Peter and Total Depravity

[Jesus My Wisdom]

One example we can show from Scriptrure to prove the doctrine of Total Depravity (as defined by Calvinism / Total Inablity) totally wrong is the life of Peter.

When was Peter born again /regenerate?

1. Before Jesus called him to be an apostle?
2. When Jesus called him to be an apostle?
3. When he confessed Jesus as the Christ?
4. When Jesus breathed the Spirit into him?
5. Pentecost

It is a fact of Scripture that God does not leave his children without the Holy Spirit. Born again believers have the Holy Spirit.

It is also a fact that the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity teaches you do not believe to be born again but you are born again to believe.

It is also a fact of Scripture that Peter did not receive the Holy Spirit until Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, Jesus tells his disciples they couldn't and John also tells us the same in that Gospel.

Hence, the Reformed/Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity is proven wrong because:

Peter confessed Christ before he was born again.
Peter believed in Christ before he was born again.
Peter obeyed Christ before he was born again.

JMW

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

One example we can show from Scriptrure to prove the doctrine of Total Depravity (as defined by Calvinism / Total Inablity) totally wrong is the life of Peter.

When was Peter born again /regenerate?

1. Before Jesus called him to be an apostle?
2. When Jesus called him to be an apostle?
3. When he confessed Jesus as the Christ?
4. When Jesus breathed the Spirit into him?
5. Pentecost

It is a fact of Scripture that God does not leave his children without the Holy Spirit. Born again believers have the Holy Spirit.

It is also a fact that the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity teaches you do not believe to be born again but you are born again to believe.

It is also a fact of Scripture that Peter did not receive the Holy Spirit until Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, Jesus tells his disciples they couldn't and John also tells us the same in that Gospel.

Hence, the Reformed/Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity is proven wrong because:

Peter confessed Christ before he was born again.
Peter believed in Christ before he was born again.
Peter obeyed Christ before he was born again.

JMW

Surely there must be someone out there who will try to take a stab at this.

Then we can move on to Abraham. That one is even MORE interesting.

JMW

 

[blackwasp]

Technically, Peter was chosen to God's riches before the foundation of the world (Ephesians). Your argument here is silly; Peter came to Christ because Christ called him and he had no choice but to submit to God's calling.

Please move on to Abraham.

 

[msortwell]

JMW - You entire argument begins with the following statement:

It is a fact of Scripture that God does not leave his children without the Holy Spirit. Born again believers have the Holy Spirit.

You state that, "Born again believer have the Holy Spirit." You state that it is a fact of Scripture . . . I challenge you to prove it!

You will not be unable to prove it so I will continue.

You see brother, your argument BEGINS with the assumption that the Arminian view of regeneration and indwelling of the Holy Ghost is true. You then use that false doctrine as you proceed to "prove" that those that hold a position different from yours are wrong.

As I believe you know, the reformed view holds that regeneration is the first saving act of the Holy Ghost. At that time the Holy Ghost does not indwell the regenerate. The regenerate must first come to saving faith. When an individual trusts in Christ (in our current religious economy) he receives the indwelling Spirit. This was not the case before Christ ascended and prayed that the Father would send the Spirit.

Therefore, the acts of Peter that demonstrate his faith are of no challenge to the Calvinist's theology.

FYI - Those that hold the reformed view believe that the Old Testament saints were born again, but not indwelled by the Holy Ghost.

mrsortwell

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

JMW - You entire argument begins with the following statement:



You state that, "Born again believer have the Holy Spirit." You state that it is a fact of Scripture . . . I challenge you to prove it!

Sure. See 2 Corinthians 13:5. If Christ is not in you then you are reprobate. See Romans 8:9-11 for more help. Examine yourself now.

Are you going to try and tell me that a regenerate man will not believe now too? See Gal 3:3 on that one.

You will not be unable to prove it so I will continue.

Wrong again.

You see brother, your argument BEGINS with the assumption that the Arminian view of regeneration and indwelling of the Holy Ghost is true.

Wrong. If you want to debate an Arminian, I suggest you go find one.

You then use that false doctrine as you proceed to "prove" that those that hold a position different from yours are wrong.

Actually, this is precisely the modus operandi of Calvinism - heaping one mistake upon another.

As I believe you know, the reformed view holds that regeneration is the first saving act of the Holy Ghost. At that time the Holy Ghost does not indwell the regenerate. The regenerate must first come to saving faith. When an individual trusts in Christ (in our current religious economy)

Sounds almost like a dispy Calvinist.

he receives the indwelling Spirit. This was not the case before Christ ascended and prayed that the Father would send the Spirit.

So then,. you confess that Peter did not believe unto salvation prior to the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Let's be very clear now and nail that down k?

Therefore, the acts of Peter that demonstrate his faith are of no challenge to the Calvinist's theology.

Acts that demonstrate his faith? Which acts?

FYI - Those that hold the reformed view believe that the Old Testament saints were born again, but not indwelled by the Holy Ghost.

mrsortwell

Are you sure about that? Or should we check and see what John Calvin says?

Moroever, you forgot to put John the Baptist in the equation.

JMW

 

[blackwasp]

Are you sure about that? Or should we check and see what John Calvin says?
JMW

If your other posts weren't enough, this one shows that your whole point is to belittle calvinists, not to learn the truth of the gospels.

FYI, chances are you would get more from reading Calvin's expository commentaries on scripture than manipulating scriptures to create an arminian Baal.

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

If your other posts weren't enough, this one shows that your whole point is to belittle calvinists, not to learn the truth of the gospels.

FYI, chances are you would get more from reading Calvin's expository commentaries on scripture than manipulating scriptures to create an arminian Baal.

Firstly, I am not an Arminian. What they taught you down at Calvinist central is one thing. The truth is another.

Secondly, it is the Calvinist crowd who first responded with a puffed up attitude. Apparently, being deflated does not amuse them.

Thirdly, if we were to read Calvin's Commentaries on this particular matter, I do believe msortwell would have to disagree with Mr. Calvin. We will play that card at the right time.

"Some say I follow Luther, some say I follow Calvin...."

1 Cor 1:12

JMW

 

[msortwell]

One example we can show from Scriptrure to prove the doctrine of Total Depravity (as defined by Calvinism / Total Inablity) totally wrong is the life of Peter.

When was Peter born again /regenerate?

I do not know. Neither do you. But it certainly might speed things along if you would let me know when you believe he was born again.

It is a fact of Scripture that God does not leave his children without the Holy Spirit. Born again believers have the Holy Spirit.

Essentially true.

It is also a fact that the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity teaches you do not believe to be born again but you are born again to believe.

Also essentially true.

It is also a fact of Scripture that Peter did not receive the Holy Spirit until Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, Jesus tells his disciples they couldn't and John also tells us the same in that Gospel.

I would have no objections to your statement.

Hence, the Reformed/Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity is proven wrong because:

Peter confessed Christ before he was born again.
Peter believed in Christ before he was born again.
Peter obeyed Christ before he was born again.

But . . . what indicator / evidence do you offer for the timing of Peter's second birth? Thus far you have only offered: 1) a time reference for Peter receiving the Holy Spirit, and 2) a time reference for Peter displaying belief in Christ.

I could have missed something in your argument. But I read it a few times.

Where is the evidence for the timing of the second birth of Peter?

Please explain to me. Since you do not identify the timing of Peter's second birth. How have you shown that Peter exhibited saving faith (or belief) before his second birth. Either I am missing something in your argument or you're just making things up!

Which of the statements that you have made in this post relate to when Peter was born again?

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

I do not know. Neither do you. But it certainly might speed things along if you would let me know when you believe he was born again.



Essentially true.



Also essentially true.



I would have no objections to your statement.



But . . . what indicator / evidence do you offer for the timing of Peter's second birth? Thus far you have only offered: 1) a time reference for Peter receiving the Holy Spirit, and 2) a time reference for Peter displaying belief in Christ.

I could have missed something in your argument. But I read it a few times.

Where is the evidence for the timing of the second birth of Peter?

Please explain to me. Since you do not identify the timing of Peter's second birth. How have you shown that Peter exhibited saving faith (or belief) before his second birth. Either I am missing something in your argument or you're just making things up!

Which of the statements that you have made in this post relate to when Peter was born again?

You already responded to that post. What is this? A "do over?" Are you changing your opinion now? Can you respond to my response above? Or are we backtracking and starting over? What is going on here with this post when you have addressed it already? A "do over?"

JMW

 

[billwald]

John 3 is universally misinterpreted. The purpose is not to define a new theological phrase, "born again," but to indicate that whatever it means, humans have no control over it. Neither is there any way to identify one's state of "being born again" apart from one's good works. So whatever Peter may have said or done has nothing to do with the the timing of his "being born again."

It should be obvious to any Reformed person that the purpose of evangelism is not to cause people to become "born again" but to identify those who have already at some time in the past - maybe from the Creation - been "born again" and welcome them into the covenant community.

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

John 3 is universally misinterpreted. The purpose is not to define a new theological phrase, "born again," but to indicate that whatever it means, humans have no control over it. Neither is there any way to identify one's state of "being born again" apart from one's good works. So whatever Peter may have said or done has nothing to do with the the timing of his "being born again."

Irrelevant. The point is that he believed and obeyed God before being born again was even possible. Jesus was the firstBORN out of the dead.

It should be obvious to any Reformed person that the purpose of evangelism is not to cause people to become "born again" but to identify those who have already at some time in the past - maybe from the Creation - been "born again" and welcome them into the covenant community.

LOL.

You were born again at creation now were you?

JMW

 

[msortwell]

You already responded to that post. What is this? A "do over?" Are you changing your opinion now? Can you respond to my response above? Or are we backtracking and starting over? What is going on here with this post when you have addressed it already? A "do over?"

JMW

No, not a "do over" exactly. I'm simply trying to understand your first response.

It was clear from your original response that I hadn't understood the point you were trying to make. Nor did I understand the basis upon which you were making that point.

This didn't really "click" for me until I read one of your responses in another thread. That post related seemed to relate to that which occurs and/or gives evidence of the second birth and might support your claim that you had provided evidence that Peter had evidenced right decisions toward Christ before he was born again.

Based upon what I thought I understood you believed from this thread, and what I read in the other, I expected that one (or more) of following three things were true:

1) I had not properly understood what you were saying in this thread.

2) I had not understood what you said in the other thread. (However, that statement was pretty straight forward, so I dismissed this one).

3) You were being inconsisent.

With this in mind I asked for further information regarding you position offered in this thread.

Your response to my request was of no help whatsoever, since it provided no information. Thanks for nothing.

However, you did (I believe) provide the answer to my request in a subsequent post on this thread. You believe that Jesus resurrection must precede the regeneration of any others because of the Biblical text proclaiming Him to be the firstborn from among the dead. Is that the case? Does that, in your judgement, prove that Peter was not born again until after Jesus's resurrection?

If you pointed that out sooner in the thread, feel free to point it out. I may have missed it.

If you affirm that this is your evidence for the validity of your original post please confirm that and we can move forward in the discussion.

By His Grace,

msortwell

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

However, you did (I believe) provide the answer to my request in a subsequent post on this thread. You believe that Jesus resurrection must precede the regeneration of any others because of the Biblical text proclaiming Him to be the firstborn from among the dead. Is that the case? Does that, in your judgement, prove that Peter was not born again until after Jesus's resurrection?

In fact, that truth alone does prove the case Peter was not yet born again. however, it is not the only fact of Scripture which proves this. There are many others as well.

JMW

 

[G4m]

One example we can show from Scriptrure to prove the doctrine of Total Depravity (as defined by Calvinism / Total Inablity) totally wrong is the life of Peter.

When was Peter born again /regenerate?

1. Before Jesus called him to be an apostle?
2. When Jesus called him to be an apostle?
3. When he confessed Jesus as the Christ?
4. When Jesus breathed the Spirit into him?
5. Pentecost

It is a fact of Scripture that God does not leave his children without the Holy Spirit. Born again believers have the Holy Spirit.

It is also a fact that the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity teaches you do not believe to be born again but you are born again to believe.

It is also a fact of Scripture that Peter did not receive the Holy Spirit until Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, Jesus tells his disciples they couldn't and John also tells us the same in that Gospel.

Hence, the Reformed/Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity is proven wrong because:

Peter confessed Christ before he was born again.
Peter believed in Christ before he was born again.
Peter obeyed Christ before he was born again.

JMW

Peter also denied even knowing Jesus, before being baptised with the Spirit:

Luke 22
34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

 

[Reformationist]

JMW, did you get beat up by a Calvinist or something? I've yet to see a post of your's that wasn't an attempt to specifically debate, or rather degrade, the tenets of Calvinism.

Repeated rambling and raging against a particular group of people even gets old to those that support your view, how ever few and far between they may be.

 

[msortwell]

JMW

In a previous post I paraphrased what I understood regarding the basis upon which you believe the Scriptures to indicate that Peter bore evidence of a right perception of Christ prior to his regeneration. Were this to be true it would, in my judgment, prove wrong the Calvinist view of being "dead in sin."

I stated, "You believe that Jesus's resurrection must precede the regeneration of any others because of the Biblical text proclaiming Him to be the firstborn from among the dead." Your response was . . .

In fact, that truth alone does prove the case Peter was not yet born again. however, it is not the only fact of Scripture which proves this. There are many others as well.JMW

I hold to a different interpretation of the verse proclaiming Jesus as "the firstborn from the dead." It doesn't make sense to me that this could mean that Jesus was the first to be "born again," not in the way that you or I needed to be born again. Firstly, Jesus was never spiritually dead. Lacking the inherited sin nature from Adam, Jesus was born fully alive: body, mind, and spirit.

Unless there is Biblical evidence that I am not considering, the death that Jesus suffered was limited to physical death. Consequently, the resurrection that He experienced was a physical resurrection. I believe that the "birth" or "bringing forth" that is referred to (Col 1:18), is the physical resurrection of the righteous in Christ. And there is evidence within Col chapter 1 identifying that Jesus being referred to as the "firstborn from the dead" related to the raising of the physical body. Christ's body was raised first, and the bodies of the righteous in Christ are to be raised on the Day of the Lord. On that day the righteous in Christ will appear (be presented) before the great white throne. Consider:

Col 1:18-22
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sightKJV)

It seems that there is sufficient cause to consider Jesus status as "firstborn" to be (at least) the firstborn among those fully restored to their humanity including: body, mind, and spirit.

You mentioned that this was not the only evidence to prove your case. Would you care to offer the other evidence that you alluded to?

By His Grace,

msortwell

 

[msortwell]

Peter also denied even knowing Jesus, before being baptised with the Spirit:

Peter would have been in a very similar condition as the Old Testament believers. He would likely have been born-again (based upon Christ's testimony of Him in Matt 16:17), but not yet sealed and indwelled by the Holy Ghost.

Knowing my own struggles with sin (refer to Romans 7 for a description of a similar battle), even though I have the Spirit of God living within me, I find it of little surprise that Peter sinned in such a fashion. We may debate over whether or not he was born again, but I am sure we agree that he was not indwelled and was left to battle temptation absent that spirit that works in believers today.

Phil 2:13
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.(KJV)

Still, this transgression of Peter's does not speak to whether or not he was born again. It does prove that he was weak at that time.

By Grace,

msortwell

 

[nobdysfool]

JMW

In a previous post I paraphrased what I understood regarding the basis upon which you believe the Scriptures to indicate that Peter bore evidence of a right perception of Christ prior to his regeneration. Were this to be true it would, in my judgment, prove wrong the Calvinist view of being "dead in sin."

I stated, "You believe that Jesus's resurrection must precede the regeneration of any others because of the Biblical text proclaiming Him to be the firstborn from among the dead." Your response was . . .



I hold to a different interpretation of the verse proclaiming Jesus as "the firstborn from the dead." It doesn't make sense to me that this could mean that Jesus was the first to be "born again," not in the way that you or I needed to be born again. Firstly, Jesus was never spiritually dead. Lacking the inherited sin nature from Adam, Jesus was born fully alive: body, mind, and spirit.

Unless there is Biblical evidence that I am not considering, the death that Jesus suffered was limited to physical death. Consequently, the resurrection that He experienced was a physical resurrection. I believe that the "birth" or "bringing forth" that is referred to (Col 1:18), is the physical resurrection of the righteous in Christ. And there is evidence within Col chapter 1 identifying that Jesus being referred to as the "firstborn from the dead" related to the raising of the physical body. Christ's body was raised first, and the bodies of the righteous in Christ are to be raised on the Day of the Lord. On that day the righteous in Christ will appear (be presented) before the great white throne. Consider:

Col 1:18-22
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sightKJV)

It seems that there is sufficient cause to consider Jesus status as "firstborn" to be (at least) the firstborn among those fully restored to their humanity including: body, mind, and spirit.

You mentioned that this was not the only evidence to prove your case. Would you care to offer the other evidence that you alluded to?

By His Grace,

msortwell

Amen, and Amen, brother! Well said!

 

[nobdysfool]

Peter would have been in a very similar condition as the Old Testament believers. He would likely have been born-again (based upon Christ's testimony of Him in Matt 16:17), but not yet sealed and indwelled by the Holy Ghost.

Knowing my own struggles with sin (refer to Romans 7 for a description of a similar battle), even though I have the Spirit of God living within me, I find it of little surprise that Peter sinned in such a fashion. We may debate over whether or not he was born again, but I am sure we agree that he was not indwelled and was left to battle temptation absent that spirit that works in believers today.

Phil 2:13
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.(KJV)

Still, this transgression of Peter's does not speak to whether or not he was born again. It does prove that he was weak at that time.

By Grace,

msortwell

And again, Amen! By George, I think you've got it!

 

[theseed]

Matthew 7

A Tree and Its Fruit

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

We read here that those do good works will automatically qualify for eternal life, but one has to know Jesus personally.

So Peter's confessing Christ was not enough, even demons do the same. But it takes the Spirit of God to know God. (1 Cor. 2.14). We only know Christ because God explains Him (John 1.18), otherwise darkness could not understand the light (John 1.5).