Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Originally posted by SUNSTONE
I don't believe that man is scum bags who just can't help themselves from sinning.
Originally posted by Br. Max
For man to be TOTALLY depraved it would require it to be impossible for man to do anything that is in any way good.
That is simply not the case.
There are examples everyday of self sacrifice by non-Christians.
Originally posted by Br. Max
For man to be TOTALLY depraved it would require it to be impossible for man to do anything that is in any way good. That is simply not the case. There are examples everyday of self sacrifice by non-Christians.
Originally posted by Defender of the Faith 777
What part of Calvinism do you not agree with, and what part of Arminianism do you agree with?
Originally posted by Blackhawk
I believe in many ways in limited atonement. God knew not all would be saved and when Christ died it was practically only for the elect. I do think God offers salvation to all but the real question is can all accept His offer? Another words God said if yanyone has faith in me then they will be saved. But can all have this faith? Here is where I kind of deviate from Calvinism. I think that some have a better chance of having the faith but all have a chance.
Originally posted by seebs
I've always been curious about the "totally depraved" and "grace" thing. I see people do things that sure don't *look* evil, and they don't all believe in God...
So what does that mean? Grace is found in everyone?
If so, what exactly is the meaningful difference between "we are totally depraved, but God grants us grace" and "we have both good and evil in us"?
Originally posted by cenimo
Jesus came to save all, and all means all, not any Calvinistic twisting of the definition of all (one from this nation, one from that nations, means all nations)
Calvinism and Acts 16:30-31 cannot both be right, IMHO.
Originally posted by SnuP
Man has the freedom to choose to do what ever he wants, both good and evil. But both of these choices are evil in God's eyes since they are not Godly. You can choose to do good or evil or you can choose to do what God tells you. Only the last choice is the right one since the first two are out of mans flesh.
This second statement is in reference to Romans 8. The problem is that in studing the scripture so many have become so ingrossed in trying to figure it out that they forgot about the first part of verse 29. For those God foreknew.
For those God foreknew. God foreknew everyone. And now for the rest of the verse. He predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son.
God has predestined everyone to be conformed to the likeness of His Son.
But since not everyone enters into that predestination, those people can not pertake of the calling, the justification, of the glory.
All of these things must be recieved and agreed with for them to take effect in a persons life.
Originally posted by Reformationist
I don't mean to step on any toes DotF777, but I'd like to address this. It's very important to note that the natural capacity for choosing God was not lost in the Fall. What was lost was the moral inclination. As I stated before (I'm not sure if it was this thread) Jonathan Edwards sums this up very concisely. He said that "man will always choose according to his greatest desire or inclination at the moment." Calvinism does not teach that man could not choose God, rather that he never would choose God because unregenerate man's greatest desire is never to please God. For example, if you desire to lose weight you might go on a diet. Now, right after you eat it is very easy to say, "I'm going to lose weight." However, a number of hours later you will get hungry. If all things stayed the same we would basically encounter a deadlocked battle of one against the other. However, things do not stay the same. Gradually, your desire for nourishment will increase and your desire to remain steadfast on your diet will relationally decrease. As soon as your desire for food is greater than your desire to lose weight you will eat. In a spiritual context this would work the same way. For a regenerate person they have both the desire to please the flesh and the desire to please God. Let's say you have a girlfriend. You may desire to please your flesh and be with her sexually while at the same time desiring to be obedient to God's Word. You will be obedient until such time as your desire to please your fleshly lusts exceeds your desire to remain obedient to God. When it reaches that point, you will sin.
BH, I strongly recommend the book Grace Unknown by R. C. Sproul. It is absolutely incredible and explains every single thing in such a clear concise way that when you get done reading it you'll wonder why you haven't always seen things so clearly.
God bless [/B]
Originally posted by cenimo
One of the best statements I've ever seen in this argument was by a former homosexual, who said when he was in that lifestyle and needed something to blame it on predestination fit like a glove.
To try and conince people that some have no hope and never will have is hardly evangelizing. [/B]
Jesus came to save all, and all means all, not any Calvinistic twisting of the definition of all (one from this nation, one from that nations, means all nations) [/B]
Calvinism and Acts 16:30-31 cannot both be right, IMHO. [/B]
Well Jesaiah already addressed this but I will also. jesus obviously knew before he came down to earth who was going to be saved and who was not. Right? So Jesus did not come to save all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?