[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I am not trying to be difficult, but notice my first post about "U" in 302. (Posted prior to reading OPie's comments about the propriety of moving ahead without an understanding of your objections, comments with which I fully agree.) 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.

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.

When Jesus told these professors that the truth would make them free they immediately rebelled against the idea that they had ever been in bondage. "We were never in bondage," they cried. In this angry response they manifest the fact that the real battle ground in the doctrine of grace is not election, the effectual call, or the extent of the atonement; the real battle ground is the doctrine of total depravity. It is not pleasant to the natural man to expose his true and total corruption in heart, mind, and body. That our hearts are "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" is repugnant to our pride and high estimation that we have of ourselves.

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

[RnMomof7]

Please note the change in Wesleys position regarding the depravity that befell men as a result of the fall.

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..

[xzins]

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.

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?