Posted on 02/25/2002 11:01:41 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
He knew I would say that *giggle*..nite all
Among other things, I object to the wording of Points "L" and "I" (Point "L" is poorly worded. Point "I" is downright incorrectly worded).
I will offer to correct the wording of these two points; but I will respectfully refuse to offer this correction until after the Arminians will offer a one-sentence summation of their Objection to the First Point, Total Depravity.
I also advise my fellow Calvinists NOT to accept xzins' "Calvinist Construct" as constituting a definition of Calvinism until such time as I have corrected the mis-statements of Points "L" and "I". We will not acknowledge the "Construct" as reflecting our views.
As I said, I will correct the wording of "L" and "I" (which I know to be incorrectly stated) and mull over the wording of "U" and "P" after I have been supplied with a one-sentence objection to Point "T".
However, I will NOT offer these corrections UNTIL a one-sentence objection to Point "T" is offered; and until I have made my corrections, we will not acknowledge the "Construct" as being respresentative of our views AT ALL.
Excepting, of course, point T, which is correctly stated, and which we are prepared to debate.
1. - - God elects only on the basis of foreseen faith and condemns only on the basis of resistance to grace.
3. - - Man is so depraved that foreplanned divine intervention and preceding divine grace are necessary to bring about faith or any good deed.
4. - - According to the foreplanning of God, man was created with the ability to resist Divine Grace.
5. - - It is not certain that all who are truly regenerate will necessarily persevere in the faith.
ERGO, we see that all Arminian Objections are thereby reduced to a debate about Total Depravity: The Natural Man is totally sinful and does not ever WANT in his own spirit to know Christ.
Have the Arminians a one-sentence objection to the Doctrine of Total Depravity?
Ezekiel 18
The Soul Who Sins Will Die
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
" 'The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'?
3 "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD , you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son-both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.
Yes. We would rewrite it as follows:
Total Depravity means that Natural Man is totally sinful AND HE CAN ONLY ever WANT in his own spirit to know Christ DUE TO GOD'S foreplanned divine intervention and preceding divine grace.
We object because calvinists leave out prevenient grace and the remaining vestiges of God's image. We've discussed this before. My saying this isn't a surprise to you is it?
Now, what was your point? Were you attempting to wrest the meaning of Ezekiel to promulgate some heresy suggesting that not all have sinned?
The Bible, of course, rebukes you.
All have sinned.
Any theological claim to the contrary, is a doctrine of demons.
So that every one is lost in himself, and if he wishes to contend with God, he must always acknowledge that the fountain of the curse flows from himself. For before the child was born into the world, it was corrupt, since its menial intelligence was buried in darkness, and its will was perverse and rebellious against God. As soon as infants are born they contract pollution from their father Adam: their reason is blinded, their appetites perverted, and their senses entirely vitiated. This does not immediately show itself in the young child, but before God, who discerns things more acutely than we do, the corruption of our whole nature is rightly treated as sin.
There is no one who during the course of his life does not perceive himself liable to punishment through his own works; but original sin is sufficient for the condemnation of all men. When men grow up they acquire for themselves the new curse of what is called actual sin: so that he who is pure with reference to ordinary observation, is guilty before God: hence Scripture pronounces us all naturally children of wrath: these are Paul's words in the second chapter of the epistle to the Ephesians, (Ephesians 2:3.) If then we are children of wrath, it follows that we are polluted from our birth: this provokes God's anger and renders him hostile to us: in this sense David confesses himself conceived in sin. (Psalm 51:5.) He does not here accuse either his father or his mother so as to extenuate his own wickedness; but, when he abhors the greatness of his sin in provoking the wrath of God, he is brought back to his infancy, and acknowledges that he was even then guilty before God. We see then that David, being reminded of a single sin, acknowledges himself a sinner before he was born; and since we are all under the curse, it follows that we are all worthy of death. Thus, the son properly speaking shall not die through the iniquity of his father, but is considered guilty before God through his own fault.
good night
You sure believe in a hard-shell, hard-hearted God.
But I'm not gonna say you're "preaching a doctrine of gaggle of demons" the way you do to me all the time. I just think you're wrong.
Of course not.
And your re-statement of the doctrine of Total Depravity thus demands that you become a Calvinist, for one simple reason:
You have acknowledged that, before a Man will ever choose to Repent, the want to Repent must be Gracefully implanted in his heart.
And the Omniscient God knows whether the Grace which He is implanting in a given man's heart is sufficient to regenerate that man's Wants to create in that man the Want to repent, or insufficient.
For a Man to Want to repent, his heart must be re-engineered by God such that he will Want to Repent.
In either case, God will re-engineer the Wants of that Man's heart, precisely as God pleases.
The man's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; God turns it wherever He wishes.
God's being accused by his people of punishing the kids for the sins of the parents. They have a mocking song that goes like this: When the parents eat sour grapes, it's their kids mouths that pucker up. They mean that as a criticism of God.
God tells Ezekiel to tell the people that they're wrong. He wants Ezekiel to clearly explain to the people that every person is accountable only for his/her own sin.
Infants don't sin.
Are you going on record here saying that you think that infants sin? Jesus says they're innocent.
The Bible defines your doctrine as a Lie.
Jesus said so when he said, "Let the little children come unto me for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
Nope. Jesus did not say that little children were not sinners.
He said that these children (the specific ones on whom He placed His hands) were able to come unto Him.
infants don't sin. They're innocent. -- this is a Doctrine of Demons. The Biblical Fact is that All have sinned.
If you do not believe it, simply say: "I, xzins, do not believe the teaching that All Have Sinned."
Jesus declares infants to be innocent.
How do we reconcile this with "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?"
One is not culpable until one sins. Therefore, the all refers to "all of a culpable age."
I'll see your Psalm 58:3 and raise you one 1 Corinthians 14:20 In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.
Paul infers that infants are not associated with evil.
Your view is not comprehensive. Don't you see that? You simply aren't correctly correlating the various scriptures.
Now if he uses your interpretation that infants are grossly sinful, then his statement means the following:
IN REGARD TO EVIL GO OUT AND BE GROSSLY SINFUL.
You have Paul advocating antinomianism, don't you?
What is the correct interpretation of that verse:
a. in regard to evil "be innocent toward it."
or
b. in regard to evil "go out and be grossly sinful."
CHOOSE A or B. Which one do you think is the correct interpretation?
"I, xzins, do not believe that Orthodox Presbyterian correctly teaches "All have sinned."
I answered your 771. You answer my 775.
No, he does not.
Jesus says of a specific group of children who are brought to Him, "the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these".
There is not a single verse of Scripture anywhere in the Gospels where Jesus states, "infants are Innocent of Sin".
This is what you need Jesus to say.
This is what Jesus does not say.
If you have a specific verse where Jesus specifically states, "infants are Innocent of Sin", present it.
Because Matthew 19:13-14 does not say "infants are Innocent of Sin". Those words are NOWHERE in the passage!! It says, "some children were brought to Him... the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these", a statement which is Calvinist to the core.
How do we reconcile this with "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?" One is not culpable until one sins. Therefore, the all refers to "all of a culpable age."
Nope. Paul begins his discussion with a reference to the infant rite of circumcision:
If "all" meant "all except those of a young age", then prefacing the discussion with a reference to the infant rite of circumcision woul have been nonsensical.
All have sinned.
Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. The fact that all are born mortal, is juridically founded upon the fact that all have sinned.
If Infants have not Sinned, they would not be born mortal. If the were not sinners, they could not die in infancy. Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.
No, Paul is saying that infants are not associated with great knowledge. This ought to have been clear to you from his reference to "understanding". How you managed to miss it is... really not a great surprise.
Don't be greatly knowledgeable and familiar with the practices of Evil; be knowledgeable and familiar with Wisdom.
a. in regard to evil "be innocent toward it." or b. in regard to evil "go out and be grossly sinful." CHOOSE A or B. Which one do you think is the correct interpretation?
I can't choose between those two options, because yet again you are not even able to offer the correct interpretation.
It is not even available from your two choices.
The CORRECT interpretation, is the one I have posted above.
Duly smashed.
Answer my #777, "bubba".
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.