Featured Asking for scriptural rebuttal to TULIP

Brother, I and tens of thousands of other believers, reject Total Depravity. We believe in Depravity but not in Total Depravity in the Calvinistic sense whereby it extends to the free will of man rendering him unable to believe or choose.
I don't know what makes you think that everyone accepts Total Depravity in the Calvinistic sense.

 

Your interpretation forces the verse into a premolded calvinist philosophy.

John 1:13 simply means you can't will yourself, on your own terms, into salvation or the new birth - not that the free will of a lost man is not involved in salvation.

 

No, the text shows that their own human spirit made them willing.

 

Let's grant that as true, that counter-argument was pre-empted by the Exodus 35:21 example and explanation in the same post. The Jews in the wilderness were not born again, and most did not persevere, yet all willingly offered of their own human spirit.

 

Sure. Either way, their spirits are of the Spirit. That wasn't my central point though - i was only saying that the flesh does will too. The flesh wills evil apart from God and that is total depravity/inability of the flesh. This is neither calvinist nor arminian - what you infer based on this is what leads to the various distinctions.

I mean exactly what you say - lost man cannot will himself into salvation. Why cannot lost man will himself into salvation - Because he is totally unable to by himself. What do we term this state of man - Total inability of the flesh. How does such a lost man unable in the flesh then choose rightly - by God's grace alone. So far, there cannot be any difference between calvinists and arminians. The difference here arises with the calvinists saying irresistible grace is granted to the elect alone taking no account of his freewill while the arminians hold prevenient grace granted based on man's freewill. This difference is based on the common truth that man is indeed unable to choose rightly by himself in his natural state apart from God's grace, whatever you term it.

 

I am past trying to guess what other people think. Since I have ventured into the Internet theology discussions, I wonder if there are any sane, rational people left in the world. I would hope that you think it means what THIS Credobaptist thinks the word means ... “prepared for God with solemn rite, pure, clean” (from hagios) ... as used in:

• Rom 11:16
• Rom 12:1
  
• 1 Cor 7:14
• Eph 1:4
  
• Eph 5:3
• Eph 5:27
• Col 1:22

 

Then why do Paedobaptists have “confirmations” and “communions”?

Yes it is different. No it is not “completely”. (At least not at the place where the rubber meets the road. The ivory towers of theology are a different matter, but they are more theoretical than reality to begin with.)

 

I have no clue what you are taking about.

 

Even though I now prefer to refrain from posting my thoughts in these debates and would instead like to direct people to the words of God themselves to do the speaking,
I'd like to address one of the posts above simply to offer my observations, if I may:

George,

To me, your understanding of the verse isn't taking into account every word.
This has nothing to do with anything John Calvin taught, anything John Wesley taught, or anything anyone else teaches.
This has to do with the words on the page.

Where you see the will of man being involved in the new birth, I do not know, but to me, it isn't John 1:13.
If you know of another passage that tells us that man's will is involved in the new birth, please list it.

Off the top of my head, I don't know of one that outright declares it to be so.
However, I do know of one that outright declares it to not be involved, and that is this one.
With that said, I'd like to post John 1:13 in its entirety for closer inspection:

"which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Here it is as I've broken it down into "bullet points":

A) The ones in verse 12 ( I'll list it further on...they are the ones that received Him ) were born "of" ( by or from ) God.
B) They were not born of:

1) Blood.
2) The will of the flesh.
3) The will of man.

Therefore,
Blood, the will of the flesh and the will of man are not involved in being born of God, because the verse itself tells us what is not involved in the "born of God" process.
When I read this, these "points" stand up off the page, and I've bolded the text to show where I'm getting it.

Widening things up a bit, here is what I see when I read the entire passage from 11 to 13:

"He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." ( John 1:11-13 )

Breaking it down:

11) He ( The "Word" from verse 1, which then becomes the "Light" from verse 7, and then is described as "He" in verse 8 ) came to His own...
The Jews in verse 19.
They did not receive ( welcome ) Him.

12) Then it tells us that as many as received Him ( Why did they receive Him? Here we are not told ), to them He gave the power to become ( grow to be, begin to be ) the sons of God.
He gave this power ( right, authority ) only to them that believe on His name.

13) Again, they were not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man.
Those things are completely ruled out.

They were born, OF ( Definition of OF ) God.


This is what I see when I read the passage.
In addition, I didn't have to consult John Calvin or the writings of any prominent "Calvinist" to understand it this way...
Neither did I feel inclined to consult the writings of John Wesley, prominent "Wesleyans" or any other men to determine the correct understanding of it.

I simply do so, without having to have it explained to me by any man.



May God bless you greatly.

 

Romans 3:11, "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

 

I think people get it wrong saying Luther and Calvin were antisemitic. Just as they opposed the Catholics as a false religion. Judaism is a false religion too. But since racists perceive the Jews to be a race, they think the Reformers were Racists. Antisemitic means opposition to the entire Middle East because most came from Shem (the original semite) through Abraham.

Sem·ite
/ˈsemīt/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.

 

17:1 Better is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith, than an house full of sacrifices with strife.

... BOOM, there you have it. Calvinism refuted. (Now don't all you Particular Baptists feel silly).

 

Sorry. I'll drop the bunny trail and save it for another topic.

 

I hang my head in shame.

 

There is no inability in scripture telling us as sinners we are unable to respond to the Gospel. Total depravity isn't in scripture it is a man made idea. Calvinist claim man's spirit is literally dead which is not true. Our spirit is dead only in the sense we are separated from God. This is what Paul meant when he said a sinners spirit is dead It means to be separated from God. The flesh cannot live with out the spirit which quickens our flesh. Not only this but the spirit never dies. If it did as a sinner there would be no reason to send them to hell. They would be unresponsive unconscious unaware of the pain and punishment.
MB

 

I am not aware of classic calvinism teaching that - they only say man in his natural state is spiritually dead because he is in the flesh and not in the spirit, not that there is no spirit at all or that it's literally dead. When born again, he (his soul?) is birthed again in the spirit and is no longer in the flesh as before in the first birth (Rom 8:9). Total inability of the flesh is what's described in Rom 7: 25, Rom 8:7-8 and elsewhere. Do you read these passages differently?

 

Romans 8:7/John 8:44

 

Neither do I, as Calvinists see our theology straight from the lips of Jesus and Paul themselves!