Posted on 07/03/2003 11:25:31 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[Mankind is unable to make the slightest move towards Christ in his fallen condition without God first taking the loving and redemptive initiative.]
What is the ground and 'nature' (extent) of 'fallen condition'...???
?.....partial or total.....depravity?
See, thats where Wesley gets into trouble. Nothing wrong with "Mankind is unable to make the slightest move towards Christ" where the trouble begins is with the word "first". "First" implies a "second", and when a "second" is in man's hands then what you are getting back to is the doctrine of a helpless God who pines away hoping and wishing that man would do something right.
All of this wishful thinking that man somehow is the ultimate authority, still is a anthropocentric religion that makes man sovereign in matters of salvation. I just don't know by what calculus man feels that he can substitute for God in the claim "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." How man can distort and pervert "election" into "acknowledgement" for that ultimately is what is done even with the magical Tunnel O' Time device, is that "God's election" is really "God's acknowledgement" and that is alien to Scripture.
What is the ground and 'nature' (extent) of 'fallen condition' ...partial or total.....depravity?
I have been asked this too many times not to see the trap. The classical rebuttal to the "T" in "TULIP" has been to demagogue a strawman argument "total" means that man is as evil as he can possibly be. I have seen pages and pages of rants and ravings on how this can't be so. Let me head that fallacy off at the pass. "total depravity" means that there is nothing in man that acknowledge or love God. Man is not sick, he is not merely knocked out, nor dizzy; Man is not on life-support, or is in need or crutches. Man is dead. As in dead, dead. As in there is no pulse, there hasn't been a pulse, and man is three days in the tomb, rotting and sticking from decay dead. Man can't grab the rescue line; man can't feebly reach out his hand; man can't even open the medicine bottle. All of those analogies that the Pelagians have offered fail to recognize that the Bible says that man's spiritual condition is dead. So when someone says "partial" I am thinking that man has the ability to some measure or another.
When I think "total depravity", then I open to the pages of Scripture and see that "No man seeks God". "Man is in enmity with God". "They hated me First", "All man's righteousness is as filthy rags", "No one does good", "Man is enslaved to sin", "Man is dead". That is total depravity.
When I think partial depravity", I open the pages of Arminian/Pelagian/Neo-evangelical/Free-Will commentaries and feel-good books (because it is not found in Scripture) and see that man "needs to be enabled first", or "man just needs a light to follow", or "they just need to feel the love of Jesus", or some other thing that conveys the idea that man just needs a kick in the pants, and then he will straigten up and fly right.
So in that light, call me a believer in Total Depravity
Amen!
What is the ground and 'nature' (extent) of 'fallen condition'...??? ?.....partial or total.....depravity?
It is 'total' in the sense that man is helpless to do anything for his own salvation.
Man can still however, say no to God's free gift,(Rom.6:23,Jn.3:16) which is why man is condemned, for saying 'no' to God (Jn.14:6, Rom.1:20-21 2Cor.4:4, 1Jn.5:10)
And what Wesleyian ever claimed differently?
The point of contention is not the 'drawing' but the resisting which the Calvinist says is impossible.
Moreover, it is the Calvinist who consistently overlooks Jn.12:32 where Christ said that He would draw all men to Him.
And God chose you to be saved and rejected others the basis of what?
Just willy-nilly huh?
Just because you Calvinists do not the fact that God views His sovereign 'rights' differently then you do, (imagine a Plan that would consist of the Creator becoming one of His own creatures and allowing Himself to suffer humilation and death at their hands-now what Calvnistic conception of God with all their huffing and puffing about sovereignity could conceive of that (Phil. 2), that is no reason to reject clear scripture that He does (1Tim.2:4,2Pet.3:9).
If you want the perfect proto-Calvinist check out Jonah, upset because God forgave the city of Ninevah, after preaching of its destruction and doom!
Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I know that thou art a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, of great kindness and repentest thee of the evil (Jonah 4:2)
Why Jonah was so angry with this 'Arminian' 'wish-washy' God that he wanted to kill himself!!! (Jonah 4:3)
See, thats where Wesley gets into trouble. Nothing wrong with "Mankind is unable to make the slightest move towards Christ" where the trouble begins is with the word "first". "First" implies a "second", and when a "second" is in man's hands then what you are getting back to is the doctrine of a helpless God who pines away hoping and wishing that man would do something right.
All of this wishful thinking that man somehow is the ultimate authority, still is a anthropocentric religion that makes man sovereign in matters of salvation.
What is the ground and 'nature' (extent) of this Salvation?
?.....partial or total.....Salvation?
I'll accept this change in tactics, even though the article was sweating over the word "helko", trying to convince the world that it meant something other than "drag".
I don't think that I am the only person who has reminded those schooled in Wesleyian soteriology that this very same question of "resisting" is smacked down rather hard by the Apostle Paul in Romans 9 (see your question asked in v18). Since the usual debate on predestination works on Romans 9, and fearing that there would be mission creep and all of the "Five Points" would come under fire, I tried to go the scenic route and ask those who like the prospects of free-will take a trip down Memory Lane and read Job, particularly the part where God reminds man where man's place in the Universe is. I would think after that humbling experience it would be difficult for the Free Will Theorist to thump his chest and say "my decision", despite the word of the Apostle John (1:12-13), which clearly states that salvation is not something you inherit, or forced upon you by men, or something you choose on your own.
Moreover, it is the Calvinist who consistently overlooks Jn.12:32 where Christ said that He would draw all men to Him.
So the Wesleyian thinks that "Man's Will" is the Almighty Creator God's kryptonite. You would think that God's only weakness, His Archille's Heel, the point of vulnerability, the part of His own creation that escapes His control and defies His power will get a bit more recognition than through some wresting of John 12:32.
Well, I don't consider myself a "Calvinist", because "Calvinism" is more than just TULIP, it is a whole systematic understanding of theology that happens to include T,U, some 'L',I, and P. And these days, the label "Calvinist" is treated by others in the same way the KKK considers the word "nigger". Keep in mind that Spurgeon and John Gill, both Baptists, believed in the Doctrines of Grace, and yet it is the presbyterians in larger part who have taken Calvin in as one of their own. But if you like the modern day pejorative "Calvinist", then that's OK.
John 12:32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself."
There is that word "draw" (helkuo) again. The problem is that you have created a double standard, and that is why there is no chance to persuade you through word studies alone. As the thread started, the Weslyians have rejected the original meaning of "helkuo" and have redefined it with a word of their own preference, and we have already been around that tree. Now the Greek says "pántas helkúsoo prós emautón", or rough word for word translation: "'all' 'will draw' {men} 'unto' 'me'" The word "men" is inserted because the context of the passage makes 'pántas' mean, based on whether we are speaking individualy or collectively to "all people", or "all peoples". And there is a difference between the two, the former seems to be your preferred translation "every person of every land and every time without distinction", and "some of all types". If I say that "pántas" is presented as a collective and therefore yields a "some of all types" translation (as the New King James translators have read it), then the Weslyian, in defense of this proof-text, will attack my defintion (which in this case has basis). If you don't attack my choice, then the redefintion of "draw" to mean "persuade" (which, if "persuade" was the author's intent, the author would have used the word "peitho") is moot since God could be said to only effectively woo some people, but not everyone without distinction.
I could give you plenty of passages in Scripture where "pás" (root word) does not mean "everyone without distinction" (example: Mark 1:5, did everyone with absolutely no exception go to the river Jordan and become baptized, or where some from all classes of men represented?). Granted, "all" could mean "everyone without distinction", and so the argument would continue to be between "absolute all", and "representative all".
This is where it gets difficult to discuss these things with the Free Will Theorist. The FWT will be free and loose concerning select words and be irrationally dogmatic about a single specific meaning on another. In a vacuum, outside of context, and isolated from any doctrinal biases, "pántas" can mean absolute or representative and no one can be reasonably dogmatic about either view. But the word "helkuo" is specific in meaning and clearly means "to drag". If "woo", "persuade" or "influence" was the intent then John would have used "peitho". You have stolen John's ability to actually say "to drag" because you have hijacked the meaning of "helkuo" to be a synonym of "peitho" and have left us with no word to say "to drag". It is dishonest to do so, and is even made worse when one treats the proof-text like a bottle rocket and shoots if far away from its context.
But let's reinforce a point made earlier. Romans 9 must be one of those chapters torn out of the Weslyian Loose-Leaf Bible because you ask this question:
And God chose you to be saved and rejected others the basis of what?
Clearly the FWT is hung-up on merit. In FWT soteriology, it is by merit that one is saved. For example: "I am saved because I chose Christ". The word "because" says that the "cause" for being saved is "I chose", or "I did a meritorious thing" (since we can't say "work" even though "work" is implied). How is it meritorious? Because by doing it, one has received a benefit - that is "eternal life". In contrast, by NOT doing "it", then one receives the default, which is death. Classic cause and effect equation. By doing a good thing, in "choosing Christ", the consequence, or the reward is eternal life. Just like a job, the employer extends the employee the opportunity to do a good thing (make the employer some money), and if the employee does the right thing, then the reward is a wage. The good work in this case is nothing to strenuous or time consuming, just do the right thing and "choose Christ". This makes salvation contingent on merit. This same meritocracy is polluting the question you asked. The Bible keeps telling us that salvation is not based on merit. (Eph 2:8-9) nor is it based on some alleged free will choice of man (John 1:12-13). What Romans 9 does indeed teach is that "we don't know" why God made some people as vessels of mercy and made other people vessels of wrath. We do know why we have both types (to show God's Glory) , but we don't know why "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated". It is the Potter's choice to create vessels that suits his purpose. And your question that you have posed is just as defiant against God's arbitrary means of choosing one over the other as the hypothetical questioner in Paul's "conversation".
So to answer your question, is to admit that God operates salvation based on merit, and I and the Bible categorically deny that such a system exists. And I am equally offended that you consider God's soveriegnty and His infinite wisdom to be "willy-nilly". I would expect that kind of language and sentiment to come from the mouths of scoffers. But in your "willy-nilly" treatment of the Wisdom of God, there is a reflection of the overall attitude shared by the anthropocentric doctrines of the FWT.
Luke 15:7 "I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.
What is the point, you ask? Simple. If the FWT believes that Man is sovereign over his own salvation, and the ultimate decision belongs to Man, then when the FWT uses his (alleged) free-will to "choose Christ", then the cause of joy in heaven will be due to the Man and not God. The reason that heaven is rejoicing is not because of God, but the focus and purpose of their joy is about You. Am I the only one seeing the blasphemy here in that Man is receiving the Glory that is really due only to God and God alone?
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.'
Before you get puffed up and think that God's Plan requires Him to let you take control, be reminded of this: The only thing made by man that will be in Heaven are the scars on the Son of God. It ain't something to brag about.
In regards to your slander against "Calvinists" by ridiculing Jonah and distorting the reason for his demeanor, it is more indicitive of a troubled mind that has contempt for God's Wisdom and seeks to replace the perfect and Holy God's wisdom with the egocentric and corrupted desires of the flesh. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God
Mankind is unable to make the slightest move towards Christ in his fallen condition without God first...
See, thats where Wesley gets into trouble. Nothing wrong with "Mankind is unable to make the slightest move towards Christ" where the trouble begins is with the word "first". "First" implies a "second", and when a "second" is in man's hands then what you are getting back to is the doctrine of a helpless God who pines away hoping and wishing that man would do something right.
All of this wishful thinking that man somehow is the ultimate authority, still is a anthropocentric religion that makes man sovereign in matters of salvation.
What is the ground and 'nature' (extent) of this Salvation?
?.....partial or total.....Salvation?
?.....partial or total.....Salvation?
I thought you were joking. Salvation is either "total" or it isn't "salvation". I would love to hear what distinguishes hypothetical "partial" salvation from "total". Is "partial" a salvation where God only teases someone? Otherwise, you got me here. (scratching head)
See, thats where Wesley gets into trouble. Nothing wrong with "Mankind is unable to make the slightest move towards Christ" where the trouble begins is with the word "first". "First" implies a "second", and when a "second" is in man's hands then what you are getting back to is the doctrine of a helpless God who pines away hoping and wishing that man would do something right.
All of this wishful thinking that man somehow is the ultimate authority, still is a anthropocentric religion that makes man sovereign in matters of salvation.
What is the ground and 'nature' (extent) of this Salvation?
?.....partial or total.....Salvation?
I thought you were joking. Salvation is either "total" or it isn't "salvation". I would love to hear what distinguishes hypothetical "partial" salvation from "total". Is "partial" a salvation where God only teases someone? Otherwise, you got me here. (scratching head)
?.....What part of 'Salvation' is NOT a Gift???
I am loathe to say "I am of Paul", or "I am of Apollos" or "I am of Calvin". The term "Calvinist" among friends is a shortcut to say "I believe in the Doctrines of Grace". Just like those who are of the FWT crowd are often called "Arminian", though most rarely hold but to just a few of the tenets of the Remonstrants, the term "Arminian" is an intramural term for distinguishing "Calvinist" from non-Calvinist. My favorite label for one who belives in "Religia Americana" (the predominate view within evangelical circles such as the Southern Baptists and Bible Churches) is "semi-Pelagian".
But to answer your question, I have been accused of being a Do-It-Yourself Christian.(not that I saved myself, but that I don't automatically embrace 1689 Baptist Confession, the Belgic or the Westminster, rather I consider them as guardrails.) For instance, I prefer to consider John's Baptism as a sign and something that is optional rather than view it as a sacrament as everyone else does. (So this kicks me out of the Baptist camp) I have reason to believe that John's Baptism wasn't full immersion, but rather "dry-cleaning" (sprinkled). Yet I don't subscribe at all to the Roman Catholoc or Covenant Theology's sacramental view of baptism. (More of a believer's baptist rather than one who baptises the unregenerate.)
Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I am not a Mary Idolator, and feel that Mary would have been living in sin if she ignored the Genesis 1-2 commands that a man and woman marry and have children.
In terms of lapsarianism, I am certainly not a "common grace" infra, and I feel that supralapsarianism isn't quite there either, so I am a Hyper-Ultra-Mega-Arch-Supralapsarian
I am aligned with Mark & Luke regarding divorce, not Matthew
The list of stuff goes on concerning how I differ from Calvin and many of the Reformers. So if someone wants to argue soteriology, I will be a Calvinst just to keep the lines simple. But if one wants to get into other doctrines then lets shy away from the label Calvinist until proven otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.