Total Depravity

No it doesn't. One of the explanations quoted earlier was absolutely superb on this very point... did you read it?

Man doesn't lack faculties... I think was the way it was put.

That is one reason I don't like the word "inability". It implies that God has limited the person or is the cause of that limitation- He isn't.

 

No it doesn't. One of the explanations quoted earlier was absolutely superb on this very point... did you read it?

Man doesn't lack faculties... I think was the way it was put.

That is one reason I don't like the word "inability". It implies that God has limited the person or is the cause of that limitation- He isn't. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah I read that Scott but I didn't concentrate on it because it was a qoute from someone and not scripture.</font>[/QUOTE] It was an explanation of man's condition as given in scripture by a very wise and understanding theologian. If you want to know what we believe rather than continuing to argue against things we don't believe- you have to pay more attention to explanations like this.

Nope. That's the catch.

Man won't (as in "will" not) because he has no motive within him that is "good". So while he "may" at any time, he never "will" until God regenerates his spirit giving him a new will with which to choose good.

I would say that total corruption "makes" total unwillingness, inhospitality, antagonism,... "enmity".

The effective result is the same but my answer is no. Depravity does not result in people being "unable" to make moral judgments. Man's faculties are not defective or prevented by God from making good choices. God doesn't have to do a single thing to make man fatally, obstinately unwilling... He has to perform a miracle to free man to be willing.

It is man's will that is so corrupted by sin that he cannot make any "good" contribution to his own salvation... to include a "good" decision, until God performs the miracle of regeneration upon him.

 

You don't have to. Scripture tells us why those who do- do.

God elected them. He regenerates them. He quickens their dead spirit... opens their blinded eyes... gives them ears to hear. Repeatedly, God gives Himself credit for the difference.

Yes man is responsible.

Yes. God's good and man's evil are mutually exclusive.

Yes.

Yes

Does that sound like someone who a) can blame God for his state or b) has any good will in him whatsoever that would cause him to reconcile himself to God?

NO.

The thing is none of the texts you cite demonstrates that man will do good or choose good. You make a great case for why man is lost, depraved, and hopeless... but you fail to show any reason why such a person would in their own goodness choose the salvation offered in Christ.

 

That doesn't prove otherwise and says nothing about why they did or did not believe him.

Because the preaching of the gospel is the method God chose to use.

Again, why were some persuaded while others weren't? Did God grant them understanding or were they "good" enough in and of themselves?

Again, because the gospel is the method God chose to redeem men. I didn't say that man's will and decisions were not part of the method/plan. I said that God must grant man spiritual freedom through regeneration before he will do anything good.

Bottom line: God must be the instigator of anything that is genuinely "good"... while man has plenty of capacity all on his own to do evil.

Because that was the experential aspect of it. Notably, the Jews were not successful, the gospel was brought to the gentiles,... and Christ's other sheep heard His voice and followed.

This same Paul wrote Romans 8, Romans 1-3, Eph 1, and many other passages that deny man's goodness and exalt God's grace. You can't divorce and create a contradiction between Paul's teachings on the involvement of man's will and his other teachings concerning election, depravity, and God's primacy in salvation.

This is why I say that calvinism is the best explanation I have found. It allows all of scripture to be true. It doesn't create the contradictions that are necessitated by systems that exalt man's will and choice to the position of "cooperating/contributing" to individual salvation in a primary way.

Think about what you just claimed then reconcile it with the activities, messages, and statements of genuine calvinists like Edwards, Spurgeon, and more recently MacArthur or Piper.

It is God's sovereignty that provides the messenger... it is God's sovereignty that sees to the fertility of the ground to which the seed is being spread.

Since your premise is faulty, your conclusion is likewise unwarranted.

You think "persuasive preaching" is a man's work? When you preach and someone gets saved, you think it is because YOU did something of yourself?... Or, do you rightly recognize that you have been used as an instrument by God?

 

No. It didn't... and I comprehend your point or else I couldn't have responded to it.

Paul wrote those things. He also wrote Romans 8 which describes individual salvation from eternity past to eternity future with a screaming absence of any reference or dependence on man's will or choice. These things must be reconciled in a way that does harm to neither scripture nor introduces a contradiction.

Plain and simple- man is responsible for sin. God's "goodness leadeth thee to repentance."

I didn't miss it. I answered it... Why do you want to start that kind of non-sense again. I thought we were having a productive discussion until just now.

Except that you are planting your own biases into what calvinists believe again rather than accepting and honestly considering what we say. I may not deserve your respect but certainly the likes of Spurgeon should. Has there been a greater preacher since Paul? I doubt it. Did he fail to call people to repentance? No. Did he recognize that his duty was to call while it was God's prerogative to motivate? Yes.

Come on Tim... Please think about what we say before responding to what you imagine we mean. Can't because they won't... not because God denies them the faculties to do so.

And this is why you've been accused more than once here of arguing with us without knowing or trying to truly understand what we believe.

The contradictions exist only in your mind.

Jesus Christ and Him crucified... repent and believe.

Are you insenuating that Spurgeon, Whitefield, and Edwards deceived those who fell to their knees in repentance?

They can and should do something... but won't until God performs a miracle in their lives.

I have heard even the most arminian preachers say, "Is the Spirit calling you?" The obvious answer for many unsaved in those audiences... was "no".

Faith comes by hearing the gospel... the ability to "hear" spiritually comes by the miraculous regeneration of the spirit.

Because there is none righteous, no not one. There is none that understands, there is none that seek God... there is none that do good.

Nope I didn't say that.

or that really. An adulterer may self reform for many reasons that have nothing to do with genuine repentance, salvation, obedience to God, or God's glory.

Yes. There is a significant difference between human efforts to self-justify and escape guilt and godly repentance toward the Savior.

For selfish purposes, not God glorifying ones.

He can but won't for the very same reason that he might obey his conscience and self-reform... because he loves himself and his flesh. He is a self-worshipper.

Not demonstrated by anything you have presented so far.

Nope. Not a single one says that unregenerate man possesses the goodness to do these things of themselves.

Nope... ONLY while they are under the effectual drawing of the HS.

Repentance is no more forced on a born again spirit than metabolism is forced on a new born child.

On the second part you are simply wrong.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Lead in every sense that I am aware of means to go first... to be primary... to be the motive or cause.

Nope. Again, people have their faculties. They are responsible. They could not rightly be condemned if they weren't called.

Now that is a totally separate issue for why some are saved. We are not saved for the same reason or for the opposite reason of why people are lost.

People are condemned because they deserve it even after God graciously reveals Himself to them. People are saved in spite of the fact that they don't deserve it even after God graciously reveals Himself to them.

God gave man the capacity to make moral judgment. He is in no wise guilty when man chooses evil... but He it is by His grace and to His glory alone than any ever choose righteousness.

 

I know you aren't addressing me, but I thought I'd add my 10 cents (still worth only 2 cents, but adjusted for inflation).

I think the problem you're having understanding why this doesn't disprove or conflict with election is because you're seeing things as an either/or. Either God does it all, or man has a part in it.

The reality is that God does it all, sometimes by using man as part of the process. Paul attempted to persuade men, and if God opens the ears of one of the listeners, Paul's persuasion will be effective. If God does not open the ears of any of the listeners, then Pauls efforts will produce nothing. But does Paul know God's intent? Of course not. So Paul must do what we are commanded to do also -- spread the Gospel. God determines who actually *hears* the Gospel.

That's why Acts 13:48 says, "When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed."

Paul and Barnabas preached to EVERYONE. EVERYONE HEARD THE WORDS of what was preached. But only those who were appointed for eternal life actually "had ears to hear" and believed.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing [comes by] the utterance of God. I say "utterance" because the Greek word is rhema, not logos -- which makes me think the verse would be more accurately translated in today's colloquial English as "Faith comes by hearing and hearing comes when God says so."

 

I hate to use analogies because once you get started, people tend to focus on the analogy and not the point behind it. But I'm afraid I'll risk one anyway.

Whether or not receiving a gift is a work of man depends on how he receives it. If I hand you $100, then you have to do "a work" to take it because I'm leaving it up to you whether or not you accept the gift. If I deposit $100 into your bank account, you get the gift and do absolutely nothing to receive it.

IMO, neither example illustrates how salvation works. But in the former example, man must decide whether or not to accept the gift, then reach out and take it.

If you believe salvation works that way, it leads to the question: Who makes one man differ from another that one would decide to receive the gift and reach out and take it, and another decides to reject it and refuse to take it?

If man makes the difference, then man must have the glory. But the Bible says that it is God who makes one differ from another.

 

And you make God a "respecter of person" with whom he will/won't save, do you know that to have respect of persons is a "SIN"??

Does God sin???

Faith is all God requires from us, Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law, death for sin, to "Redeem" us from being under that law.

"FAITH" won't pay the "wages of sin".


Ge 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Evidently, the fall wasn't as far as most believe, "GOOD" is still known as much as "EVIL".

The fall wasn't "TOTAL".

"AS GODS" we're "FREE" to chose between the "Good/Evil", just like any other "god".

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

 

And you make God a "respecter of person" with whom he will/won't save</font>[/QUOTE]If it is God who makes the difference, how does that make God a respecter of persons? One person is better than another only because God made him that way. God didn't make him that way because he was better.

Indeed, salvation by free will choice makes God a respecter of persons, because in that view God only chooses those who are "good enough" to make the right decision.

 

Wrong. God only chooses those who are "in Christ", His Son. This has nothing to do with being "good enough"

God makes the rules. Believe = eternal life, don't believe = eternal separation. If the "rules" are laid out in front of the whole world, there is no way God is a respector of persons for choosing those "in Christ".

 

Wrong. God only chooses those who are "in Christ", His Son. This has nothing to do with being "good enough" </font>[/QUOTE] It does if the critical difference between the saved and the lost is a decision motivated by some good within the man rather than by good placed in him specially by God.

Again, if the critical difference between those who do and those who don't is an independent good decision made by them... then God is simply recognizing the merit of that choice. He is respecting them for what they have done.

 

We've been around this block before. Your claims of good decision as "works" cannot be substantiated as fact.

 

Oh for heaven's sake... I have given you the very definition of work to prove it. To deny that the process leading to a decision is mental work is to deny the very definition of the word.

But if you somehow got past that... you still couldn't deny that the man had provided the critical difference in his own salvation that separates him from those who remain lost- a good decision.

 

Tim,

I really enjoyed reading your comments. I compile some neat ones below:

However, I need to comment on one re. Ephesians 2:8, 9, which I'll post separately...

Thx,

FA