I think that people with a working conscience have the likeness of God still in them.

[GoldenKingGaze]

I think that people with the inner function of the conscience working, so not psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists, have the inner likeness of God in them. They are not totally depraved. Referring to Calvin's teaching. So I do not believe in tarrying in church but sometimes exercise my conscience.

Why do Calvinist's think all are totally depraved?

 

[The Liturgist]

I think that people with the inner function of the conscience working, so not psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists, have the inner likeness of God in them. They are not totally depraved. Referring to Calvin's teaching. So I do not believe in tarrying in church but sometimes exercise my conscience.

Why do Calvinist's think all are totally depraved?

Because those Calvinists who adhere to the Synod of Dort, which if I recall is where the “TULIP” idea originated, are monergists and believe that only an elect that are predetermined can be saved, and not through any individual action on their own.

Now on the one hand God obviously knows who will chose to love Him and who will not, but on the other hand, I don’t think this leads to Calvinism, although I had subscribed to Calvinism in the past, and I will say that Calvinism cannot be disproven as far as I can tell on the basis of the scriptural text alone, but rather, the reason for rejecting it is based, ironically, on Patristics. I say ironically because prior to the “neo-Orthodoxy” of Karl Barth, Calvinists engaged in a great deal of Patristic studies, and even coined the Latin phrase “consensus patrum,” although Calvinists do not accept the consensus patrum on issues such as monergism or iconoclasm, where the early Church Fathers clearly rejected, by a great majority, these errors. Additionally some Calvinists even embrace Nestorianism, although John Calvin did not.

 

[Grip Docility]

Because those Calvinists who adhere to the Synod of Dort, which if I recall is where the “TULIP” idea originated, are monergists and believe that only an elect that are predetermined can be saved, and not through any individual action on their own.

Now on the one hand God obviously knows who will chose to love Him and who will not, but on the other hand, I don’t think this leads to Calvinism, although I had subscribed to Calvinism in the past, and I will say that Calvinism cannot be disproven as far as I can tell on the basis of the scriptural text alone, but rather, the reason for rejecting it is based, ironically, on Patristics. I say ironically because prior to the “neo-Orthodoxy” of Karl Barth, Calvinists engaged in a great deal of Patristic studies, and even coined the Latin phrase “consensus patrum,” although Calvinists do not accept the consensus patrum on issues such as monergism or iconoclasm, where the early Church Fathers clearly rejected, by a great majority, these errors. Additionally some Calvinists even embrace Nestorianism, although John Calvin did not.

Wphewwwwww, you made me break out the dictionary and some encyclopedias! Gratitude. I learned from your post.

 

[Grip Docility]

I think that people with the inner function of the conscience working, so not psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists, have the inner likeness of God in them. They are not totally depraved.

A Small fraction of Scripture that backs up your stance;

Romans 2:12 All those who sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all those who sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For the hearers of the law are not righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous. 14 So, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, instinctively do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law.

This dovetails into James Chapter 2 and 1st Corinthians 13, which is led by the conclusion of 1 Corinthians 12:31. It all anchors to John 13:34,35 and then goes forward to the final conclusive reading of Matthew 25:31-46.

Referring to Calvin's teaching. So I do not believe in tarrying in church but sometimes exercise my conscience.

Why do Calvinist's think all are totally depraved?

Romans 9 is a very specific passage of scripture where Paul is pouring his heart out over Unbelieving Biological Israel. He proceeds to span massive volumes of scripture in a way that is similar to Stephen's Swan song, from Romans chapter 9 to the conclusion of Romans chapter 11.

All and I mean ALL independent theologians have what could be considered "foundational verses" that their entire theology draws from. For me, personally, it is (John 5:39, 1 John 2:27, Romans 8:9, Revelation 12, 1 Corinthians 15:55,56, James 2, 1 Corinthians 13, Matthew 23, Matthew 25:31-46, John 13:34,35 and Hebrews 2:14) It's almost impossible to be in theological dialogue with me, without running into these verses.

In the case of John Calvin, he drew directly from 2 places. Romans 1 and Romans 9. In both cases, contextually speaking, he chose to draw from passages that required not only all 13 confirmed epistles of Paul (Hebrews is perpetually a debate that prevents 14 from factually Being cited) to be exegetically connected for ample context, but Romans 9 requires a majority of all OT writings to be correctly exegeted. John Calvin did not do this. He captured a few verses from Romans 9 and built the foundation of his entire overarching thesis from less than 7 verses from Romans chapter 9. Another issue, at hand is exactly what @The Liturgist brought up. Calvin's use of Patristics drew from extra canonical doctrines to lens scripture through. Beyond this, The Liturgist didn't imply what I am about to write.

The writings of respected historic church fathers are not a bad thing, in and of themselves. Many wonderful things were written. However, through two main figures, Plato and Gnosticism were unintentionally introduced into Canonical "Lens". I say lens in this way. Scripture is scriptures best commentary. However, many choose to build a type of "eyepiece" to view scripture through out of extra biblical writings. If this lens is reinforced by writings of men, upon writings of men, the lens can become potent and thick in a way that drives scripture outside of intended context.

All of this is the answer to your question. I don't desire to connect the dots, because I do love all of my brethren in Christ and thusly only share what my opinion on this matter is to answer your question. I've already spent far too much time writing on this very question in all of my other opinionated writings.

In conclusion to this sharing of my personal opinion, to accost Calvin, personally for this would be wrong. Recently, I realized something. Today, we have access to study tools that didn't exist when prior theologians wrote. Computers place language and translation at our fingertips. All of this expressed, the Same Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ that dwelled in the brethren from Pentecost is the Same Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ that continues to save and seal. To suggest that "theology" saves us would be to speak "Gnosticism". Jesus saves us and that is the final unity and relief of the matter.

One last point... Read Colossians 1 in a close study and it demonstrates how far Jesus Christ's blood flowed. You will see that your opinion on this matter is scripturally supported, in my opinion.

 

[The Liturgist]

Wphewwwwww, you made me break out the dictionary and some encyclopedias! Gratitude. I learned from your post.

Thank you very much, that is very kind of you. I have a rule, that in my posts, I never condescend or talk down to anyone on these forums, because I have extreme confidence in the ability of members to look up the words that I use. Also increasingly since we have search engines and dictionary websites, not to mention numerous excellent theological websites and other resources, like Everand/Scribd, looking up theological terminology has never been so easy.

 

[The Liturgist]

A Small fraction of Scripture that backs up your stance;

Romans 2:12 All those who sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all those who sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For the hearers of the law are not righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous. 14 So, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, instinctively do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law.

This dovetails into James Chapter 2 and 1st Corinthians 13, which is led by the conclusion of 1 Corinthians 12:31. It all anchors to John 13:34,35 and then goes forward to the final conclusive reading of Matthew 25:31-46.

Romans 9 is a very specific passage of scripture where Paul is pouring his heart out over Unbelieving Biological Israel. He proceeds to span massive volumes of scripture in a way that is similar to Stephen's Swan song, from Romans chapter 9 to the conclusion of Romans chapter 11.

All and I mean ALL independent theologians have what could be considered "foundational verses" that their entire theology draws from. For me, personally, it is (John 5:39, 1 John 2:27, Romans 8:9, Revelation 12, 1 Corinthians 15:55,56, James 2, 1 Corinthians 13, Matthew 23, Matthew 25:31-46, John 13:34,35 and Hebrews 2:14) It's almost impossible to be in theological dialogue with me, without running into these verses.

In the case of John Calvin, he drew directly from 2 places. Romans 1 and Romans 9. In both cases, contextually speaking, he chose to draw from passages that required not only all 13 confirmed epistles of Paul (Hebrews is perpetually a debate that prevents 14 from factually Being cited) to be exegetically connected for ample context, but Romans 9 requires a majority of all OT writings to be correctly exegeted. John Calvin did not do this. He captured a few verses from Romans 9 and built the foundation of his entire overarching thesis from less than 7 verses from Romans chapter 9. Another issue, at hand is exactly what @The Liturgist brought up. Calvin's use of Patristics drew from extra canonical doctrines to lens scripture through. Beyond this, The Liturgist didn't imply what I am about to write.

The writings of respected historic church fathers are not a bad thing, in and of themselves. Many wonderful things were written. However, through two main figures, Plato and Gnosticism were unintentionally introduced into Canonical "Lens". I say lens in this way. Scripture is scriptures best commentary. However, many choose to build a type of "eyepiece" to view scripture through out of extra biblical writings. If this lens is reinforced by writings of men, upon writings of men, the lens can become potent and thick in a way that drives scripture outside of intended context.

All of this is the answer to your question. I don't desire to connect the dots, because I do love all of my brethren in Christ and thusly only share what my opinion on this matter is to answer your question. I've already spent far too much time writing on this very question in all of my other opinionated writings.

In conclusion to this sharing of my personal opinion, to accost Calvin, personally for this would be wrong. Recently, I realized something. Today, we have access to study tools that didn't exist when prior theologians wrote. Computers place language and translation at our fingertips. All of this expressed, the Same Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ that dwelled in the brethren from Pentecost is the Same Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ that continues to save and seal. To suggest that "theology" saves us would be to speak "Gnosticism". Jesus saves us and that is the final unity and relief of the matter.

One last point... Read Colossians 1 in a close study and it demonstrates how far Jesus Christ's blood flowed. You will see that your opinion on this matter is scripturally supported, in my opinion.

Could you please edit this post so as to not use the color black for your text? I run the forum using the Dark theme to reduce eyestrain, which works well, except when someone applies the black color to their font.

 

[Grip Docility]

Could you please edit this post so as to not use the color black for your text? I run the forum using the Dark theme to reduce eyestrain, which works well, except when someone applies the black color to their font.

Certainly. I'll switch the black text to a light blue.

 

[Grip Docility]

Could you please edit this post so as to not use the color black for your text? I run the forum using the Dark theme to reduce eyestrain, which works well, except when someone applies the black color to their font.

I changed all of the black to light blue. If it doesn't help, please tell me and suggest another color that might be better than light blue.

 

[The Liturgist]

I changed all of the black to light blue. If it doesn't help, please tell me and suggest another color that might be better than light blue.

That works.

If you use the forum default color by the way, it will automatically display as black with the light color scheme, and as white with the dark color scheme.

 

[FireDragon76]

Just because people have a conscience, doesn't mean they act on it, necessarily.

 

[Grip Docility]

Just because people have a conscience, doesn't mean they act on it, necessarily.

This statement seems conscionable.