Posted on 02/25/2002 11:01:41 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
Hey Jerry, we heard you the first time!
I know, I know, it's not quite as funny the second time.
Jean
Well, my version of the definition came nearly word for word from the Bible. The natural man is not willing to come to Christ that that they may have life.
But, like I said, I accept OP's definition!
Hmmm! I generally fire until the target is neutralized.
Note that I had to insert a parenthetical comment about "T" in order to give what I considered a proper definition of "U". It would be extremely helpful, as OPie has pointed out, for us to either have concurrence on "T" or a discussion about your objections, prior to proceeding. I truly believe that this will foster understanding.
With the mind a man can understand the gospel,with his will he may even search for the truth of the gospel, with his emotions he may even be moved by the gospel, but no man can willingly submit to the call of the gospel in their spirit (which is dead), apart from Divine intervention.
The thing which has bothered me the most about this discussion is that it seems to make the work of Christ something of an after thought. To me Christ is the central theme of Christianity. If there were no Christ there could be no elect. God through his Holy Spirit draws men to the gospel of Christ.
Jean
Save that point until we get to "I".
I agree with you about the fact that all theological understanding must begin (and end) with Christ. However, recognize that the "Five Points of Calvinism" were a response to the five objections of the Remonstrants. They are the one who established the order, and wanted to talk about men before discussing God. If the Calvinists were given "first turn" they most probably would have started with God (as is seen in the great Calvinist confessions of faith such as the Westminster Confession which begins with God and His Word, and don't get to man's condition until Chapter VI).
I look forward to seeing the succinct Arminian objection (or concurrence) with our succinct Calvinist definition of "T".
Good example! A better is Q&A 1 of the Heidelberg Catechism (1563):
What is your only comfort in life and in death?
That I with body and soul, both in life and death, (Romans 14:7,8) am not my own, (1 Corinthians 6:19) but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; (1 Corinthians 3:23; Titus 2:14) who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, (1 Peter 1:18,19; 1 John 1:7; 1 John 2:2,12) and delivered me from all the power of the devil; (Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 3:8; John 8:34-36) and so preserves me (John 6:39; John 10:28; 2 Thessalonians 3:3; 1 Peter 1:5) that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; (Matthew 10:29-31; Luke 21:18) yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, (Romans 8:28) and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, (2 Corinthians 1:20-22; 2 Corinthians 5:5; Ephesians 1:13,14; Romans 8:16) and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him. (Romans 8:14; 1 John 3:3)
Jean
Actually, I might be willing to let him define all 5 points. But I would expect that he show us that he fully understands our 5 points by rephrasing them and giving them back to us with a few scripture references. I believe he is familiar with this from his family counseling he has done.
Those things are easy for us to accept because they do not contradict the attributes of God as written in scripture.
Next?
CCWoody: "Yes, the Lord was pleased to place a longing for her in my soul."
Ahhh... perhaps this is why we are having such a difficult time getting anywhere. You see, whatever you "think about" when you hear "irresistAble" is actually "irresistIble".
And if you look it up, you will find that the word does not mean merely desirable, but "impossible" to resist.
Now, maybe you will want to reconsider your statements?
Which is exactly the point of the story of the young man!
Ahhhh yes ..we can all play Carl Rogers.......
Exactly right (sorry I did not get home in time to make this point myself; kudos to Jerry). The proper understanding of the First Point undergirds the definition of all the succeeding points.
If you do agree with the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity, we may have hopeful expectation that you will correctly understand our definition of the succeeding points. If you do not agree with it, not only is it unnecessary to proceed (we have critical grounds for discussion right there!), but we object to proceeding on the grounds that the definitional character of the First Point is absolutely requisite to the definition of succeeding points.
Sadly, much of the most fierce opposition to this Biblical doctrine comes from within the ranks of "Christendom." All kinds of objections are raised by preachers because they see that if they ever admit that man is as depraved as the Bible says that he is, they must also admit the necessity of the other doctrines which they hate. One great enemy of the doctrines of grace, Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart, confessed in his magazine that, if one accepts as true the doctrine of total depravity, he must also accept the doctrines of election, effectual call, limited atonement, and preservation and perseverance of the saints. He declared that one who rejects any of the others must reject total depravity also. He argues correctly that total depravity requires an effectual call, etc. Therefore, this arch enemy of truth declares his rejection of all five doctrines mentioned. ~~ Total Hereditary Depravity - Why It Is the Real Battleground by Wayne Camp January 1st, 1986
Note: If memory serves, Camp's article was written well before the 1987 revelations of Mr. Swaggart's dalliances with prostitutes. For the sake of our discussion, then, it will be taken as simply an item of historical coincidence that this staunch opponent of Calvinism's tens of millions of viewers were providentially removed from his voice of instruction in the following years.
Ergo, before we proceed, we must respectfully but insistently request a summary judgment as to the Biblical rectitude of the Doctrine of Total Depravity. It is absolutely foundational to any further definitions we would offer, and must be addressed before we proceed.
Thank you.
Best,
OP
As it happens, my favorite Theonomist (bar none) is not the Orthodox Presbyterian Rushdoony, nor the Orthodox Presyterian Bahnsen, nor the Orthodox Presbyterian North... but rather the Christian Reformed theonomist Frederick Nymeyer (wrote mostly in the 1955-1961 period).
The Orthodox Presbyterian theonomists of the Rushdoony school have uncovered more than a little theonomic silver...
...but the Christian Reformed Nymeyer is pure Gold.
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.