I'm your huckleberry...Jn 6...Total Depravity

[Skandelon]

It's difficult to have a conversation on this board if you have a life because by the time you get back to respond the thread has closed....:laugh:

I left off here speaking with Jarthur on the subject of John 6, Total Depravity and Original Sin the this thread...

Not so fast. We need to deal with OS first. Arminians are all over the board on this one. You do indeed sound more and more like a REAL Arminian and not the Pelagianites that post on this board.

Most Calvinists would know a real Arminian if they bit them on the nose.

I affirm OS, but not the full implications of TD. I explain it more fully HERE>

then take up your contention with Paul and his words in Romans 1.
I don't follow you here. If you mean GR you are missing the mark. If Not GR, please point me to the verse and make your point.

General or Special Revelation...it doesn't matter with regard to this point, all men are WITHOUT EXCUSE. Why? BECAUSE they COULD see, hear, understand and know the divine attributes and eternal qualities of God. Total Depravity's implication is that men are born deaf, blind and unable to see, hear and understand thus giving them the perfect excuse. The mistake Calvinists make is to assume that being HARDENED (given over to your continually rebellious nature) is a condition from birth rather than something people "grow" into or "become."

Read Acts 28 with me:

24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

Now, please notice 3 things in this passage.

(1) Some were convinced by WHAT HE SAID, but why didn't the others believe? Because their heart had "BECOME CALLOUSED" or hardened. (Same as the verse we already looked at in John 12:39-41)

(2) What could they have done IF they had not 'become calloused?' Paul tells us, "Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn..." This shows the unique condition of the JEWS as ones who have been privy to God's revelation and have rejected it continually.

(3) Is that a condition of all men from birth as TD suggests? NO. They BECAME Calloused, they weren't born that way and look at Paul's comparison with the Gentiles who haven't "become calloused"...."they will listen."

So, you can see that the reason Israel in unable to believe is NOT because they are non-elect reprobates born in a condition that can't respond to God's revelations. It is because THEY have been able for years to respond to His revelations and they refused thus making their hearts GROW HARDENED.

At this time in history God has sealed them in that hardened state by hiding the gospel from them in parables (Mk 4 - which would completely unnecessary if TD and UE were true), and He has blinded their eyes and gave them a 'spirit of stupor.' Why? So as to (1) bring redemption through Calvary and (2) provide for the engrafting of the Gentiles.

God is in the process of hardening Israel and grafting in Gentiles. Calvinists make the error of using passages that are speaking about the condition of Israel at this time and applying it to the innate nature of all mankind. If I'm wrong then please explain the practical difference between a man who has "become hardened" and one who is just "totally depraved?" Can one of them see, hear, understand and turn to God? Is there ANY real distinction between them in your system?

 

[quantumfaith]

It's difficult to have a conversation on this board if you have a life because by the time you get back to respond the thread has closed....:laugh:

I left off here speaking with Jarthur on the subject of John 6, Total Depravity and Original Sin the this thread...

Most Calvinists would know a real Arminian if they bit them on the nose.

I affirm OS, but not the full implications of TD. I explain it more fully HERE>

General or Special Revelation...it doesn't matter with regard to this point, all men are WITHOUT EXCUSE. Why? BECAUSE they COULD see, hear, understand and know the divine attributes and eternal qualities of God. Total Depravity's implication is that men are born deaf, blind and unable to see, hear and understand thus giving them the perfect excuse. The mistake Calvinists make is to assume that being HARDENED (given over to your continually rebellious nature) is a condition from birth rather than something people "grow" into or "become."

Read Acts 28 with me:

24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

Now, please notice 3 things in this passage.

(1) Some were convinced by WHAT HE SAID, but why didn't the others believe? Because their heart had "BECOME CALLOUSED" or hardened. (Same as the verse we already looked at in John 12:39-41)

(2) What could they have done IF they had not 'become calloused?' Paul tells us, "Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn..." This shows the unique condition of the JEWS as ones who have been privy to God's revelation and have rejected it continually.

(3) Is that a condition of all men from birth as TD suggests? NO. They BECAME Calloused, they weren't born that way and look at Paul's comparison with the Gentiles who haven't "become calloused"...."they will listen."

So, you can see that the reason Israel in unable to believe is NOT because they are non-elect reprobates born in a condition that can't respond to God's revelations. It is because THEY have been able for years to respond to His revelations and they refused thus making their hearts GROW HARDENED.

At this time in history God has sealed them in that hardened state by hiding the gospel from them in parables (Mk 4 - which would completely unnecessary if TD and UE were true), and He has blinded their eyes and gave them a 'spirit of stupor.' Why? So as to (1) bring redemption through Calvary and (2) provide for the engrafting of the Gentiles.

God is in the process of hardening Israel and grafting in Gentiles. Calvinists make the error of using passages that are speaking about the condition of Israel at this time and applying it to the innate nature of all mankind. If I'm wrong then please explain the practical difference between a man who has "become hardened" and one who is just "totally depraved?" Can one of them see, hear, understand and turn to God? Is there ANY real distinction between them in your system?

Excellent distinctions on the nuances of TD Skandelon. I am with you on this analysis. However, is it not equally as difficult to scripturally illuminate "prevenenient grace"?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It's difficult to have a conversation on this board if you have a life because by the time you get back to respond the thread has closed....:laugh:

I left off here speaking with Jarthur on the subject of John 6, Total Depravity and Original Sin the this thread...

Most Calvinists would know a real Arminian if they bit them on the nose.

I affirm OS, but not the full implications of TD. I explain it more fully HERE>

General or Special Revelation...it doesn't matter with regard to this point, all men are WITHOUT EXCUSE. Why? BECAUSE they COULD see, hear, understand and know the divine attributes and eternal qualities of God. Total Depravity's implication is that men are born deaf, blind and unable to see, hear and understand thus giving them the perfect excuse. The mistake Calvinists make is to assume that being HARDENED (given over to your continually rebellious nature) is a condition from birth rather than something people "grow" into or "become."

Read Acts 28 with me:

24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

Now, please notice 3 things in this passage.

(1) Some were convinced by WHAT HE SAID, but why didn't the others believe? Because their heart had "BECOME CALLOUSED" or hardened. (Same as the verse we already looked at in John 12:39-41)

(2) What could they have done IF they had not 'become calloused?' Paul tells us, "Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn..." This shows the unique condition of the JEWS as ones who have been privy to God's revelation and have rejected it continually.

(3) Is that a condition of all men from birth as TD suggests? NO. They BECAME Calloused, they weren't born that way and look at Paul's comparison with the Gentiles who haven't "become calloused"...."they will listen."

So, you can see that the reason Israel in unable to believe is NOT because they are non-elect reprobates born in a condition that can't respond to God's revelations. It is because THEY have been able for years to respond to His revelations and they refused thus making their hearts GROW HARDENED.

At this time in history God has sealed them in that hardened state by hiding the gospel from them in parables (Mk 4 - which would completely unnecessary if TD and UE were true), and He has blinded their eyes and gave them a 'spirit of stupor.' Why? So as to (1) bring redemption through Calvary and (2) provide for the engrafting of the Gentiles.

God is in the process of hardening Israel and grafting in Gentiles. Calvinists make the error of using passages that are speaking about the condition of Israel at this time and applying it to the innate nature of all mankind. If I'm wrong then please explain the practical difference between a man who has "become hardened" and one who is just "totally depraved?" Can one of them see, hear, understand and turn to God? Is there ANY real distinction between them in your system?

You call this a life...ROFL

 

[David Lamb]

Translation needed please . What's a huckleberry in this context? I looked the word up, but only found:

huckleberry [húk'lbəri]
(plural huckleberries)
n
1. fruit: the edible dark-blue fruit of a bush related to the blueberry
2. plant like blueberry: a bush that bears huckleberries. Native to: North America.
Genus: Gaylussacia

[Late 16th century. Probably alteration of hurtleberry 'whortleberry']
​

That definition doesn't really make much sense here.

 

[quantumfaith]

Translation needed please . What's a huckleberry in this context? I looked the word up, but only found:

huckleberry [húk'lbəri]
(plural huckleberries)
n
1. fruit: the edible dark-blue fruit of a bush related to the blueberry
2. plant like blueberry: a bush that bears huckleberries. Native to: North America.
Genus: Gaylussacia

[Late 16th century. Probably alteration of hurtleberry 'whortleberry']
​

That definition doesn't really make much sense here.

19th century slang which means "I'm the man you're looking for".

 

[freeatlast]

It's difficult to have a conversation on this board if you have a life because by the time you get back to respond the thread has closed....:laugh:

I left off here speaking with Jarthur on the subject of John 6, Total Depravity and Original Sin the this thread...

Most Calvinists would know a real Arminian if they bit them on the nose.

I affirm OS, but not the full implications of TD. I explain it more fully HERE>

General or Special Revelation...it doesn't matter with regard to this point, all men are WITHOUT EXCUSE. Why? BECAUSE they COULD see, hear, understand and know the divine attributes and eternal qualities of God. Total Depravity's implication is that men are born deaf, blind and unable to see, hear and understand thus giving them the perfect excuse. The mistake Calvinists make is to assume that being HARDENED (given over to your continually rebellious nature) is a condition from birth rather than something people "grow" into or "become."

Read Acts 28 with me:

24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

Now, please notice 3 things in this passage.

(1) Some were convinced by WHAT HE SAID, but why didn't the others believe? Because their heart had "BECOME CALLOUSED" or hardened. (Same as the verse we already looked at in John 12:39-41)

(2) What could they have done IF they had not 'become calloused?' Paul tells us, "Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn..." This shows the unique condition of the JEWS as ones who have been privy to God's revelation and have rejected it continually.

(3) Is that a condition of all men from birth as TD suggests? NO. They BECAME Calloused, they weren't born that way and look at Paul's comparison with the Gentiles who haven't "become calloused"...."they will listen."

So, you can see that the reason Israel in unable to believe is NOT because they are non-elect reprobates born in a condition that can't respond to God's revelations. It is because THEY have been able for years to respond to His revelations and they refused thus making their hearts GROW HARDENED.

At this time in history God has sealed them in that hardened state by hiding the gospel from them in parables (Mk 4 - which would completely unnecessary if TD and UE were true), and He has blinded their eyes and gave them a 'spirit of stupor.' Why? So as to (1) bring redemption through Calvary and (2) provide for the engrafting of the Gentiles.

God is in the process of hardening Israel and grafting in Gentiles. Calvinists make the error of using passages that are speaking about the condition of Israel at this time and applying it to the innate nature of all mankind. If I'm wrong then please explain the practical difference between a man who has "become hardened" and one who is just "totally depraved?" Can one of them see, hear, understand and turn to God? Is there ANY real distinction between them in your system?

[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]I cannot tell you what a Calvinist believes since I do not study the man and it seems that those who do cannot make up their mind's between themselves on what he taught. Also I never met John Calvin to ask him where he stands on the issues.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]As to total depravity I believe this. We are all born dead to God. Dead people cannot see, hear, or make choices. God in His mercy enlightens the dead with the ability to hear His initial call. (read the parable of the sower, they all could hear). However each makes a choice determining their outcome based on if their heart is of the right condition. Even the dead have to hear His initial call, but will reject if they have not been properly prepared, yet not without man's own personal involvement in the choice. There is nothing wrong with the seed, but there is something wrong with where it was sown. Un-prepared ground means no harvest. As with pharaoh who first hardened his heart more and more God will make the final hardening and the person is without remedy.[/SIZE]

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

He does not always get His will. Can makes the final choice and God seals it one way or the other.

[/SIZE]

 

[David Lamb]

19th century slang which means "I'm the man you're looking for".

Thanks. (We don't have huckleberries here, so it's not used as a slang word).

 

[BobinKy]

Translation needed please . What's a huckleberry in this context?

Perhaps, one of the most graphic contexts of "I'm your huckleberry" occurs in the western movie Tombstone, a film about The Gunfight at OK Corral (a true event, more or less). To wallow in the full extent of the context, you might want to view the following video clip which occurs toward the end of the movie. The scene is a gunfight between Doc Holiday (good guy) and Johnny Ringo (bad guy). U.S. Marshall Wyatt Earp (friend of Doc Holiday) shows up after the shooting is over. The location of the historical incidents occurred around Tombstone, Arizona (1881-1884). The movie Tombstone was released in 1993.

Sometimes I think the theology debates here on Baptist Board remind me of the movie Tombstone.

WARNING: If you do not want to watch violence, do NOT watch the clip.

Doc Holiday and Johnny Ringo shoot it out in the movie Tombstone​

...Bob

 

[pinoybaptist]

[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]I cannot tell you what a Calvinist believes since I do not study the man and it seems that those who do cannot make up their mind's between themselves on what he taught. Also I never met John Calvin to ask him where he stands on the issues.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]As to total depravity I believe this. We are all born dead to God. Dead people cannot see, hear, or make choices. God in His mercy enlightens the dead with the ability to hear His initial call. (read the parable of the sower, they all could hear). However each makes a choice determining their outcome based on if their heart is of the right condition. Even the dead have to hear His initial call, but will reject if they have not been properly prepared, yet not without man's own personal involvement in the choice. There is nothing wrong with the seed, but there is something wrong with where it was sown. Un-prepared ground means no harvest. As with pharaoh who first hardened his heart more and more God will make the final hardening and the person is without remedy.[/SIZE]

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

He does not always get His will. Can makes the final choice and God seals it one way or the other.

[/SIZE]

Some maintain that the parable of the sower is about all of fallen mankind, others say the parable is about obedience and disobedience of regenerates, and there has been a lot of debates about this parable.

I am of the latter group.
Also, the Scripture you quoted is specifically referring, by context, to the elect.
God's will is for all to come to repentance, not to be eternally saved, but to reap the harvest of an earthly blessing.
Sin is sin, whether you be of God, or of the devil, and God will not countenance it and shield any of His children from its earthly consequences even if the eternal consequences have been settled by Christ.
Look at David's life.
However, not all of God's children will come to repentance, though all were redeemed by Christ.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Perhaps, one of the most graphic contexts of "I'm your huckleberry" occurs in the western movie Tombstone, a film about The Gunfight at OK Corral (a true event, more or less). To wallow in the full extent of the context, you might want to view the following video clip which occurs toward the end of the movie. The scene is a gunfight between Doc Holiday (good guy) and Johnny Ringo (bad guy). U.S. Marshall Wyatt Earp (friend of Doc Holiday) shows up after the shooting is over. The location of the historical incidents were Tombstone, Arizona (1881-1884). The movie Tombstone was released in 1993.

WARNING: If you do not want to watch violence, do NOT watch the clip.

Western movie Tombstone
​

...Bob

This is a remake of the Kirk Douglas film "Gunfight at the OK Corral" that I never get tired watching.
Val Kilmer was good as Doc Holiday.

 

[BobinKy]

Among my many non-significant hobbies, I am an amateur Etymologist. Here are a few links that discuss the history behind the phrase "I'm you huckleberry."



World Wide Words



Lawson Stone



Everything



Urban Dictionary



The Phrase Finder



...Bob

 

[freeatlast]

Some maintain that the parable of the sower is about all of fallen mankind, others say the parable is about obedience and disobedience of regenerates, and there has been a lot of debates about this parable.

I am of the latter group.
Also, the Scripture you quoted is specifically referring, by context, to the elect.
God's will is for all to come to repentance, not to be eternally saved, but to reap the harvest of an earthly blessing.
Sin is sin, whether you be of God, or of the devil, and God will not countenance it and shield any of His children from its earthly consequences even if the eternal consequences have been settled by Christ.
Look at David's life.
However, not all of God's children will come to repentance, though all were redeemed by Christ.

So that this thread is not totally high jacked i will simply say that i disagree with you understanding of the Sower.
That being said you do however confirm my statement about God not always getting His will by your statement; "However, not all of God's children will come to repentance" even tough your understanding of your own statement is incorrect.

 

[Jarthur001]

It's difficult to have a conversation on this board if you have a life because by the time you get back to respond the thread has closed....:laugh:

You mean you are not in full control of your will in life?

I left off here speaking with Jarthur on the subject of John 6, Total Depravity and Original Sin the this thread...

That would be jathur001. I come from a long line of zeros.

Most Calvinists would know a real Arminian if they bit them on the nose.

Maybe. But the same can be said of Arimians. Like..

Did you know that the Arminian doctrine, in its earlier form, did not directly affect the subject of Justification? It sounded more scriptural, and in harmony with the faith of the Reformed Churches.

He says expressly,

' I believe that sinners are accounted righteous solely by the obedience of Christ; and that the righteousness of Christ is the only meritorious cause on account of which God pardons the sins of believers, and reckons them as righteous as if they had perfectly fulfilled the law.'
From: Olson, The Truth Shall Make You Free (henceforth Truth)

' I am not conscious to myself of having taught or entertained any other sentiments concerning the justification of men before God, than those which are held unanimously by the Reformed and Protestant Churches.'
FROM: Articles of the Christain....http://articles.ochristian.com/preacher302-1.shtml

' None of our divines blames Calvin, or considers him to be heterodox on this point; yet my opinion is not so widely different from his, as to prevent me from employing the signature of my own hand, in subscribing to those things which he has delivered on this subject in the Third Book of his " Institutes ;" this I am prepared to do at any time, and to give them my full approval.'

FROM: Arminius Sentiments. See link below...go to page 238

http://www.semperreformanda.com/arminius3.htm

I affirm OS, but not the full implications of TD. I explain it more fully HERE>

Yes I know what you believe therefore I rest my case on your statements. You do recall, we have debated before.

General or Special Revelation...it doesn't matter with regard to this point, all men are WITHOUT EXCUSE. Why?

Well, they are without excuse, but it does matter BIG TIME.

From: The Works Of James Arminius Vol. 2..

IV. The grace and special concurrence of God are required for the performance of entire, true, and sincere obedience, even for that of the inner man, of the affections of the heart, and of a lawful mode. But we allow it to be made a subject of discussion, whether revelation, and that assistance of God which is called "general," and which is opposed to this special aid, and is distinguished from it, be sufficient only to perform the external act of the body and the substance of the act.

V. Though that special grace which moves, excites, impels and urges to obey, physically moves the understanding and the inclination of man, so that he cannot be otherwise than affected with the perception of it, yet it does not effect or elicit the consent except morally, that is, by the mode of suasion, and by the intervention of the free volition of man, which free volition not only excludes coaction, but likewise all antecedent necessity and determination.

VI. But that special concurrence or assistance of grace, which is also called "co-operating and accompanying grace" differs neither in kind nor efficacy from that exciting and moving grace which is called preventing and operating, but it is the same grace continued. It is styled "co-operating" or "concomitant," only on account of the concurrence of the human will which operating and preventing grace has elicited from the will of man. This concurrence is not denied to him to whom exciting grace is applied, unless the man offers resistance to the grace exciting.

Now many are fooled by the last part. Please do not be. This is Theory of voluntarily appropriated Depravity, which is how James Arminius handled OS. But when we get to this, and I'm sure we will, you will see that many have not read all of his doctrine here too.


I'll come back and address the rest later....

The wife needs to shop...

 

[quantumfaith]

You mean you are not in full control of your will in life?



That would be jathur001. I come from a long line of zeros.


Maybe. But the same can be said of Arimians. Like..

Did you know that the Arminian doctrine, in its earlier form, did not directly affect the subject of Justification? It sounded more scriptural, and in harmony with the faith of the Reformed Churches.

He says expressly,












Yes I know what you believe therefore I rest my case on your statements. You do recall, we have debated before.



Well, they are without excuse, but it does matter BIG TIME.

From: The Works Of James Arminius Vol. 2..




Now many are fooled by the last part. Please do not be. This is Theory of voluntarily appropriated Depravity, which is how James Arminius handled OS. But when we get to this, and I'm sure we will, you will see that many have not read all of his doctrine here too.


I'll come back and address the rest later....

The wife needs to shop...

The first recorded zero is attributed to the Babylonians in the 3rd century BC. A long period followed when no one else used a zero place holder. But then the Mayans, halfway around the world in Central America, independently invented zero in the fourth century CE. The final independent invention of zero in India was long debated by scholars, but seems to be set around the middle of the fifth century. It spread to Cambodia around the end of the 7th century. From India it moved into China and then to the Islamic countries. Zero finally reached western Europe in the 12th century.

Although spiritually bankrupt, at least the Babylonians contributed something.

 

[Jarthur001]

[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0] As with pharaoh who first hardened his heart more and more God will make the final hardening and the person is without remedy.[/SIZE]

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

He does not always get His will. Can makes the final choice and God seals it one way or the other.

[/SIZE]

I don't understand many things. One is, I don't understand why somexpeople keep picking the above passages to make their point about Gods will. I do wish people would read the passage before pulling a verse or two trying to make their point, when the passage will not allow it.

 

[Luke2427]

I don't understand many things. One is, I don't understand why somexpeople keep picking the above passages to make their point about Gods will. I do wish people would read the passage before pulling a verse or two trying to make their point, when the passage will not allow it.

Yes, he is not willing that any of the people to whom he has made the promise, HIS people, should perish.

Indeed, NONE of those people will perish. Therefore, God gets his will PERFECTLY here.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When I think huckleberry I remember the cartoon Huckleberry Hound....a bumbling muddled character that sings Oh My Darlin Clemintine.... you are lost & gone forever & your shoes are number 9.:wavey:

 

[Jarthur001]

I'm back to post this little bit before church. Maybe I'll have time tonight to address Acts.

General or Special Revelation...it doesn't matter with regard to this point, all men are WITHOUT EXCUSE. Why? BECAUSE they COULD see, hear, understand and know the divine attributes and eternal qualities of God. Total Depravity's implication is that men are born deaf, blind and unable to see, hear and understand thus giving them the perfect excuse. The mistake Calvinists make is to assume that being HARDENED (given over to your continually rebellious nature) is a condition from birth rather than something people "grow" into or "become."

It is rather silly to argue against TD. This can be found throughout Scripture. This is the point we must agree upon. Salvation brings change.

New heart, new life, new creation, new eyes, new ears, new birth, new understanding, you become wise, you have understanding, you have sight...and more…….This newness comes from being in Christ because Christ is the life.

The state man is in before salvation is extreme. The Bible calls it being dead.


NOW>>>>If the Bible wanted to take it one step beyond dead to the lowest level of the life that man is in, the most extreme level in life one could be, where would that level be? There is no lower level in life than death.

If the Bible wanted to use words to give understanding to this deadness and use hearing to help express the level what is the most extreme level in a negative way that this can be stated? Would not, "cannot hear" be it?

Notice it does not say the level of hearing is based on the will. It does not say they will not hear. It says they CANNOT hear. Their ears do not work. What greater level could God use?

John 8

43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.

47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

Notice this in the chapter as well…

If God were your Father, you would love me,

Can we love God, before we are born again?

If The Bible were to use a word to tell of this deadness and wanted to use sight, what level could be lower than blindness? I know of none.

Its as if the Bible goes overboard telling the state of man in the deadness he is, and then free-willers say, well, man is really not that bad. I mean come on. What can the Bible say for you to believe this???

sight is a blessing from God.

Blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear" (Matt. 13:16).

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.".

"Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him . . ." (John 14:17)

1 Thess 3:2
And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all [men] have not faith.

Men cannot please God without faith (Heb. 11:6).

Faith is a gift of God's grace (Eph. 2:8).

God sovereignly gives this gift to whomever He pleases and withholds it at His pleasure (Rom 9:15,16).

Job 33...

14For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not.

15In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed;

16Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction,

17That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man.

18He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword.


SNIP….

23If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness:

24Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom.

If I were to list all the verses I would be here all day long.

This should not even be debated. Just believe the Bible on this one.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'm back to post this little bit before church. Maybe I'll have time tonight to address Acts.



It is rather silly to argue against TD. This can be found throughout Scripture. This is the point we must agree upon. Salvation brings change.

New heart, new life, new creation, new eyes, new ears, new birth, new understanding, you become wise, you have understanding, you have sight...and more…….This newness comes from being in Christ because Christ is the life.

The state man is in before salvation is extreme. The Bible calls it being dead.


NOW>>>>If the Bible wanted to take it one step beyond dead to the lowest level of the life that man is in, the most extreme level in life one could be, where would that level be? There is no lower level in life than death.

If the Bible wanted to use words to give understanding to this deadness and use hearing to help express the level what is the most extreme level in a negative way that this can be stated? Would not, "cannot hear" be it?

Notice it does not say the level of hearing is based on the will. It does not say they will not hear. It says they CANNOT hear. Their ears do not work. What greater level could God use?




Notice this in the chapter as well…



Can we love God, before we are born again?

If The Bible were to use a word to tell of this deadness and wanted to use sight, what level could be lower than blindness? I know of none.

Its as if the Bible goes overboard telling the state of man in the deadness he is, and then free-willers say, well, man is really not that bad. I mean come on. What can the Bible say for you to believe this???

sight is a blessing from God.
















If I were to list all the verses I would be here all day long.

This should not even be debated. Just believe the Bible on this one.

your a credit to your race Boyo. Have a good Sunday.

 

[Robert Snow]

This is a remake of the Kirk Douglas film "Gunfight at the OK Corral" that I never get tired watching.
Val Kilmer was good as Doc Holiday.

Yes, I agree. I have this movie and like you said, Val Kilmer's role as Doc Holiday makes watching the movie enjoyable. Besides, the rest of the actors do a good job also.

See, we can agree! :1_grouphug: