Posted on 02/25/2002 11:01:41 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
While there are various "proof texts" that, taken out of context, appear to be contradictory to the Calvinist hermenuetic it is our contention that you cannot lift these verses out of both their immediate and overall contexts and use them to disprove our position. We believe that the entire message of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, supports our understanding that the salvation of sinful men only occurs as a result of the providential application of God's grace.
That is the nature of the discussion on these threads, yet we understand why there is opposition to our position. That opposition, if viewed correctly, arises from the desire of men to have control over something that is totally outside of their realm of authority.
But you have no grounds to expect anything from me. Because I do not recognize you as an authority. Your post is all too indicative of the tag team pattern with which you people operate. I've followed your posts this week and I've gone back into the archives. You just don't get it. Or maybe you do.
Mom sends up the Bat Signal and Opie comes in with his Al Haig act and says "I'm in charge here and unless we play by my rules, the game is over."
Your childish post reeks of the arrogance you people so vehemently deny. I have had enough.
Do not ping me. Do not freepmail me.
Of all the things I've seen this week, I still stand amazed that the "totally depraved" view themselves so "scripturally inerrant."
Er...isn't that what I said? But then again, who's counting?
Jean
I will also not require you to concede to me the Total Depravity of man. I'd rather talk about how big our God is and not how big or small man is. So, you are free to pick any point between the Total Depravity of man and the idiotic Pelagain heresy; any point.
So, with that in mind, let us proceed:
His study nots on Genesis 5 could get an Amen in any reformed church..
3. Seth was born in the 130th year of Adam's life, and probably the murder of Abel was not long before. Many other sons and daughters were born to Adam besides Cain and Abel before this; but no notice is taken of them, because an honourable mention must be made of his name only, in whose loins Christ and the church were. But that which is most observable here concerning Seth, is, that Adam begat him in his own likeness after his image - Adam was made in the image of God; but when he was fallen and corrupted, he begat a son in his own image, sinful and defiled, frail and mortal, and miserable like himself; not only a man like himself, consisting of body and soul; but a sinner like himself, guilty and obnoxious, degenerate and corrupt. He was conceived and born in sin, Psalm li, 5. This was Adam's own likeness, the reverse of that Divine likeness in which Adam was made; but having lost it himself he could not convey it to his seed.
Now consider his notes on Chapter 9
For in the image of God made he man - Man is a creature dear to his Creator, and therefore ought to be so to us; God put honour upon him, let us not then put contempt upon him. Such remains of God's image are still even upon fallen man, that he who unjustly kills a man, defaceth the image of God, and doth dishonour to him.
After rading the very strong language in Chp 5 notes one would be left to wonder how the writer could conclude that there was any remnent of God remaining in man. But for the Theology of prevenient grace to have any currency man had to have an ability to respond
Do you hear any of God in this description? but a sinner like himself, guilty and obnoxious, degenerate and corrupt Would any of God choose to dwell in that temple?
I think Wesley had it right the first time..
I have explained to you why I flag the guys sometimes..
Do you mean by "agree with it" that the opponents must "believe it to be true" or do you mean that the opponents must accept that it is an accurate "calvinist" definition of total depravity?
The first would be a rather silly position, wouldn't it, given that we disagree on these things. Are you saying that you won't discuss unless we agree with you? That's a strange starting point for any debate, don't you think?
If you mean that you won't go forward until we agree that any particular definition is an acceptable calvinistic definition, then that would be a bit odd, too. But I'll be glad to define your terms for you, if you wish.
So which is this wonderful idea that you have:
1. That you won't debate unless we agree with you first.
2. That you won't debate unless we define your terms for you?
U - condensation:
Unconditional Election: BEFORE CREATION GOD HAS ELECTED FOR HIS OWN REASONS SOME FOR BELIEVING UNTO GLORY AND SOME FOR DAMNATION.
Well, I guess you are nutty because that passage is not saying what you want it to say. Do you see the word salvation anywhere in the text? I see the word inheritance not salvation!
Moreover, 'worketh' is not forordaining. We know that 'all things work together for good' because it is God doing the working despite the resistance of His own creatures, both angelic and human (Rom.8:38-39)
As for his 'the council of His own will'all that means is that God alone made the Plan, for His pleasure (Col.1:16,Rev.4:11)
However, man can reject this 'council'
But ye have set at nought all my council, and would none of my reprove (Pro.1:25) They would none of my council: they despised all my reproof (Pro.1:30) But the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the council of God against themselves being not baptized of him (luke 7:30)Now, the word 'Predestinate' is used four times, Rom.8:29,30, Eph.1:5,1:11. Where is the word 'salvation' anywhere near any of them?
Eph.1:5 has 'adoption' but that happens as a result of salvation (Gal.4:5-7) Eph. 1:11 refers to an inheritance. Rom.8:29-30 being conformed to the image of His Son. These are not salvation passages but dispensational passages dealing with the status of the Church age believer.
Still, the ultimate root of your system is God's all encompassing Decree that decided everything in the past by His directive will, both good and bad, including those who would be saved and those who would not. Thus, there are no real choices made by anyone but God Himself!
Is that a fair assessement?
Why can't you believe John 3:16?
This is my wonderful idea:
Given that the doctrine of Total Depravity is fundamental to all possible continuation of the discussion -- both argumentative and definitional -- we will not proceed until the issue of its Biblical Rectitude is independently addressed.
Here, I will make it simple:
You state that you are formulating these definitions for the purpose of making sure that Arminians "understand" the Calvinist point-of-view.
We will hereby stipulate that we have no interest whatsoever in debating any further Points, unless we are advised in advance that you either agree to the Biblical Rectitude, or reject the Biblical Rectitude, of the First Point.
In other words, we will stipulate that the debate over "TULIP" is really a debate over "T".
Any debate over Abortion is fundamentally decided upon the matter of Human Personhood at the point of Conception. I have no interest whatsoever in debating someone over Economic Abortion, Minor Abortion, Late Term Abortion, Rape-or-Incest Abortion, "Mercy-euthanasia" Abortion, or any other issue of Abortion unless we first establish the matter of Human Personhood at the Point of Conception. Before I even proceed on even a definitional basis, I insist upon the Rectitude of the First Point in that Matter being admitted or denied.
I will debate pro-aborts on the First Point -- the Human Personhood at the point of Conception -- or else I will not proceed further, on even a "definitional" basis.
Likewise, We Calvinists will debate Arminians on the First Point -- Total Depravity means that Natural Man is totally sinful and does not ever WANT in his own spirit to know Christ -- or else we will not proceed further, on even a "definitional" basis.
Total Depravity means that Natural Man is totally sinful and does not ever WANT in his own spirit to know Christ
Here we stand; we will not Recant; and otherwise, we will not Proceed.
We shall be met here, or not at all.
We claim this statement is Biblically Correct.
We further claim any disputation with our view on this is Biblically Incorrect and is Blasphemy, and we cannot even entertain Blasphemy. So we won't.
As with the matter of Abortion, we will not even consider further "points" until the First Point is addressed.
He we stand.
Here we stand.
No procession beyond this point, unless admitted or denied as Biblically correct.
None.
Total Depravity means that Natural Man is totally sinful and does not ever WANT in his own spirit to know Christ
True, or False?
The evil that is referred to is not moral evil (see James 1:13), but in contrast to peace in the parallel clause as in war and disaster (compare to Ps 65:7, Am 3:6)
See Mt 28:19, Acts 2:41; 8:12, 35-39; 10:44-48; 16:14-15, 30-33; 18:8; 19:4-5; Ro 6:3-4; Col 2:12
Furthermore 1 Cor 11:1-16
Concerning the latter, the several churches that were in the apostles' time had different customs in things that were not essential; and that under one and the same apostle, as circumstances, in different places, made it convenient. And in all things merely indifferent the custom of each place was of sufficient weight to determine prudent and peaceable men. Yet even this cannot overrule a scrupulous conscience, which really doubts whether the thing be indifferent or no. But those who are referred to here by the apostle were contentious, not conscientious, persons.
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.