While We're on the Subject of Total Depravity...

Augustine_Was_Calvinist · Oct 11, 2005

akolouthein said:
Well thank you so much for teaching me something today .

By the way, I know that our dear brother Martin Luther very much looked forward to the day of communing with all the saints at the Feast of the Lamb with the Risen Christ. :clap:

edie19 · Oct 11, 2005

akolouthein said:
Well thank you so much for teaching me something today .

I've found AWC to consistently be one of the best posters on CF. He's articulate, he's clear and he's knowledgable (and backs his points with Scripture). I learn a lot from him.

Godzchild · Oct 11, 2005

Augustine_Was_Calvinist said:
Sorry, but that is not correct, nor is it Biblical.

Jesus is forever "theanthropos", the God-man. Jesus did not shed his human body after Resurrection. At the Ascention Jesus was still Divine and Human, and will remain so with the Elect as King of Kings and Lord of Lords for all eternity.

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

Godzchild · Oct 11, 2005

Augustine_Was_Calvinist said:
Not to be picky, but the "celestial bodies" Paul is talking about are stars and planets, and the "terrestrial" are physical bodies on earth of humans, animals, etc.

But the next verse wasn't

tigersnare · Oct 12, 2005

Godzchild said:
But the next verse wasn't

40There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory."

Which next verse wasn't? :scratch:

tigersnare · Oct 12, 2005

Godzchild said:
Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

Why didn't you deal with the text he presented, and try to reconcile the two verses instead of just blowing off those that were in disagreement with your view?

Augustine_Was_Calvinist · Oct 12, 2005

Godzchild said:
Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

And in CONTEXT, that passage is addressing regeneration of the spirit by the Holy Spirit, at which point the regenerated spirit enters the kingdom of God.

Are you saying that the Resurrected Christ is no longer both Divine and human?

If you, then you are not in step with a Biblical Christian worldview.

Augustine_Was_Calvinist · Oct 12, 2005

tigersnare said:
40There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory."

Which next verse wasn't?

I'd like to know too. :scratch:

Godzchild · Oct 12, 2005

tigersnare said:
40There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory."

Which next verse wasn't?

ha ha - the verse after that then LOL

Godzchild · Oct 12, 2005

Augustine_Was_Calvinist said:
And in CONTEXT, that passage is addressing regeneration of the spirit by the Holy Spirit, at which point the regenerated spirit enters the kingdom of God.

Are you saying that the Resurrected Christ is no longer both Divine and human?

If you, then you are not in step with a Biblical Christian worldview.

What I'm saying is that his body was glorified into something else - I don't believe it's flesh because 'flesh and blood' cannot inherit the kingdom of God. So does God have a double standard then - one for us and one for him. He says that God is a spirit and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Where does it say in the bible that Jesus is still flesh and blood?

Received · Oct 13, 2005

Rolf Ernst said:
I have nothing further for you but this, "There is no wisdom nor understanding against the Lord." You need to realize that your objection against Him will not profit you anything.

My friend, this is fallacious -- I don't label God someone I see as contradictory. I don't want to sustain a perceived falsity, and this is why it is meaningless to say that I have set myself against God. Imagine: the same things were said against Luther, for instance, by Catholics. I can respect that you have no answer (it isn't the easiest of all subjects to think of); but I cannot respect, cannot even comprehend, you simply leaving the subject with self-assertion in the form of considering the opposition heretical, antithetical to God. One isn't opposing a contradiction by stating it to be what it is; God in all His wisdom will know that I am perceiving Him incorrectly if I am. But the last 260 responses by people here only give me reason to think that I am perceiving something inherently contradictory with contemporary interpretations of Calvinism.

Received · Oct 13, 2005

My objection is not against Him, but something I flagrantly perceive to be not-Him, and this is because there is contradiction coupled with a specific interpetation of Him, and I cannot but reject anything that misconstrues the perfection of God.

tigersnare · Oct 13, 2005

Received said:
My objection is not against Him, but something I flagrantly perceive to be not-Him, and this is because there is contradiction coupled with a specific interpetation of Him, and I cannot but reject anything that misconstrues the perfection of God.

Have you read much of the debate between Augustine and Pelagius?

Received · Oct 13, 2005

Yeah, I know the gist. Hit me up.

tigersnare · Oct 13, 2005

Received said:
Yeah, I know the gist. Hit me up.

Well basically Pelagius got set off by Augustine's prayer of " "Command what thou will; and give what thou commandest." Pelagius believed in the power of the human will. "If I ought, I can."

Basically Augustine saw that we are helpless to help ourselves. God created man with the ability to carry out his requirment, perfect obedience. However, man sinned and lost that ability in Adam. We have no right to demand God to change his requirements to adapt to our nature. God is God and his requirments are not hinged upon our new inability.

Pelagius denied this and believed we have the power in and of ourselves to live in perfected obedience apart from grace if we so chose to do so. This view has been denounced and proved irreconcilable with scripture countless times since it's inception 1600 years ago.

God's commandment, our inablity, and his either grace or wrath response is not a contradiction if we center our theology around God being the creator, and man being the creation.

Was this not Paul's anticipated objection to his doctrine? "How then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will"?

tigersnare · Oct 13, 2005

Roger Smalling, D.Min

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. God would not command us to do what we cannot do. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Or God would not command us to do what we cannot do. God gave the Law to Moses, The Ten Commandments, to reveal what man cannot do, not what he can do.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. This premise is unscriptural. God gave the Law for two reasons: To expose sin and to increase it so man would have no excuse for declaring his own righteousness. Why? Because in the context, he does NO righteousness. As Martin Luther said to Erasmus, when you are finished with all your commands and exhortations from the Old Testament, Ill write Ro.3:20 over the top of it all. Why use commands and exhortations from the O.T. to show free will when they were given to prove mans sinfulness? They exist to show what we cannot do rather than what we can do. Yes, God gave commands to man which man cannot do. Therefore commandments and exhortations do not prove free will. Nowhere in scripture is there any hint that God gives commands to men to prove they are able to perform them. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. This premise is irrational. There may be many reasons for commanding someone to do something, other than the assumption that the can do it. The purpose, as above, may be to show the person his inability to perform the command. Thus, NOTHING can be deduced about abilities from a mere command. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2. If our will is free, then we are not responsible. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Or, "If not free, then not responsible." This means if we are unable to make a contrary choice, then our wills are not free. Thus, if we are completely bound in sin so that we can do nothing else but sin, then we are free from responsibility for those sins. This is irrational because the assumption behind this is the idea of neutrality. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. The Bible does not present the concept of freedom in this way. According to Scripture, freedom is described as holiness. The ultimate freedom is absolute holiness. If that is true, then God is the most free being in the universe. Otherwise, we must say that God is the most enslaved being in the universe because He is the one least neutral on moral issues. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. Likewise, if we affirm that bondage of will eliminates responsibility, then the best way to avoid responsibility for ours sins to be as bound by them as possible. The drunk who is bound by alcoholism is therefore not responsible for his actions. Should we encourage people to sin all the more therefore, so that they are not responsible any more?[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]C. The entire idea of neutrality of will is absurd. If the decisions of the will are not determined by the internal nature of the person, then in what sense can it be said that those decisions are the results of a decision of the person himself? How in fact could be a decision be truly a moral on it is morally neutral? How can morally be morality at all and be neutral?[/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4. A person cannot be punished for what he cannot help doing.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If that is the case, then a Christian may not be rewarded for what his new nature compels him to do. Let us not forget that the nature of a person is not a thing he possesses. It is something he is.[/font]

Augustine_Was_Calvinist · Oct 13, 2005

Godzchild said:
What I'm saying is that his body was glorified into something else - I don't believe it's flesh because 'flesh and blood' cannot inherit the kingdom of God. So does God have a double standard then - one for us and one for him. He says that God is a spirit and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Where does it say in the bible that Jesus is still flesh and blood?

Luke 24:38-40

38 And He said to them, Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.
40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.[a]
41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, Have you any food here? 42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb.[g] 43 And He took it and ate in their presence.

Jesus said it, " a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."

Does a spirit eat fish and honeycomb?

Once again, you are misapplying the context of "flesh and blood not inheriting the kingdom", that is applied to regeneration, in context. Just as Jesus told Peter upon his profession that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the Living God, "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven has revealed this to you".

To be sure, the body of Jesus is a glorified body, as will each believer's body be a glrofied body. We do not know exactly what that will be, but we do not it will be a real body of flesh, albeit very different as Paul says, "we will be like Him".

If you notice, there is a difference between "flesh and blood" and "flesh and bone".

Scripture in the OT says, "Life is in the blood".

Jesus poured out His precious blood on the Cross, spent.

In Christ we have life.

There have been many to deduce that blood will not be part of the New Life in the Ressurection, having life in Christ instead of the old order of life in the blood. However, it is abundantly clear that in the Resurrection, those who are in Christ will have a real, physical body, just as Jesus.

Augustine_Was_Calvinist · Oct 13, 2005

tigersnare said:
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The purpose, as above, may be to show the person his inabilility to perform the command.[/font]

BINGO!

JJB · Oct 13, 2005

tigersnare said:
Roger Smalling, D.Min

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. God would not command us to do what we cannot do. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Or God would not command us to do what we cannot do. God gave the Law to Moses, The Ten Commandments, to reveal what man cannot do, not what he can do.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. This premise is unscriptural. God gave the Law for two reasons: To expose sin and to increase it so man would have no excuse for declaring his own righteousness. Why? Because in the context, he does NO righteousness. As Martin Luther said to Erasmus, when you are finished with all your commands and exhortations from the Old Testament, Ill write Ro.3:20 over the top of it all. Why use commands and exhortations from the O.T. to show free will when they were given to prove mans sinfulness? They exist to show what we cannot do rather than what we can do. Yes, God gave commands to man which man cannot do. Therefore commandments and exhortations do not prove free will. Nowhere in scripture is there any hint that God gives commands to men to prove they are able to perform them. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. This premise is irrational. There may be many reasons for commanding someone to do something, other than the assumption that the can do it. The purpose, as above, may be to show the person his inability to perform the command. Thus, NOTHING can be deduced about abilities from a mere command. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2. If our will is free, then we are not responsible. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Or, "If not free, then not responsible." This means if we are unable to make a contrary choice, then our wills are not free. Thus, if we are completely bound in sin so that we can do nothing else but sin, then we are free from responsibility for those sins. This is irrational because the assumption behind this is the idea of neutrality. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. The Bible does not present the concept of freedom in this way. According to Scripture, freedom is described as holiness. The ultimate freedom is absolute holiness. If that is true, then God is the most free being in the universe. Otherwise, we must say that God is the most enslaved being in the universe because He is the one least neutral on moral issues. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. Likewise, if we affirm that bondage of will eliminates responsibility, then the best way to avoid responsibility for ours sins to be as bound by them as possible. The drunk who is bound by alcoholism is therefore not responsible for his actions. Should we encourage people to sin all the more therefore, so that they are not responsible any more?[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]C. The entire idea of neutrality of will is absurd. If the decisions of the will are not determined by the internal nature of the person, then in what sense can it be said that those decisions are the results of a decision of the person himself? How in fact could be a decision be truly a moral on it is morally neutral? How can morally be morality at all and be neutral?[/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4. A person cannot be punished for what he cannot help doing.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If that is the case, then a Christian may not be rewarded for what his new nature compels him to do. Let us not forget that the nature of a person is not a thing he possesses. It is something he is.[/font]

That's got to be the clearest answer to Received's question that I've read yet! I'm not speaking for Received, obviously, only for myself. Thanks for posting it.

Godzchild · Oct 13, 2005

Augustine_Was_Calvinist said:
Luke 24:38-40

38 And He said to them, Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.
40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.[a]
41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, Have you any food here? 42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb.[g] 43 And He took it and ate in their presence.

Jesus said it, " a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."

Does a spirit eat fish and honeycomb?

Once again, you are misapplying the context of "flesh and blood not inheriting the kingdom", that is applied to regeneration, in context. Just as Jesus told Peter upon his profession that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the Living God, "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven has revealed this to you".

To be sure, the body of Jesus is a glorified body, as will each believer's body be a glrofied body. We do not know exactly what that will be, but we do not it will be a real body of flesh, albeit very different as Paul says, "we will be like Him".

If you notice, there is a difference between "flesh and blood" and "flesh and bone".

Scripture in the OT says, "Life is in the blood".

Jesus poured out His precious blood on the Cross, spent.

In Christ we have life.

There have been many to deduce that blood will not be part of the New Life in the Ressurection, having life in Christ instead of the old order of life in the blood. However, it is abundantly clear that in the Resurrection, those who are in Christ will have a real, physical body, just as Jesus.

He hadn't ascended to heaven yet. But what about in heaven? It says that 'flesh adn blood cannot inherit the kingdome of God' again, I ask you, does God have double standards? One for us and one for Jesus?

While We're on the Subject of Total Depravity...

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Angry Young Calvinist

Angry Young Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

Angry Young Calvinist

True love waits in haunted attics

Angry Young Calvinist

Angry Young Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads