On Free Grace

Wesley Center of Applied Theology | 1740 | John Wesley

[Jerry_M]

"I don't understand how one can be 'biblically wrong'."

To show that our position is inconsistent with the Biblical message. After all, the main participants in this exercise would, hopefully, consider themselves to be sola scriptura adherents.

[xzins]

In that case we will just post the condensations and let the discussion tell us if we've got it correct or not.

Total Depravity = I do accept that that is your definition and that you have the right/responsibility to be the one to define it. Is that good enough?

[RnMomof7]

There is nothing to prevent my posting my condensations and considering your silence to be a nod that we go ahead and use them. Then you can object to it and we can iron it out amidst discussion.

I think OP is correct..no sense on going on as this is a foundational truth. Lets discuss the T for a while..

[Jerry_M]

Re. 322.

No.

Please post any objection you have to our definition of the "T", or tell us that you concur with it. Once that is resolved we can move on.

[RnMomof7]

How do you manage to post with your addresses so messed up??

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You weren't part of the decision to do this. The point arose because we Arminians kept being accused of misunderstanding the various points of tulip (not just the T.) This has nothing to do with proving it or disproving it. It has to do with YOUR helping us to understand it correctly so we will be better able to speak to it. Now, are you gonna be a stick in the mud, or are you gonna help with this project? :-)

I am going to be a stick in the mud.

I request a summary judgment as to the rectitude of the Calvinist Doctrine of Total Depravity before we proceed.

If that doctrine is biblically incorrect, any further definitions will be a waste of time. If, OTOH, that doctrine is correct, then it will inform our consideration of latter points (including the definition thereof).

So, if there is an arminian objection to the doctrine of Total Depravity, let's hear it.
If not, we'll move to the next point.

Thanks,
OP

[xzins]

see #322. Seriously, I've got to run.

See you late night.

[Jean Chauvin]

"After all, the main participants in this exercise would, hopefully, consider themselves to be sola scriptura adherents."

Well, that would rule out FTD and his insistance that we interpret the Scriptures in the light of His Definitions of words!

Jean

[Jerry_M]

To make it easy, here is our definition of the "T" for your consideration:

Total Depravity means that Natural Man is totally sinful and does not ever WANT in his own spirit to know Christ.

Agreement? If not, then what is your objection?

[xzins]

addresses must not be case sensitive

[rdb3]

You'd agree that Jesus came to this earth for the purpose of shedding His Blood, right? You'd also agree that this was foretold in the scriptures going all the way back to Genesis, right?

You're with me so far? Good.

Now, knowing Satan definitely does have power, why do you think it is he "allowed" Christ to go to the cross?

Think about this, and things should become more clear.

[RnMomof7]

Me too... it is AWANNA night and Grandma drives ( say a prayer we have had a storm and the roads are bad!).

See ya all in a few hours..

[RnMomof7]

Naw you are not even close..it is jerry_m..you misspelled Aggressive on one post..I get refused for stuff like that..and you have commas ..You got pull? :>)

[Jerry_M]

What is funny is the fact that "jerrym" shows up on my BUMP list, just like "Jerry_M". I guess that the underscore is non-significant on FR.

[Jerry_M]

What is even funnier is this. I logged-off of FR, then attempted to log-in using "jerrym". I was told that "jerrym" isn't in the database.

[Jean Chauvin]

"I will freely admit I asked Jean and OP to came take a look at the Calvin posts..They are historians, and know their respective doctrine..I can not well defend Calvin as I do not know that much about his work."

Thanks for the plug, Mom, but I can't consider myself a historian. I'm quite interested in Church history, but only have begun to learn. I'm but a wee little tike when it comes to accumulated knowledge. That I know some historical issues well, doesn't make me a historian.

Thanks for the compliment, though.

Jean

[kcox]

Just a question.

When we say no man is "willing" to come to salvation that would present a problem.

It appeared the rich young ruler was "willing" to come to Christ if he (the rich young ruler) could define the terms.

Many theologians and psychologists would place the "will" in the sphere of the soul not the spirit. Very few would argue that the soul was "dead".

On this basis I'm not real comfortable with the T definition. But then again, what do I know.

[Jerry_M]

Lots of people want salvation. Only the elect want to come to Christ (and all that this entails).

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. - I Corinthians 12:3

For a one sentence definition of "T", I think that it will suffice. (We are, after all, trying to foster understanding among our Arminian FRiends.)

[Jerry_M]

Lots of people want salvation. Only the elect want to come to Christ (and all that this entails).

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. - I Corinthians 12:3

For a one sentence definition of "T", I think that it will suffice. (We are, after all, trying to foster understanding among our Arminian FRiends.)

[Jerry_M]

Oops, double tap. (Just like I train at the range!)