Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Your 893 falsely portrays my 765 from last night in bold letters:

Have the Arminians a one-sentence objection to the Doctrine of Total Depravity?

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?

AGAIN, YOU HAVE MY RESPONSE. That was the condition you set forward as to your assistance in editing the calvinistic tulip definitions. Will you or won't you honor your word?

901 posted on 03/01/2002 8:57:38 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 893 | View Replies ]


To: xzins
A CALVINIST CONSTRUCT

These definitions are all either offered by calvinists on this thread or are condensations of definitions on this site recommended by JerryM: Calvinist Tulip Definition Site recommended by Jerry

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

U - - Unconditional Election means that God has elected for His own glory, in accordance with His own will and without regard for the merit of those elected, some for salvation and some to be left in their sins.

L - - Limited Atonement means that Christ died specifically and only for the sins of those who would ever truly believe in Him.

I - - Irresistible Grace means that the elect are incapable of resisting the Holy Spirit's inward call to repentance and salvation.

P - - Perseverance of the Saints means that all those who are truly saved will certainly be brought to heaven and to glorification and will never be lost.

The Five Basic Arminian Objections to Calvinism

These Arminian definitions are found in the Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology and are condensed in that work by a Calvinist, Roger Nicole(Gordon Divinity School). I will take some liberties with them for the sake of clarification. They are the views of Jacob Hermann (Armin) a former student of Calvin who came to doubt Calvin's theology.

1. - - God elects only on the basis of foreseen faith and condemns only on the basis of resistance to grace.

2. - - Christ provided a universal opportunity by dying for all men and for every man such that ALL those who turn to him as true repentant believers are saved.

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.

902 posted on 03/01/2002 8:59:10 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 901 | View Replies ]

To: xzins;OrthodoxPresbyterian;CCWoody;WardSmythe;ShadowAce;Jerry_M
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?

A late bump to Jerry so he can stay with the discussion..Hey X don't you have to write a sermon......we could help you..What say you OP..got any reform topics ??*grin*

X could you give me scripitual references for Prevenient Grace? ( I think reform folks would call this common grace) and if you have an opportunity I had asked for scripture references from Wesleyan doctrine that original sin is not "activated" untill the child sins

Now to this post..Your dismissal of total depravity on the basis of grace does not really address the issue though..What is mans spirital condition as he enters the world?

906 posted on 03/01/2002 9:11:41 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 901 | View Replies ]

To: xzins, Jerry_M, CCWoody, RnMomof7
Your 893 falsely portrays my 765 from last night in bold letters:

Hmmm...

So let me get this straight:

If I understand your "objection" in the light of Proverbs 21:1, it becomes "false".

Why is that? Do you "object" to my reading your "objection" in the light of Proverbs 21:1? I mean, your theology IS able to include Proverbs 21:1, ISN'T IT??

And if we DO include Proverbs 21:1, we see that you still have not offered an objection to the Calvinist Doctrine of Total Depravity:

I'm sorry, but that's a very Calvinist statement. Did you have an objection to the Calvinist Doctrine of Total Depravity, perchance? Any?

907 posted on 03/01/2002 9:12:06 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 901 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson