While We're on the Subject of Total Depravity...

SoaringEagle · Sep 17, 2005

Jesus said Repent and believe in the Gospel.
As many as RECEIVED Him He gave them the right to become children of God.
Jesus said Oh Jerusalem, how I have wanted to gather you.... but you were not willing.

And we have examples of this, some recieved some rejected. Romans says they have a conscience. So though man is enslaved to sin, they have a choice to whether or not they yeild to sin or resist. Some listen to their conscience, some don't. This is why in the end, they will be judged according to THEIR works.

Jesus said, unless you repent, you'll will perish. This is a command. God commands everyone to repent. For God to command someone to do something that they are unable to do, or something that's totally up to Him doesn't make sense. That's just my thoughts, I hope it's ok to speak whats on my heart.

CCWoody · Sep 17, 2005

Received said:
Is it not like -- asking a man without legs to dance?

Or, as the Bible puts it, like asking a man crippled for 38 years to take up his bed and walk:

Joh 5:8 GB
(8) Iesus said vnto him, Rise: take vp thy bed, and walke.

Now, are we to presume that man has the mystical powers to heal himself? Or are we to believe that the Lord commanded the man to do something which was beyond his power and then to provide at his good pleasure to heal to grant the man the power for which he had not hope on his own.

Do you worship a Lord who does for man what he cannot do for himself or do you trust in the power of men to perform?

CCWoody · Sep 17, 2005

frumanchu said:
I certainly wouldn't. Neither would any other Reformed person except in error. The command to repent is indiscriminate between elect and non-elect. The response is not.

It is my belief that almost no non-Calvinist, be they what has been denounced as the Moninist error or other, knows what Calvinism really teaches. They almost invariably accuse us of being either hyper-Calvinists or neo-gnostic Calvinist or some other perversion of the truth.

I think it an escape mechanism for actually dealing with the truth of Calvinism.

edie19 · Sep 17, 2005

CCWoody said:
It is my belief that almost no non-Calvinist, be they what has been denounced as the Moninist error or other, knows what Calvinism really teaches. They almost invariably accuse us of being either hyper-Calvinists or neo-gnostic Calvinist or some other perversion of the truth.

I'd say hyper-Calvinists - hear it fairly frequently. That is, if they know who Calvin was. The other option - that we're a bunch of robots with no minds of our own.

Godzchild · Sep 17, 2005

All men have the ability to hear and faith comes by hearing!

Received · Sep 17, 2005

cygnus said:
Two things Received ,
1. What if the reason man cannot is because he will not ?

cygnus said:
2. What if the reason for man cannot is because he made himself unable (Adam) ?

1. Then it is not a cannot, but a will not. He is still capable of responding, and God has made a realistic demand; the fact that he refuses indicates that by virtue of his free will he rebels against it.

2. I consider it heresy that man has a pre-existing soul that somehow conspired with Adam to sin, and therefore all men, working with Adam, are responsible for Adam's sin. I also consider it unjust to claim that Adam was the "spokesperson" for all mankind, considering how people did not choose him, in not being alive; and you still have the point that these theories are nowhere in scripture.

As far as Calvinist's are concerned most would affirm man does whatever he wants ........ God forces no man against his will.... in that sense man is free.

Yet man is not morally free.

This is a contradiction: "he is free, but he is not free." If the will is determined to follow its greatest desire, this will isn't free, and therefore man isn't free, therefore man has done nothing to add to the equation, for all his "choices" are determined by desires subsequent to him. Thus, to say that God doesn't force anyone against his will is incorrect, for it isn't man's will that he controls in this case -- it is, rather, whatever exists before him and controls his will to choose, which would ultimately go back to God, who created all situations prior to men.

Received · Sep 17, 2005

CCWoody, my responding to you is contingent on your agreement that you will treat me as a human being, refuse to resort to attacks or rage, including not sticking sides with those who hold your own theology and anathemizing those who don't.

I ask this because I know the past, and I want nothing of the past, but only good debate.

Received · Sep 17, 2005

SoaringEagle said:
Jesus said Repent and believe in the Gospel.
As many as RECEIVED Him He gave them the right to become children of God.
Jesus said Oh Jerusalem, how I have wanted to gather you.... but you were not willing.

And we have examples of this, some recieved some rejected. Romans says they have a conscience. So though man is enslaved to sin, they have a choice to whether or not they yeild to sin or resist. Some listen to their conscience, some don't. This is why in the end, they will be judged according to THEIR works.

Jesus said, unless you repent, you'll will perish. This is a command. God commands everyone to repent. For God to command someone to do something that they are unable to do, or something that's totally up to Him doesn't make sense. That's just my thoughts, I hope it's ok to speak whats on my heart.

Indeed, I believe all this to be true, and this is precisely why I am not a Calvinist. For the Calvinist to believe such things as freely receiving, he would establish a contradiction -- precisely because God has demanded that he repents in faith with God's knowledge that He alone holds the capacity for faith. With such a formula (the Reformula, yes, I'm witty) there is no sense in using the words "received" or such, because man does not have the capacity to receive -- this is solely of God.

Received · Sep 17, 2005

Godzchild said:
All men have the ability to hear and faith comes by hearing!

Then, if faith is determined by one's hearing it correctly, those who have not yet heard cannot be demanded to do something they cannot do, namely: hearing a gospel they have not heard, or cannot hear.

Godzchild · Sep 17, 2005

Received said:
Then, if faith is determined by one's hearing it correctly, those who have not yet heard cannot be demanded to do something they cannot do, namely: hearing a gospel they have not heard, or cannot hear.

All will hear eventually, that's why we are commanded to preach the gospel so that all may hear. "He that has an ear, let him hear".

Received · Sep 17, 2005

Ok, so, to get back on subject: if everyone hears, this either means that all, because they have heard, will have faith, or, in hearing, they will reject it, by their freedom, which is sin. So -- you must not be a Calvinist, given that Calvinism upholds that 1) not all men will be saved (held by non-Calvinists as well), and 2) God does not grant all men the capacity to respond in faith, even if they have "heard". If men can respond to this "hearing" through faith -- if this faith is an inevitable outgrowing of hearing -- or reject it through sin, there is freedom here, which does not line up with the Calvinist conception of total depravity.

What I'm saying is: if faith comes inevitably from hearing, and all will hear, why is it that not all will have faith? This ability to hear and then reject indicates to me freedom, specifically the freedom to work outside of faith, which is precisely sin (cf. Romans 14:23).

Godzchild · Sep 18, 2005

Received said:
Ok, so, to get back on subject: if everyone hears, this either means that all, because they have heard, will have faith, or, in hearing, they will reject it, by their freedom, which is sin. So -- you must not be a Calvinist, given that Calvinism upholds that 1) not all men will be saved (held by non-Calvinists as well), and 2) God does not grant all men the capacity to respond in faith, even if they have "heard". If men can respond to this "hearing" through faith -- if this faith is an inevitable outgrowing of hearing -- or reject it through sin, there is freedom here, which does not line up with the Calvinist conception of total depravity.

I believe that all men have the capacity to respond through faith to accept God's gift of salvation.

What I'm saying is: if faith comes inevitably from hearing, and all will hear, why is it that not all will have faith? This ability to hear and then reject indicates to me freedom, specifically the freedom to work outside of faith, which is precisely sin (cf. Romans 14:23).

I believe that working outside of faith comes into 'willful' sin. One 'willfully' wishes to continue in their sin DESPITE being enlightened by the Holy Spirit through the gospel. This then starts to creep into blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

And no, I'm not a calvinist (yet)

Received · Sep 18, 2005

Ah! You little devil! Trying to swerve me, eh!

Well, then it seems I agree with you, so no need to debate.

Cajun Huguenot · Sep 18, 2005

Received said:
Then, if faith is determined by one's hearing it correctly, those who have not yet heard cannot be demanded to do something they cannot do, namely: hearing a gospel they have not heard, or cannot hear.

I think the Apostle Paul would disagree with you at this point. Rememeber what he wrote to the Romans, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

Man has God's image imprinted in his being. Even fallen man Knows there is a God but does not worship the true God except when the Holy Spirit makes them to hear the Gospel. All men are without excuse.

In Christ,
Kenith

Received · Sep 18, 2005

Pehraps you can understand my frustration when I say that I would not be able to accept Paul's saying if he meant what you said he did, because then Paul would be contradicting the rest of the gospel in the interpretation of Calvinism.

Nevertheless, the traditional understanding of Romans 1 has been something unconditional: all men know God, all men rebel against him. But I find it possible to interpret it conditionally: all those who rebel against God in such a fashion are without excuse.

Also, does the text indicate an eternal hell as punishment for this behavior, whether universal or conditional? No. From what I understand, eternal hell is admitted once someone rebels against Christ -- who is the deepest reveleation of God.

Furthermore, if all men naturally rebel against God, doesn't this make God look pretty...well...unattractive? I don't like this idea. God is beautiful; we only need an explanation or reveleation of his beauty before we are to a large degree (the Calvinist would say to a full degree) involuntarily dragged to Him.

But -- gah -- this debate is beside the point of the thread. You can respond, but I'll try and control myself to let you have the last word.

Cheers,

John

Cajun Huguenot · Sep 18, 2005

Hello Recieved,

Thanks for the comments. I believe my understanding of what Paul is saying in no way contradicts "the rest of the gospel in the interpretation of Calvinism." In fact think it is the consistent Calvinistic slant.

I think men reject god because they are fallen and by nature are in rebelion against the God of the Bible. It is not because, as you say "if all men naturally rebel against God, doesn't this make God look pretty...well...unattractive?." It is because men are fallen and corrupted in their natures and therefore reject God and replace him by false God's that are figments of their fallen imaginations.

I think the traditional interpretation of Romans one is the correct one.

Thanks again,
In Christ
Kenith

Received · Sep 18, 2005

But, if it is their nature, and given that this nature is congenital (from birth), and it is obviously God who forces them into existence, and given that they cannot attain faith and repent of this depravity on their own -- if all these things are so, how is it that it is their fault?

Cajun Huguenot · Sep 18, 2005

Received said:
But, if it is their nature, and given that this nature is congenital (from birth), and it is obviously God who forces them into existence, and given that they cannot attain faith and repent of this depravity on their own -- if all these things are so, how is it that it is their fault?

Recieved,

That is a very good question. I hope you will allow to suggest a link. It is to an article I posted a while back that I think addressess what you ask. It is here: Romans 9:14-20

In Christ,
Kenith

cygnusx1 · Sep 18, 2005

Received said:
But, if it is their nature, and given that this nature is congenital (from birth), and it is obviously God who forces them into existence, and given that they cannot attain faith and repent of this depravity on their own -- if all these things are so, how is it that it is their fault?

Hi received , let me just for a minute turn the question on it's head ........

Those who are saved are not saved by their own personal works , instead they are saved By Grace Through Faith unto good works .

The believer is saved by the Righteousness of Christ .... Imputed to him/her.

Now how is it that men can be saved by anothers righteousness ........ inheriting eternal life and having God as their God without one single human work , how is THAT not UNFAIR?

Received · Sep 18, 2005

cyg,

I'm not interested in fair/unfair, I'm interested in contradition/non-contradiction.

If men are demanded by God to be saved, to not be depraved, and God upholds the power to allow an individual to be saved, how is this sensical? To me, it isn't; it is a contradiction. God is holding back one's oxygen and saying: "breathe!"

While We're on the Subject of Total Depravity...

Regular Member

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

Legend

Well-Known Member

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

Well-Known Member

True love waits in haunted attics

Well-Known Member

True love waits in haunted attics

Cajun's for Christ

True love waits in haunted attics

Cajun's for Christ

True love waits in haunted attics

Cajun's for Christ

Jacob the twister.....

True love waits in haunted attics

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency