Major Camps of thought

MAN’S MORAL INABILITY

In the first article of this series, we examined some of the aspects of man's radical corruption in sin. We observed that man is dead in sin (Eph. 2:1-3; Col. 2:13), represses the knowledge of God and creates idols (Rom. 1:18-25), does not do good according to God's law, and does not seek for God apart from the work of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 3:9-12). Because of the nature of man's sin, for a person to come to Jesus for salvation, God must take the initiative; God's divine initiative is the first step in anyone's salvation. The Bible's strong statements about the degree of man's corruption in sin and God's initiative in our salvation magnify the grace of God in salvation. This article continues this examination of man's corruption in sin which is classically called total depravity (meaning that sin affects man's total being) and God's divine initiative in our salvation.

In John 6:44, 45, Jesus proclaimed man's inability to come to him apart from God's initiative: "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught of God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to me." This statement begins with a universal negative, "No one can come to Me. . . ." It is universal because the phrase, "No one" refers to all people. The word, "can" in this phrase refers to ability. I remember early grammar lessons that taught the difference between "can" and "may." "Can" refers to ability while "may" refers to permission. Perhaps you had the experience in first grade of asking your teacher, "Can I sharpen my pencil." The standard reply was, "I'm sure you can and you may." Jesus said that no one has the ability to come to Him on their own.

Jonathan Edwards made a distinction that is helpful in thinking about this issue. He distinguished between natural ability and moral ability. God provides certain natural abilities to members of his creation. For example, he provides the birds with the ability to fly. Fish have the ability to live under water and extract oxygen from the water through their gills. God provides the fish with fins and gills and the birds with feathers and wings. Human beings do not naturally have that equipment. Human beings, however, are given the natural ability to make choices. God gave people minds that can receive and analyze information. Man's corruption in sin does not strip from him the ability to choose what he wants. In the fall, however, man did lose his desire for God and his inclination toward the good. In this regard, a person can intellectually understand the law of God and its obligations and he can understand the content of the gospel. The unregenerate person, however, does not want to obey God or to come to Christ. He could choose Christ and the things of God if he wanted them, but he has no desire for them. This is where Edwards makes the distinction between natural and moral ability. Man has the natural ability to choose God, but he does not have the moral ability to do it. The things of God and the gospel are foolishness to him (1 Cor. 2:14) and he has no desire for Christ. This is what Jesus was addressing when He said, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. . . ." Fallen man may look at Jesus and be impressed with his moral teaching; he may think that Jesus is interesting, but, apart from God's divine initiative, he will never come to Christ for salvation. He has no desire to submit to God or to believe the gospel; he lacks the moral ability to come to Christ.

After Jesus said that no one has the ability to come to him, he gave an exception clause, "unless the Father draws him."

What does the word "draw" mean? Some have proposed that it simply means "to woo" or "to entice." Using this meaning, Jesus would have been saying that God's action in salvation is merely that he encourages a person to come to Christ. This is a necessary encouragement for a person to come, but it is not an effectual action; it does not guarantee that a person will come. This explanation is incorrect. First of all, in John 6:45, Jesus said, "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to me." Jesus saw this drawing of the Father as not only a necessary condition for someone to come to salvation, but also as a sufficient condition. Everyone that is drawn by the Father will come. It was not merely an enticement or encouragement to come. Second, the Greek word translated as "draw" is elko. Gerhard Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines elko as "to compel by irresistible superiority. The linguistic and lexicographical meaning of elko is "to compel (Kittel, Vol. 2, p. 503).

Elko is a forceful verb. To see the force of this verb, let's consider two other passages in the New Testament where the word is used. In Acts 16:19, Paul and Silas are attacked by the owners of a slave girl after Paul cast a demon out of her: "But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the market place before the authorities." In this verse, elko is translated as "dragged." Certainly, Paul and Silas were not enticed or wooed into the market place. They were forcibly seized and compelled to come. Another passage where elko is used is James 2:6. James is addressing the problem of favoritism in the church. He is rebuking his readers for honoring the wealthy and disparaging the poor. He writes in verse 6: "But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court?" Again, elko is translated as "drag." In both of these verses, the linguistic meaning of elko as "to compel" is reflected in the translation and the context of the verse. Jesus was not saying that the Father merely woos or entices a person to come, but that there is an effectual action that compels a person to come.

This same idea is set forth just a few verses later in John 6:63-65: "'It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, 'For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to me, unless it has been granted him from the Father.'" Jesus said that the Spirit gives life and the flesh profits nothing. Martin Luther commented that when Jesus said that the flesh profits nothing that doesn't mean a little bit. Jesus emphasized that it is the Holy Spirit that brings spiritual life to a person. In verse 65, he again speaks of man's moral inability to come to Him unless it has been granted by the Father. For a person to come to Christ, the ability to come must be granted or given by the Father. No one can come to Christ in the flesh. Without God's divine initiative, no one can come. The Westminster Confession of Faith summarizes these points: "Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto (Chapter 9, Art. 3)."

This is the pattern that is set forth in Ephesians 2:1-5. Verses 1-3 declare that man is dead in sin and lives out that sinful condition. Verses 4 and 5 declare" But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved). . . ." Paul sets forth in Ephesians the same idea that Jesus declared: Man does not have the moral ability to come to Christ in his flesh; a divine initiative is the necessary first condition for salvation.

The action of being drawn to Christ is coupled closely with the Holy Spirit's work of making a person alive in Christ or regenerating him. Once a person is made alive in Christ, he has the desire for Christ and he comes to Jesus. That moral ability to come to Christ, however, is the result of the Spirit giving life. The Westminster Confession declares: "When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only (Chapter 9, art. 4 and 5)."

Understanding this strips all boasting and claims of self-righteousness from man. If you are in Christ, it is because God has shown you mercy and initiated your salvation. Charles Spurgeon, the great 19th century preacher said, "If God requires of the sinner, dead in sin, that he should take the first step, then he requires just that which renders salvation as impossible under the gospel as it was under the law, since man is as unable to believe as he is to obey." He also said, "I take it that the highest proof of Christ's power is not that he offers salvation, not that he bids you take it if you will, but that when you reject it, when you hate it, when you despise it, he has a power whereby he can change your mind, make you think differently from your former thoughts, and turn you from the error of your ways."

The second stanza of the hymn Amazing Grace reflects these points: "'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved; How precious did that grace appear the hour I first believed!" When you see real faith in your life, you are also seeing a manifestation of God's grace operating in your life.

This truth is described in a poem that was discovered in the pocket of Major John Andre after his execution during the Revolutionary War. It was written in his death cell, so these words are literally a dying man's testimony:

"Hail, Sovereign Love, which first began the scheme to rescue fallen man! Hail, matchless, free, eternal grace, which gave my soul a Hiding Place! Against the God who built the sky I fought with hands uplifted high-- Despite the mention of His grace-- too proud to seek a Hiding Place Enrapt in thick Egyptian night, and fond of darkness more than light, I madly ran the sinful race, secure, I thought, without God's grace. But the eternal counsel ran: "Almighty Love, arrest that man!" I felt the arrows of distress, and found I had no Hiding Place. Indignant Justice stood in view; to Sinai's fiery mount I flew; But Justice cried with frowning face, "This mountain is no Hiding Place!" Ere long a heavenly voice I heard, and mercy's angel soon appeared; He led me, with a beaming face, to Jesus as my Hiding Place! On Him almighty vengeance fell, which would have sunk a world to Hell; He bore it for a sinful race, and thus became their Hiding Place!"

If you are in Christ now, it is because God has taken the first step in your salvation and drawn you to Jesus. This eliminates all claims of self-righteousness, boasting, or spiritual pride. Understanding these truths should move our hearts to giving God all glory and honor for the work he has performed in our lives and the mercy we have received.

http://covenantofgracechurch.org/modules/tinyd0/index.php?id=2

Thanks, Gusthemule, advocating contextual study of doctrine is a good thing. I do not see what I can add to my argument concerning "chosen in Him." Perhaps I planted a seed that will sprout another day, God knows.

Another premise used to support Spiritual Inability is that since we are dead in our trespasses, we are unable to respond to the outward call of God. This pushes the analogy past its purpose. "Dead" in context means separated from God, and totally unable through works to bridge the gap and attain life eternal. Lets look at some passages.


Clearly this is using dead in a metaphorical sense, meaning you were spiritually dead in your sins. And being dead implies inability, so it would seem to follow that being spiritually dead implies spiritual inability. But what is the inability? Calvinists say it means the inability to seek or reach out or understand or accept spiritual things such as the gospel of Christ. Because we are spiritually dead, we are unable to believe in Jesus. This view is supported by a distorted understanding of Romans 3:10-11. On the other hand, the implication of being spiritually dead might only apply to the inability to reach God through works because sin creates a separation that we are unable to bridge by works.

Jesus is making several points here, but lets focus on a few of them: It is possible to find the way that leads to life, but it is easier to follow the broad way to destruction. We are depraved but not totally disabled. Although we are dead, we can find the way to life. And the way is through faith and not by works for not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father (and places his or her faith in God and His Christ) will enter the kingdom. Here we see also that those in Christ produce good fruit, which proves they are of God (Matthew 7:18 ).

Here we see that we are neither saved by our deeds of righteousness, nor by our faith alone, but by His mercy and grace. Therefore our faith could be the best we could muster in our depraved state, and still God could accept it, and bless it to our salvation. If our faith only touched our mind, intellectual accent, scripture indicates that is not what God demands, for He judges the heart. Ruth provides an example of a heart-felt commitment. Here is what the lady chose to do and say,

Love can overcome depravity sufficient for salvation because love "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things", and love never fails. (1 Corinthians 13:7).

Isaiah is speaking about the circumstances of his time, addressing the people of his audience, and so to assert that no one (all of mankind from creation to the end of days) is able to call upon the name of the Lord without help (from an inner call in addition to the outer call) is invalid. Clearly the capability to stir oneself and call upon the name of the Lord at some other time is in view. (See Isaiah 65:8-10 where the Lord refers to my people who seek me.)

Paul makes a compelling case against spiritual inability in this passage. Jews, whose hearts were partially hardened to facilitate bringing the gospel to the Gentiles, could still be moved to jealousy, a natural and depraved reaction that could be used to provide an opening for the gospel which could lead the depraved and partially hard hearted to accept the gospel.

Being Spiritually dead means we are separated from God and unable to reach God by our works. Calvinists extrapolate this biblical truth and say, we are unable to seek God or to want to seek God. However, Romans 9: 16 proves that the unsaved can seek God through intellect (a man that wills) and by works (a man that runs.) So we cannot reach God by our works or our will. God has mercy of those of his choosing and saves them. But the other truth, that some spiritually dead men seek God through works to no available and others seek God through faith is inescapable. Spiritually dead men are able to seek God and some are willing to seek God, and those that seek God through faith and not works find the narrow path that leads to life.

The defense of the Calvinists conception of Spiritual Inability, which has little actual support in scripture, has caused some to bend the Word of God to create the impression that the fallacy is taught by scripture. Here is a typical avalanche of assertions, none valid:

"God’s curse of mankind created spiritual inability (Psalm 50:21, Job 11:7-8 )." First neither of these verses connects the fall with the asserted inability. The unstated assumption is that before the fall we had spiritual ability and then lost it. What scripture actually says is that Adam’s sin brought death (Romans 5:12). If this were in whole or in part spiritual death (loss of Adam and Eve’s indwelt Holy Spirit and corruption of their human spirit due to the separation from God) spiritual discernment would be greatly diminished, but not necessarily eliminated.

Second, Psalm 50:21 says that the wicked (verse 16) thought, through flawed discernment, that God was like the wicked because God had kept silent and silence suggests tacit approval of wrongdoing. But God did not remain silent. So rather than proving the point of total spiritual inability, the verse proves the opposite. In verse 22, God asks those that forget God, to consider that offering sacrifices honors God. Clearly the wayward are being spoken to and the implication is that communication is taking place. Diminished spiritual discernment can be overcome by hearing the word of God, even though it might take several communications for one man plants the seed and another waters. We are sinners, the Law teaches us that we are sinners, and because we are able to grasp our depravity, we are convicted and recognize that we need forgiveness. Which leads us to Christ. Spiritual inability undermines the whole purpose of the Law.

But lets move on to the next passage, Job 11:7-8. This is a typical argument, God says that mankind cannot understand fully the characteristics of God, and this is used in an unwarranted extrapolation as support for the inability to understand sufficiently to grasp our depravity and God’s majesty.

The human spirit, the power that animates our physical life, the spiritual essence that faces paradise or Hades, was made in the image of God. When our human spirit departs the body, the body dies. Written into our nature, our human spirit in the likeness of God, is an awareness of the infinite and a yearning or aspiration for the divine (Romans 1:18-23). Fallen and separated from God, this naturally leads only in the general direction of God, but more often than not this nature is betrayed by our fallen state into idolatry. Be that as it may, our condition clearly indicates the concept of total depravity is bogus, for we strive toward the divine and some of us our drawn by the Father’s truth in His word.

The problem with the bumper sticker theology of “God is everything, man is nothing” is that God created man for a purpose and that purpose will not be turned aside by a bogus theology of man. We can place our faith, as depraved as it may be, in Jesus and fulfill our purpose, which is to glorify God.

The next assertion is that John 3:3 (“Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.&#8221 indicates the inability to “see” spiritual things, and by inference that we cannot understand spiritual things. But what the verse says is that unless we are born again, we will not see the Kingdom of God, so Jesus is teaching the inability to enter God’s Kingdom unless we are saved, and this is distorted by implication to say we cannot understand spiritual things. The argument from John 3:3 is an utterly bogus defense of an erroneous doctrine in my opinion. Returning to Ephesians 2:1, note that while "dead" in our sins (violation of God’s holy requirements, knowingly or unknowingly, volitionally or as a consequence of being “in Adam&#8221 we are also "dead" in our trespasses (disobedient and willful trespasses of God’s known holy requirements.) We choose to violate the revealed Law of God, which indicates an ability to discern spiritual requirements and reject them.

Contrary to the false doctrine of Spiritual Inability, Moses taught that people were capable of choosing righteousness (Deuteronomy 30:15-20). And Isaiah recognized the same truth when he said a youth, upon reaching a certain age, will know to refuse evil and choose good (Isaiah 7:15).

Spiritual Inability is a false and unnecessary doctrine. The flawed logic stack looks like this: Since God chose us individually before the foundation of the world; He had to compel us during our lifetime with an inner irresistible call to turn to God. To preclude others from accepting the outward call of the gospel, spiritual inability had to asserted. However, if God only chose us generically, whoever would trust in Christ, from before the foundation of the world, then individual pre-selection becomes an unnecessary inference. If individual pre-selection is unnecessary, then irresistible grace becomes unnecessary. And if irresistible grace, the inner call, is unnecessary, then spiritual inability, the doctrine of Total Depravity, becomes unnecessary. Therefore, when you look at the supposed supporting scriptures for the unnecessary inference of spiritual inability, the lack of support for the false doctrine is a straightforward conclusion.

Christ was chosen to be the redeemer of those who love God. Therefore those that love God were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. You do not choose a Redeemer, unless you have a target-group in mind to redeem. Since 1 Peter 2:9-10 teaches we were not chosen until after we had lived without mercy, when we were not a people, then the only way to avoid a contradiction is to accept that we were chosen generically as a consequence of God chooing His Redeemer. That is why scripture says chosen in Him rather than chosen individually.

I must have been predestined to not have any desire to wade through page after page after page of cut and paste jobs from both of primary contributors to this thread.

None of those posts did anything for me and I'm deeply interested in the topic. I'm curious if either of you, Van or Cyg, think that the majority of people even read these long, drawn out cut and paste jobs?

Maybe they're just over my head but, to be honest, do either of you think those types of posts really serve anyone?

God bless

Actually all I'm seeing here is basically one view of soteriology in two or three subvariants. All these views so far are forensic and juridical in nature. The core postulate is that man is forensically guilty before God, God cannot forgive/save him without offering a suitable sacrifice that can aussage divine justice, that sacrifice was the God-Man Christ Jesus Who took our punishment in our place so that we could be declared not guilty, God could forgive us and when we died we could go be with Him in heaven.

The details of how this is worked out varies from Catholic to Reformed to Armenian...but its the same basic Augustinian understanding of soteriology at the root. Actually it is Anshelm's development of the blessed Augustine's thoughts that are the interpretive foundation and frame of reference for all these camps. So its not different soteriologies at all...just slightly differing remixes of the same tune.

The Orthodox and similiar faiths (like the Copts) have a very different sotoriology that is not forensic or juridical...and at best is only flavored by such language for narrow points of consideration with regard to the Law. This view denies that salvation is the decree of a court room. Christ our God did not die on the Cross to appease the wrath/justice of the Father. The propitiation of our sins He wroght was not forensic but latreutic in nature.

This view does not understand salvation in terms of law but rather in terms of transformation and divinization. It is called Theosis. The Church is like a hospital. Christ is the great physician. We are wounded unto death by our sins. He heals us and restoring in us first the damaged (but not destroyed) image of God and then assissting us to grow into His likeness (fullness of the measure of the stature of Christ...as He is so are we in this world). The outworking of our salvation is a life long synergistic cooperation with the grace of God...our therapy if you will. We are not justified (made rightgeous) by decree (a kind of legal fiction) but by participation and impartation. Salvation for us is a lifelong participatory and transformative mystery, not a verdict of not guilty. We deny that our justification is forensic and juridical in nature.

We care nothing about getting to heaven apart from becoming heaven. Unless we are first heaven (a fit dwelling place for the Spirit) heaven would be hell for us. This is the faith of the fathers.

We believe the blessed Augustine because of the limits of his education (no greek) was cut off from the teaching of the Church that existed in Greek on the more subtle points of salvation, hence he misread St. Paul's juridical language in an overliteral and highly forensic manner and this error of emphasis was grossly compounded by Anshelm into a feudalistic model of salvation from whence it passed into all western Christianity.

For us salvation is not a problem of legal standing with God, but of healing. In the fall we were seperated from our life, who is God. We are only truly human in communion with God. Christ's sacrifice complete what was necessary to defeat death and offer himself and us in him in a perfect act of worship. An angry God waiting to bonk man was not appeased...rather a Loving God waiting to receive man was met in Christ Jesus...and in Him we are being healing...and the being healed is the content of our salvation. In Him we are truly justified for in Him the Spirit of Righteousness lives, moves and works through us His Body, making us righteous in fact as we cooperate with His grace.

Sin for us is not a legal transgression..the breaking of a forensic law. It is an illness of the soul cause by our seperation from God that has resulted in the disordering of our passions as we have sought to attach our life to everything but God, Who is Life.

This is a different soteriology from Armenians and Calvinists and the general thrust of Catholic dogma though some elements of this understanding remain.

Here is a link describing key features of Orthodox soterilogy: http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Salvation

Reformationist said:

I must have been predestined to not have any desire to wade through page after page after page of cut and paste jobs from both of primary contributors to this thread.

None of those posts did anything for me and I'm deeply interested in the topic. I'm curious if either of you, Van or Cyg, think that the majority of people even read these long, drawn out cut and paste jobs?

Maybe they're just over my head but, to be honest, do either of you think those types of posts really serve anyone?

God bless

Click to expand...

it is not easy saying what needs saying when time is at a premium ......... apologies for going over your head bro

One thing that keeps occuring to me (I did type it all out and when I tried posting it it disappeared , more time consumed)) is that the Doctrine of mans depravity , ie, mans inability to do anything spiritual cannot mean simply that ......... for there are thousands of Calvinists who have acted spiritually , repenting and coming to Christ in faith , while at the same time recognising spiritual inability.

So it is NOT enough to say man is able to repent and have faith , we know men are "able" ........ the real arguement is over HOW sinners are able ..... some say by Grace , others say by will power.

cygnusx1 said:

it is not easy saying what needs saying when time is at a premium ......... apologies for going over your head bro

Click to expand...

Please don't think the effort isn't appreciated. It certainly is. I simply think that innundating people with information is just as bad as not getting enough. Few people will delve into 5 or 6 pages of cut and paste. It simply becomes a volley to see who can cut and paste faster, know what I mean?

One thing that keeps occuring to me (I did type it all out and when I tried posting it it disappeared , more time consumed)) is that the Doctrine of mans depravity , ie, mans inability to do anything spiritual cannot mean simply that ......... for there are thousands of Calvinists who have acted spiritually , repenting and coming to Christ in faith , while at the same time recognising spiritual inability.

Click to expand...

So it is NOT enough to say man is able to repent and have faith , we know men are "able" ........ the real arguement is over HOW sinners are able ..... some say by Grace , others say by will power.

Click to expand...

And as you well know, Calvinists don't purport man's inability as if the topic exists in a vacuum. We acknowledge that man can, and does, act spiritually and that man can, and does, repent and come to faith. Along with the "how" comes the question of "why," in my opinion.

God bless

Reformationist said:

And as you well know, Calvinists don't purport man's inability as if the topic exists in a vacuum. We acknowledge that man can, and does, act spiritually and that man can, and does, repent and come to faith. Along with the "how" comes the question of "why," in my opinion.

God bless

Click to expand...

Absolutely right bro , and I am pleased someone else can see this point so clearly

It became a deep nagging thought that what is often posted as anti-Reformed Doctrine is little short of propoganda and ill thought out statements ' , ie, "RT is a mistaken view of scripture because it teaches sinners can do nothing (period) and Jesus preached faith and repentance so men can come" ....... etc

Indeed sinners can and do come to Christ and we both know why bro

Hi Reformationist, you are right, folks who copy and paste long posts really are disrupting communication rather than enhancing it. In this thread, Cy has posted up 6 copy and paste blockbusters. My posts 7,8, and 9 might be thought to be copy and paste, but they were actually a verse by verse rebuttal to the assertions concerning total depravity in Cy's copy and paste post #6.

In the same way, my post #18 was a rebuttal to Cy's copy and paste #15.

None of my posts were copies off the internet, I am the author of all of them, so please direct your observations to the one who posts more copy and pastes than anyone.

I see more contortions by the RT advocates, Jesus preaches that the lost can come, RT preaches that only the regenerate can come. In one post they say man is dead and hates god and would not ever come to God, in the next, in the next they say man can come to God, leaving out the part where they come after they are compelled by irresistible grace. Bob and weave, dance and engage in misdirection all you want, RT remains a mistaken view of scripture

Van said:

I see more contortions by the RT advocates, Jesus preaches that the lost can come, RT preaches that only the regenerate can come. In one post they say man is dead and hates god and would not ever come to God, in the next, in the next they say man can come to God, leaving out the part where they come after they are compelled by irresistible grace. Bob and weave, dance and engage in misdirection all you want, RT remains a mistaken view of scripture

Click to expand...

The mistaken view in play here is Van's mistaken view of RT. Van's view has been shown to be mistaken over and over again. he has refuse3d to answer direct questions about his view.

I am still waiting for the scripture which shows that God "accepts our faith as sufficient for His Purposes". Such a concept is foreign to scripture. What Van is saying is that according to this idea, one can believe in God, but if God doesn't see their faith as "good enough" or "sufficient" for His purpose, their faith is in vain.

That, among other things, is the mistaken view of scripture being bandied about in here.

Reformationist said:

I must have been predestined to not have any desire to wade through page after page after page of cut and paste jobs from both of primary contributors to this thread.

None of those posts did anything for me and I'm deeply interested in the topic. I'm curious if either of you, Van or Cyg, think that the majority of people even read these long, drawn out cut and paste jobs?

Maybe they're just over my head but, to be honest, do either of you think those types of posts really serve anyone?

God bless

Click to expand...

Thanks for saying what I was thinking. I don't even think the OPer meant this to be a debate. He was simply asking about the positions people hold in this area of theology. If we can't agree on anything else can we at least agree as to what the various soteriological positions are? No one said you have to agree with all of them. Sadly I don't think many here have a grasp on any positions but their own.

I haven't heard from zerocipher since his OP. I think he was frightened away (or maybe just bored away). Can you blame him?

Van said:

Hi Reformationist, you are right, folks who copy and paste long posts really are disrupting communication rather than enhancing it. In this thread, Cy has posted up 6 copy and paste blockbusters. My posts 7,8, and 9 might be thought to be copy and paste, but they were actually a verse by verse rebuttal to the assertions concerning total depravity in Cy's copy and paste post #6.

In the same way, my post #18 was a rebuttal to Cy's copy and paste #15.

None of my posts were copies off the internet, I am the author of all of them, so please direct your observations to the one who posts more copy and pastes than anyone.

Click to expand...

Well then, it is directed at him. And, for the record, I'm sure that Cyg feels deep, godly sorrow thanks to the gracious way you point out his shortcoming. Thank you for being an example to us all. I mean, after all, you've never done the cut and paste thing before, have you? It's so much more fun to show your ignorance of reformed theology using your own words.

Calminian said:

I don't even think the OPer meant this to be a debate. He was simply asking about the positions people hold in this area of theology.

Click to expand...

Strange...that exact same thing happened in a thread I just started...

I asked what people believed God's purpose was in the atonement and someone, let's call him naV for purposes of discussion, jumped in and instead of explaining his understanding of God's purpose in the atonement, proceeded to tell me that limited atonement was wrong.

Awefully strange trend we seem to be experiencing.

God bless

Reformationist, thanks for your kind if insincere words, but it was you who pointed out the shortcomings of Cy.
And that is right, I never post long blockbuster posts copied off the internet. I do sometimes post snipets from Piper, Pink, Calvin, Augustine, and a few others to provide a foundation for my alternate view of scripture.

I made no effort to debate in this thread with my first post, nor did I respond to the posts of several others who simply were trying to present the various camps. I responded to Cy's efforts to present RT's rebuttal of Arminianism in his post #6.

Van said:

I made no effort to debate in this thread with my first post, nor did I respond to the posts of several others who simply were trying to present the various camps. I responded to Cy's efforts to present RT's rebuttal of Arminianism in his post #6.

Click to expand...

He touched me first mom!

Reformationist said:

Strange...that exact same thing happened in a thread I just started...

I asked what people believed God's purpose was in the atonement and someone, let's call him naV for purposes of discussion, jumped in and instead of explaining his understanding of God's purpose in the atonement, proceeded to tell me that limited atonement was wrong.

Awefully strange trend we seem to be experiencing.

God bless

Click to expand...

Hmm. Sounds like nav is quite the annoying fellow.

More personal attacks, and no content. RT is a mistaken view of scripture and is defended by (1) making false charges, and (2) referring to scripture that demonstates our fallen nature, and asserting our fallen nature includes total spiritual inability of all men at all times. Never mind Jesus taught the unregenerated could receive the gospel with joy, and others could put their heart-felt trust in it and produce much fruit. Since only the regenerate can produce good fruit, therefore Matthew 13 teaches that God accepts the heart-felt faith of the unregenerate, and spiritually places them in Christ where they produce fruit.

Van said:

More personal attacks, and no content. RT is a mistaken view of scripture and is defended by (1) making false charges, and (2) referring to scripture that demonstates our fallen nature, and asserting our fallen nature includes total spiritual inability of all men at all times. Never mind Jesus taught the unregenerated could receive the gospel with joy, and others could put their heart-felt trust in it and produce much fruit. Since only the regenerate can produce good fruit, therefore Matthew 13 teaches that God accepts the heart-felt faith of the unregenerate, and spiritually places them in Christ where they produce fruit.

Click to expand...

Talk about assuming your conclusion in your premise! Van's theology relies on the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion he is trying to prove! That alone disqualifies it from serious consideration. He can bluff and bluster all he wants, he neither knows what Reformed Theology teaches, and has shown a complete lack of interet in learning before he blithely sets about to smear and denigrate that which he quite obviously knows nothing correctly about!