help a great deal.

Brother Stafford,

I am willing; however, finding adequate time is a significant issue for me at present. You would have to "bear with me," and maybe I can present some thoughts "in parts."

[John Young]

16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I myself agree with SOME PORTIONS of the "doctrine of reprobates" as presented above.  However, I would NOT likely call the doctrine by that name, since I question the definition for "reprobate" that appears to be being employed.  Furthermore, I would DEFINITELY have conflict with some of that which has been presented above as a part of this "doctrine."

I tend to agree that it could use a better title or structure in regards to being a systematic theological doctrine. Most likely just a subset of the doctrine of sin. Reprobate simply being the point in which God gives them over to their own devices and allowing their lust towards sin to take it's course. I tend to be of the persuasion that even at that point God can allow for some such persons to "come to their senses" and we cannot, on our end, truly know if God has "blinded for a time" or forever determined someone to be un-savable before death. Much of what is commonly taught about it can go to extremes in my opinion and I am not at all against keeping it in proper perspective of our command to preach to all regardless of what state God is dealing with a person in. Jesus after all was contending with people who could not hear his words and whom he called children of the devil so....

Matthew 19:25-26 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

[John Young]

On 3/5/2017 at 11:43 AM, The real Bob Hutton said:

Reply to brother John Young;  I agree with your comments. 

When, in Luke 23, Herod had Jesus before Him, Jesus refused to speak to Him.  I wonder if this is because, in murdering John the Baptist, he had cut off the voice of God and had gone too far, thus rendering himself reprobate.

I think that may be too much speculation. Speculation is dangerous business, particularly if someone tries to build a doctrine on it! The bible never says Herod was a reprobate, though he very well could be. In my opinion Christ was silent primarily to fulfill the scripture which said he would be like a lamb to the slaughter. While it is not out of the realm of possibility as an extra reason God allowed for Herod to be the one in that position, the fact that wicked Herod happened to be the ruler and got the silent treatment, ultimately, does not really matter too much in regard to the overall purpose. Regardless of who it was, Christ was going to give them the silent treatment. 

Acts 8:32-35 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 in his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Edited March 7, 2017 by John Young