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.
Yes, you are right about that. And it did cross my mind for a second as I was typing, but you see that it's churches like the Catholic Church which are most often contrasted with the Reformed (Calvinist) type, and they do teach what I wrote in conjunction with affirming the concept we call freewill.That is not accurate. I believe in free will and I also believe that salvation is by grace through faith and not by works.
Nope, I will not take the bait and YOU CAN’T MAKE ME.Receiving the Holy Spirit before turning to God as a doctrine is no small thing. It`s where the Calvin irresistible grace, forced salvation doctrine comes from. It`s the core corrupting doctrine IMO.
Yep ... it's all a soap opera ... with all of the roles, acts, and consequences already assigned.The idea that God is behind mankind’s will and disposition really blows up the idea that rewards and punishment are anything more than divine drama, divorced from any intelligible standard of deserving merit or demerit.
I get that. But, in my view it wouldn't make any sense to prefer a different outcome than what God wants since I know that He knows best. But, I understand it's not easy to look at things that way, especially as it concerns lost loved ones.A helpful way for many to understand the prefer question it is by virtue of universalism, which many Christians firmly believe isn’t true (but due to lost loved ones often prefer that it was true.)
I use the example of a car crash or something that results in a fatal injury, so although I might come across an injured man and know for a fact that he won’t survive, my preference against all odds is that he’d live and go on to have a full happy life.
Our preferences in life are often divorced from the bare facts.
Okay, I see. Maybe just be a bit more specific next time, but it's fine.Yes, you are right about that. And it did cross my mind for a second as I was typing, but you see that it's churches like the Catholic Church which are most often contrasted with the Reformed (Calvinist) type, and they do teach what I wrote in conjunction with affirming the concept we call freewill.
But in between all of that weirdness would be the fact that I’d offer the Gospel to loads of people for whom Jesus didn’t die and who God has no intention to save. There’s something very disingenuous about that.
I was asking you whether you believe that Jesus could have a friend who He loved so much that He wept when He heard of his death if that friend, Lazuras, was ”totally depraved” (whatever that's supposed to mean - it's not a biblical term or concept)
I'm not interested in what Calvanists think. I'm asking what you believe.
These statements are not congruent.
It's one thing to "fall short" ... and another to purpose to commit evil ...
Philosophically it’s called “the insincere offer of the Gospel.” Loving evangelism as I do, I’d never feel comfortable sharing Gods gift in a retarded form like “Jesus died for you…perhaps.” Nor would I feel at ease saying Jesus died for sinners when (for all I know) everyone in the church hall is unsaved (possibly including myself!!!!!)
For that reason I’d prefer it if Calvinism weren’t true.
The big banana peel to that however is that, at least according to five point Calvinism, God is the reason that people are utterly depraved.
The sovereign God is in total control and the first cause of their wicked disposition, which is to hate God and to choose even death over him, so it’s not like people prefer wickedness and God has taken up the neutral position, choosing instead to avoid the sinful man, rather God has caused their first estate and now refuses to remove some from their misery.
@Hmm pointed out isn’t our behaviour valuable, aren’t we rewarded for our good deeds and punished on the basis of our bad, and that’s a common Christian belief. Every man will be rewarded “according to his works.” The works however are an outgrowth of mans desires and natural disposition, yet we know in Calvinism God moves the mans natural disposition to either will righteousness or wickedness. The works happening at all isn’t in his control but rather Gods.
God furthermore, according to total depravity anyway, isn’t an option for the sinful man. Total depravity houses inability, that’s why total depravity is really such an odd subject, because many Christians think they believe in it while in fact rejecting it’s hidden premises.
Total depravity and its hidden aspect of inability means that man can’t want God until God wants man first. But God won’t ever want some men according to the L of limited atonement, meaning it’s really Gods initiative that would save sinful man so as to reward them for their good deeds.
Instead God decides to damn those men rather than to save.
I believe Jesus weeps for all of us when He sees our lack of faith. He loves us all as much as Lazarus. Jesus had already told the disciples that He was going to awaken Lazarus well before the time later when He wept. Was he weeping for Lazarus then already knowing that Lazarus would not be dead but alive ? Or was he weeping for for another reason when he arrived and Martha and the people told Him that if He had been there earlier Lazarus would not have died?
I agree that, according to Calvinists I have listened to, God is sovereign and nothing is done of free will. That being the case, it should be logically impossible for a Calvinist to deny that God caused the total depravity.
I don't know. Perhaps he was simply weeping because his friend had died. He was fully human after all.
I was really just asking about the Calvanist concept of "totally depravity" because it's something that makes zero to to me. As I understand it, total depravity means that we are so corrupt and filthy etc that we can't even make a positive response to God. That being so, how is it that Jesus, who is God, and Lazarus were personal friends? To have developed an actual friendship with Jesus, would have had to have responded positively to God but if he was totally depraved how could he have done that?
So obviously Jesus has no problem loving even the totally depraved He even loves His enemies and advises us to do the same.
I don't see your line of argument as convincing or even thought provoking to a Calvinist.
If you want to argue the total depravity point with a Calvinist perhaps you ask the Calvinist if humans are totally depraved and Jesus was fully human what does that say about Jesus?
I agree, that would necessarily follow. God would have had to have pulled the trigger of every gun that had ever killed anyone. So the idea is false.
You believe it is false based upon your self evident assumptions, your experience and your reasoning mind
You don't seem to grasp my question. I was asking how Lazuras can respond in friendship to Jesus if he is "totally depraved" and therefore unable to respond to God in anyway. Do you see a contradiction there?
I have no desire to discuss anything with a Calvanist as I keep saying to you. I was just wondering what your thoughts were.
No, I believe it is false because God doesn't go around shooting people. If you regard that as an assumption and not a truth then I don't know what to say tbh.
I don't either but it is not an impossibility. With God nothing is impossible.I don't think that's how relationships work, even relationships with God.
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?