Just because I don't uncritically follow Scofield doesn't mean that I think that there are no dispensations. The amils do too. I've seen Hendriksen use the term "dispensation" to refer to the paradigm shift between the old and new testaments.
An Old Testament saint was already saved, Corinilus got saved by going to Peter and hearing and believing the Gospel. What the passage states is that one could be 'devout' and 'pray' and be unsaved!
I'll concede here.
Does it describe the 'rich young ruler' who Jesus loved?
Yes, he worshipped his wealth rather than the Creator.
Even Calvinists admit that there are unbelievers who are moral men.
Total depravity does not mean that man does not behave morally at times. It means that all men are as bad off as they can be, but not necessarily as bad as they can be. That men will reject God everytime, left to their own devices.
Considering the history of mankind -- one of rape, murder, and torture -- total depravity seems a cinch to prove to me; the opposite position is untenable in light of those simple facts.
So God puts man into Total Depravity,(Willing that Adam would fall and the consquences of the Fall) so that man cannot respond to the God's calling, but it is man who is responsible for not responding!
That's pretty close, but its not at all funny.
Considering that total depravity is completely scriptural, I cannot comprehend how you can reject it. My only guess is that you enter into the equation assuming that mankind is not inherently evil. I know otherwise, including by experience.
The issue in Dispensations (and there are Calvinist Dispensationalists such as Chafer, and Ryrie but they are generally rejected by hard-line Calvinists such as Gerstner) is that there is a difference between Israel and the Church.
That the Church age believer is different then a Old Testament believer.
Yet, that view will not hold up in the case of Cornilus since it says he came to Peter to get saved, not receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which would have put him in Union with Christ (as a saved gentile)
An Old Testament saint was already saved, Corinilus got saved by going to Peter and hearing and believing the Gospel. What the passage states is that one could be 'devout' and 'pray' and be unsaved! I'll concede here. Does it describe the 'rich young ruler' who Jesus loved? Yes, he worshipped his wealth rather than the Creator.
That was his sin, but not of 'rushing to shed blood', not 'a mouth full of cursing'
Now, I will grant that when one breaks one commandment, one breaks them all, but Paul is not pointing out the issue of sin pe se, his point is that Jews and Gentiles are both under condemnation even though the Jews think their race is going to save them (like having the Temple in Jerusalem was going to save it)
Even Calvinists admit that there are unbelievers who are moral men. Total depravity does not mean that man does not behave morally at times. It means that all men are as bad off as they can be, but not necessarily as bad as they can be.
And those verses in Romans are depicting man as bad as he can be, hence the hyperbolic nature of them.
That men will reject God everytime, left to their own devices.
Ah, if left to their own devices
Exactly!
God never leaves man to 'his own devices' but has made Himself clear to man through nature so that man may respond to God's drawing (Psa.19, Rom.1)
Considering the history of mankind -- one of rape, murder, and torture -- total depravity seems a cinch to prove to me; the opposite position is untenable in light of those simple facts.
Not at all.
What it states is that man has to reject God's drawing of them via nature and finally the Cross, but not all men do, some respond (such as Cornilus) and thus are saved.
Now, the Calvinist will admit that man rejects God, but ofcourse, that same man could never respond to God since he was not part of the 'chosen' of Unconditional election.
So, because he is born in sin and in Total depravity he hates God, rejects God, and is condemned by God, yet, never had a chance to accept God since God did not give him the irresistable grace that those who are saved get.
That same condemned individual is held responsible for his rejection (doing what he wanted) even though it was God who willed Lucifer's fall, Adams fall and that man's eternal damnation by not choosing him!
It is about this time someone quotes (out of context) Rom.9:20!
So God puts man into Total Depravity,(Willing that Adam would fall and the consquences of the Fall) so that man cannot respond to the God's calling, but it is man who is responsible for not responding! That's pretty close, but its not at all funny. Considering that total depravity is completely scriptural, I cannot comprehend how you can reject it.
Nowhere does it say that man is unable to respond to the Gospel.
Total Depravity is a result of philosophical speculation of unconditional election.
My only guess is that you enter into the equation assuming that mankind is not inherently evil. I know otherwise, including by experience.
No, I know that man is evil, but I am willing to ask how man got that way (according to Calvinism)
According to calvinism, God put Adam into sin for God's own glory (see Calvin Bk.3), thus, tracing back the source of this evil, you find God responsible for it!
Moreover, granted that all men deserve hell, why are some saved and some not?
Thus, you are left with a abitrary God, who acts contrary to what Scripture reveals Him to be, one who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.(Ezek.33:11)
Finally, we have in Rom.5:18 the damnation of the race through the first Adam, but the salvation of that same race through the Second Adam.
Thus, 'original sin' is trumped by grace and all any man has to do is accept the free gift of salvation offered to all men (Jn.3:16, Jn.12:32)
The issue, as has been stated before, is not how 'bad' man is, but how good God is!
The sad thing is all of this confusion was pushed by Calvin so one could have confidence in eternal security ('I was chosen by God, thus cannot be lost), when the issue in eternal security for the Christian is the love of Christ,(Rom.8:38-39)which is in the Bible, not unconditional election, which is not