A Reformed Understanding of Salvation

[MDC]

You're just proving my point. I said in the beginning that it's a thological system that uses passages of Scripture out of context to try to prove the system. That's just what you've done here. None of this says that man is totally depraved. You simply infered that from taking pastages out of the context and interpreting them in a vacuum. What you've claimed isnt Scriptural you're just misunderstanding those passages because they're out of context

You mean much in the same way you interpret your humanistic understanding of soteriology in scripture? By interpreting them in a vacuum? The only point you proved is that you don't believe Gods Word

 

[Butch5]

You mean much in the same way you interpret your humanistic understanding of soteriology in scripture? By interpreting them in a vacuum? The only point you proved is that you don't believe Gods Word

I haven't interpreted anything. You claimed that Calvinism is Scriptural yet nothing you've said proves that point. The premise of Calvinsim is that all men are totally depraved yet you've given nothing to support this claim except a few passages taken out of context. Nothing you've posted tells us that all men are totally depraved. If the premise can't be established then the doctrine can't be claimed as Scriptural.

 

[MDC]

I haven't interpreted anything. You claimed that Calvinism is Scriptural yet nothing you've said proves that point. The premise of Calvinsim is that all men are totally depraved yet you've given nothing to support this claim except a few passages taken out of context. Nothing you've posted tells us that all men are totally depraved. If the premise can't be established then the doctrine can't be claimed as Scriptural.

And you haven't proved that it's unscriptural. And those scriptures do support my claim. Just because you think it doesn't means nothing. Nothing you have posted can disprove those claims

 

[Butch5]

And you haven't proved that it's unscriptural. And those scriptures do support my claim. Just because you think it doesn't means nothing. Nothing you have posted can disprove those claims

Well, since you claimed they support what you said the onus is on you to prove they are. That's how these things works. You can't just make arbitrary statements and expect people to just believe them just because you said them.

Regarding the passages you posted, your argentire is a fallacy called Begging th Question. You start with the premise that men are totally depraved, look at these passages and conclude that men are totally depraved. That's a fallacy. None of the passages you posted teach that man is totally depraved.

 

[MDC]

Well, since you claimed they support what you said the onus is on you to prove they are. That's how these things works. You can't just make arbitrary statements and expect people to just believe them just because you said them.

Regarding the passages you posted, your argentire is a fallacy called Begging th Question. You start with the premise that men are totally depraved, look at these passages and conclude that men are totally depraved. That's a fallacy. None of the passages you posted teach that man is totally depraved.

No you are the one who got on this thread and said "Calvinism" isn't scriptural. And yet have said nothing to prove your foolish statement. But cowardly make remarks without backing what you believe. It's only fallacy to the natural unregenerate humanist who seeks to make man into what he isn't, and deny Gods Sovereignty. I assume your premise is that man is capable of doing good correct? The old pelagian heresy

 

[Butch5]

No you are the one who got on this thread and said "Calvinism" isn't scriptural. And yet have said nothing to prove your foolish statement. But cowardly make remarks without backing what you believe. It's only fallacy to the natural unregenerate humanist who seeks to make man into what he isn't, and deny Gods Sovereignty. I assume your premise is that man is capable of doing good correct? The old pelagian heresy

I did say that, but I didn't say it to you. You replied to my post and made a claim. A claim you haven't backed up. What I believe ha's no bearing on whether or not Caovinism is Scriptural. There is nothing in Scripture that teaches all men are totally depraved. Therefore the premise is flawed. Until you can show that all men areally totally depraved you have no argument for your system.

 

[MDC]

I did say that, but I didn't say it to you. You replied to my post and made a claim. A claim you haven't backed up. What I believe ha's no bearing on whether or not Caovinism is Scriptural. There is nothing in Scripture that teaches all men are totally depraved. Therefore the premise is flawed. Until you can show that all men areally totally depraved you have no argument for your system.

You made a claim that "Calvinism" isn't scriptural, regardless if it was to me or not. And yet make no effort to prove your humanistic way of thought on how you see mans sinful condition and the soteriology of man according to scriptures. Your belief had everything to do in why you made such a claim to begin with. So therefore it is important or significant in why you say Calvinism is unscriptural. The flaw is in your opinionated foolish remark is all. It is you who has no argument for your man centered system of humanism according to scriptures

 

[Butch5]

You made a claim that "Calvinism" isn't scriptural, regardless if it was to me or not. And yet make no effort to prove your humanistic way of thought on how you see mans sinful condition and the soteriology of man according to scriptures. Your belief had everything to do in why you made such a claim to begin with. So therefore it is important or significant in why you say Calvinism is unscriptural. The flaw is in your opinionated foolish remark is all. It is you who has no argument for your man centered system of humanism according to scriptures

In this discussion you made the first claim. You've not yet proven it. However, I have proven that your premise is flawed. Reformed theology has as it's premise the idea that all men are totally depraved. As evidence I submit the Bible. Nowhere in it so we find the teaching that all men are depraved. Thus the premise is just an opinion and not Scripture.

 

[MDC]

[staff edited]
Lol good one. I'm sure you are knit picking because of your hatred of what you perceive to be Calvinism. I only put that to distinguish true Christianity which "Calvinism" teaches and alone gives glory to God alone in Christ. From apostate Christianity which pelagians and arminians hold to. Which is man centered humanism that conditions salvation in man and denies Gods Sovereign grace and the gospel of Christ.. Is that a good enough answer for you?

 

[MDC]

In this discussion you made the first claim. You've not yet proven it. However, I have proven that your premise is flawed. Reformed theology has as it's premise the idea that all men are totally depraved. As evidence I submit the Bible. Nowhere in it so we find the teaching that all men are depraved. Thus the premise is just an opinion and not Scripture.

You certainly haven't proven anything but given your opinion

 

[Butch5]

Lol good one. I'm sure you are knit picking because of your hatred of what you perceive to be Calvinism. I only put that to distinguish true Christianity which "Calvinism" teaches and alone gives glory to God alone in Christ. From apostate Christianity which pelagians and arminians hold to. Which is man centered humanism that conditions salvation in man and denies Gods Sovereign grace and the gospel of Christ.. Is that a good enough answer for you?

That's interesting since the reformed doctrines don't appear until Augustin and even then we're rejected by the church. Something that appears hundreds of years after Jesup and the apostles can't be "true Christianity".

 

[MDC]

That's interesting since the reformed doctrines don't appear until Augustin and even then we're rejected by the church. Something that appears hundreds of years after Jesup and the apostles can't be "true Christianity".

Yes heard that before from pagan pelagians and arminians

 

[Butch5]

Yes heard that before from pagan pelagians and arminians

That you ignore it speaks volumes

 

[MDC]

That you ignore it speaks volumes

Ignoring only the ignorance of philosophical humanist

 

[Butch5]

Ignoring only the ignorance of philosophical humanist

This is how these discussions always go and I always wonder how someone can ignore the evidence before them

 

[Butch5]

Ignoring only the ignorance of philosophical humanist

Uh Huh, Doesn't the emperor have lovely clothes?

 

[sdowney717]

I did say that, but I didn't say it to you. You replied to my post and made a claim. A claim you haven't backed up. What I believe ha's no bearing on whether or not Caovinism is Scriptural. There is nothing in Scripture that teaches all men are totally depraved. Therefore the premise is flawed. Until you can show that all men areally totally depraved you have no argument for your system.

About all being depraved, God says this from man's youth, v21, about man's evil heart.
I would say, imagination is what men have when there is no God at work within them, and that his imagination's, God calls evil.

God’s Covenant with Creation
20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.

22 “While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
Cold and heat,
Winter and summer,
And day and night
Shall not cease.”

 

[GillDouglas]

I haven't interpreted anything. You claimed that Calvinism is Scriptural yet nothing you've said proves that point. The premise of Calvinsim is that all men are totally depraved yet you've given nothing to support this claim except a few passages taken out of context. Nothing you've posted tells us that all men are totally depraved. If the premise can't be established then the doctrine can't be claimed as Scriptural.

The foundational 1st point of TULIP often causes the most problems because of the title that was given. “Total depravity” can cause people to get the wrong ideas about what it teaches, so people refer to it as “total inability,” “righteous incapability,” or even “radical corruption”. The name is not important but what it teaches, a summary of what the Bible says about the spiritual condition of fallen man, is important.

The doctrine of total depravity is simply the acknowledgement that the Bible teaches, that as a result of the fall of man (Genesis 3:6), every part of man—his mind, will, emotions and flesh—have been affected by sin. In other words, sin has corrupted all areas of our being and every thing that we do. It has penetrated to the core of human nature so that everything we do apart from God is tainted by sin “…all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” before a holy God (Isaiah 64:6). Not only is this in Scripture but can be seen all around us in the fallen world.

Understanding that we are hopelessly incapable of doing anything righteous without the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit is key to trusting in God alone, and not ourselves. It also reminds us that we cannot save ourselves through our attempts at righteousness. Other religions are about checking the boxes to find peace, but through Christ the boxes are already checked and we have peace!

I hope this helps you understand otherwise I can only refer you to the psalms which are chocked full of understanding mans condition since the fall.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The foundational 1st point of TULIP often causes the most problems because of the title that was given. “Total depravity” can cause people to get the wrong ideas about what it teaches, so people refer to it as “total inability,” “righteous incapability,” or even “radical corruption”. The name is not important but what it teaches, a summary of what the Bible says about the spiritual condition of fallen man, is important.

The doctrine of total depravity is simply the acknowledgement that the Bible teaches, that as a result of the fall of man (Genesis 3:6), every part of man—his mind, will, emotions and flesh—have been affected by sin. In other words, sin has corrupted all areas of our being and every thing that we do. It has penetrated to the core of human nature so that everything we do apart from God is tainted by sin “…all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” before a holy God (Isaiah 64:6). Not only is this in Scripture but can be seen all around us in the fallen world.

Understanding that we are hopelessly incapable of doing anything righteous without the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit is key to trusting in God alone, and not ourselves. It also reminds us that we cannot save ourselves through our attempts at righteousness. Other religions are about checking the boxes to find peace, but through Christ the boxes are already checked and we have peace!

I hope this helps you understand otherwise I can only refer you to the psalms which are chocked full of understanding mans condition since the fall.

The problem with the Calvinist rendition of "total depravity" is the claim that man is unable to believe the gospel before regeneration, which cannot be shown from Scripture.

It's obvious that GD isn't going to respond to my posts, since all of them to him have been ignored, but if he believes that regeneration before faith is what leads to faith, then he should provide what he considers biblical evidence for that for the rest of the those who read this thread.

Or, maybe, another Calvinist will step up and provide what they consider biblical evidence for regeneration preceeding faith.

 

[bling]

The foundational 1st point of TULIP often causes the most problems because of the title that was given. “Total depravity” can cause people to get the wrong ideas about what it teaches, so people refer to it as “total inability,” “righteous incapability,” or even “radical corruption”. The name is not important but what it teaches, a summary of what the Bible says about the spiritual condition of fallen man, is important.

The doctrine of total depravity is simply the acknowledgement that the Bible teaches, that as a result of the fall of man (Genesis 3:6), every part of man—his mind, will, emotions and flesh—have been affected by sin. In other words, sin has corrupted all areas of our being and every thing that we do. It has penetrated to the core of human nature so that everything we do apart from God is tainted by sin “…all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” before a holy God (Isaiah 64:6). Not only is this in Scripture but can be seen all around us in the fallen world.

Understanding that we are hopelessly incapable of doing anything righteous without the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit is key to trusting in God alone, and not ourselves. It also reminds us that we cannot save ourselves through our attempts at righteousness. Other religions are about checking the boxes to find peace, but through Christ the boxes are already checked and we have peace!

I hope this helps you understand otherwise I can only refer you to the psalms which are chocked full of understanding mans condition since the fall.

Gill, we are actually in more agreement than you might think:

I fully agree with the concept and idea: “…we are hopelessly incapable of doing anything righteous without the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit” and “…we cannot save ourselves through our attempts at righteousness.”

Just look at the prodigal son story as an example of how it does works without having to believe it is directly about a salvation lost person:

Luke 15: 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything. 17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.

1. The father allowed the son to get himself into a tragic situation (he could only blame himself).
   
   
2. The situation and his own mind brought him to “come to his senses” (the father had not sent anyone).
   
   
3. The son has a choice (this is his free will choice): stay in the pigsty and starve to death (he does need to pay the piper, be macho and take the punishment he deserves, not disturb his father any more with his presence, and maintain what pride [false pride] he can against his brother’s ridicule) or the son can humbly return to the father and hopefully receive some underserving charity which he is willing to accept.
   
   
4. The young son is not doing some “righteous” act out of some “noble motive”, but is selfishly wanting to humbly accept pure charity. The son has done nothing worthy of anything and it might be even more commendable, if he stayed in the pigsty and starved to death (paid the price for his actions and not bothering his father more).
   

This is the way we all are prior to humbly accepting God’s charity.