Repert: While one can bring up problems for Calvinism that are connected to the question of assurance, I am not at all persuaded that these issues are really separate from the theodicy-related difficulties that many of us have with that theology. I mean if you swallow the idea that God might be justified in reprobating people for his own glory before the foundation of the world, I'm not sure it's any worse for God to also give some of them the idea that they have truly received the saving grace of God and then find out later that that was only appearance. If you swallow the camel, a little gnat sauce won't be a problem.
Reppert: One of the arguments in the inerrancy debate is the assertion that God cannot lie. I want to suggest that although this claim is initially intuitive, (I mean who wants a liar for a God?), there is what seems to me a forceful argument against the claim.
Here, in one fell swoop, Reppert knocks out of the ballpark (I hope he at least appreciates my use of a baseball analogy :-) his claim that it would be immoral for God to lie to people about the state of their assurance as well as his claim that moral intuitions trump arguments to the contrary with such force that you don't need to answer the argument to the contrary, no matter how good, because all you need say is, "I just don't have that intuitions, indeed, I have strong intuitions to the contrary."
So, if you have a liar God, then what's wrong with a reprobater? Put differently, if you swallow the camel, a little gnat sauce won't be a problem.
(Another post might be that Repert just pulled the rug out from all his proof texts for Arminianism. God might have lied. His belief that the God of the Bible is actually good--he might have lied about himself. His belief that Jesus came to die for everyone, he could have lied about that too. But we won't go there this time).