Man Is Totally Depraved

That's a very nice explanation of total depravity, Odemus

 

Scott,

Based on this post, I honestly believe you are in need of psychological counseling. Having had a cat for 13 years and now heavily into dog training, my absolute disgust with your attitude toward this heinous act of cruelty is beyond my ability to articulate. Frankly, I see no reason for me to even respond to any of your posts anymore. So if you respond to any of my posts, do not expect an answer.

Ken</font>[/QUOTE]Ken,

I don't believe for a moment that Scott was implying that putting a live cat on a grill was not a sin.

Perhaps you misunderstood him.

I think he was simply questioning why this one particular sin was being focused on as compared with all the other sins humans do.

AITB

 

That's exactly right, AITB. You've hit the nail on the head! I have a cat myself and would be completely and utterly ticked if it were to happen to my cat (www.geocities.com/scottscatdax/index.html).

The point is this - There are plenty of sins that we should be worrying about - placing a cat on a grill is an isolated incident, unlike the murder, raping, blasphemy against God, and other perversions going on in the world. Frankly, those kind of things bother me more than a messed up person placing a cat on a grill.

If only we were all as sickened to all sin in the same way Ken was sickened about the cat. Then we would truly understand what it was we were saved from. We weren't saved from hell, death, or anything else...we were saved from God. (think about that before replying that I think God is anything other than good.)

 

It's worse than that. I'm a therapist myself.

 

Raising hand: "Guilty." But please go back and note that I had the term in quotation marks. There was a reason for that - because it is a religious term, not a Bible term. My point was really only that in the last several years, very small children, thought of by the no depravity/partial depravity/general depravity crowd as having not reached "the age of accountability" for sins, have committed some pretty gruesome crimes (not on accident, but deliberately). I can only assume those who deny total depravity would blame it on their conditioning and environment.

 

He chose THINGS, not people. Again, things, not people. God chooses a lot of things. God even chooses some people to do his work, such as the prophet Jeremiah and the Pharisee Saul (Paul).

So what happens to aborted babies in your theology, sir? What about one-year-olds who die? Are their sins covered? What is your scripture for such beliefs?

 

Maybe you should have spared yourself the embarassment and read the whole text.

(1 Cor. 1:29) That no FLESH should glory in his presence.

(1 Cor. 1:31) That, according as it is written, HE that glorieth, let HIM glory in the Lord.

The passage is clearly referring to PEOPLE. Jesus was referred to as "that" (Matt. 2:2). Does this mean Jesus is an "it?" No!

IF I were one of you, I would twist the Scriptures here, there, and every where to come up with an answer, but the Bible does not give one. I will leave that in the hands of a sovereign God because He knows best. Now, why do you not answer my post? I guess no one is. Alas! I proved the Calvinist position!

Ray, no one is denying man was created in the image of God for the ten thousandth time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Man has a totally depraved NATURE. Are you insisting man has a nature like that of God? Man is a reflection of God, that is, in his form. Further proof of this fact is when Jesus was made flesh. Man is what God would look like if He were to take on human flesh like He did in His Son, Jesus Christ.

 

Let's read the whole thing, shall we?

26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

What was chosen? Things that can confound the wise and shame the strong. Why were these things chosen? So that people may not boast before him. Those who do should boast in the Lord. It is a stretch to say that "things" equal "people" because there is no hermeneutical evidence to support your decision - you just assume that "things" means "people," when Paul seems to go out ofh is way to not use people. He could have used people instead of things, but didn't.

I don't need to twist the Scripture here. You use the "a sovereign God knows best," even though your theology dictates a different answer as a matter of logic - you said yourself that "We're accountable as soon as we're born because if we're not sinners from concpetion Jesus didn't come to save aborted babies because "Jesus Christ came to save sinners." If Christ didn't come to save those children, then we can deduce their result.

What post are you ranting and raving that "hasn't been answered?" If you think that one unanswered post "proves the Calvinist position," you are indeed the most brilliant theologian since the time of Paul.

[ July 19, 2002, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: ScottEmerson ]

 

Actually Scott you are wrong. Paul does not say "foolish things." He said "foolish," "weak," and "lowly."

Secondly, in the context, it is clear that he is drawing a contrast. In v. 25, he says not many of you (the people chosen) were wise, mighty, or noble. The contrast in v. 26 is clear: foolish (compared to wise), weak (compared to mighty), and lowly (compared to noble). Thus, simple interpretation and study shows you to be wrong about your interpretation of this verse.

How does choosing "things" prevent "people" from boasting? And what foolish, weak, and lowly things did God choose so that man would not boast? These questions show the weakness of your assertion. Again, studying the context, looking for the point that Paul is making and seeing the contrast that Paul clearly lays out helps prevent these kinds of errors.

 

"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong." What do you mean here? KJV, NASB, NIV, ASV, even the NLV. All of them have "things."

Verse 25 says, "This 'foolish' plan of God is far wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God's weakness is far stronger than the greatest of human strength." Perhaps you mean the next verse, which doesn't say "none of you," but "few of you." Had he said "none of you," your interpretation would have more credence. Some of the people who chose God (or who God chose) WERE powerful, WERE wealthy, and WERE wise in the world's eyes. Therefore, people here doesn't fly.

In the same way that the thorn in Paul's flesh kept him from boasting. (II Corinthians 12:7). Such foolish, weak, and lowly things could be a variety of things, including "signs" as he talks about a few verses before. God's "logic" was considered foolish to the Greeks a few verses before. However, to those called by Christ to salvation, such logic and signs is wiser than the world's wisdom. That is the point that Paul is getting at. Perhaps it is you who needs to consider the broader point. I think if you would hvae read even further up the page, you'd see where "foolish things" has its parallel.

 

Depravity of Man??? all we have to do is look in our own hearts...only by Gods grace can we be saved from our own wicked ways...is the way we sometimes think in our hearts and minds any less depraved then the ungodly behaviour that makes the news??? Apart from God and without salvation we would all be just wicked sinners with no hope.

 

The post concerning believing in Jesus Christ. The contect was John 6, and it is located in this thread if you care to respond. By stating mankind was accountable to God at conception, I was simplying teaching infants ARE sinners. For anyone to say otherwise would clearly contradict Scripture and the fact Jesus came to save SINNERS. If they are not sinners, Jesus did not come to save them. Therefore, they MUST be sinners. Again, I do not have the privilege of answering this issue with Biblical authority because it gives none. I could go on and on about my opinions, but I am but a man. Therefore, my opinions do not determine truth (Remember, I am NOT an Arminian).

 

So then, logically speaking, since infants cannot confess, then they go to hell, correct, since you insist that they are sinners? How can they be saved? Are only some children elect?

BTW, I've got Biblical evidence that points towards babies going to heaven... Read about the death of David's child from Bathsheba...)

[ July 19, 2002, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: ScottEmerson ]

 

I would be interested in how a Calvinist interprets John 1:9. 'That was the true Light, which lighteth every man who comes into the world.' This, of course, is in relation as to whether man is depraved or totally depraved.

 

First of all, salvation rests upon the sovereign election of God; therefore, by grace. Eternal salvation is not based upon anything we do, but solely upon what Christ obtained at calvary. Calvinists are the only ones, as far as I am concerned, who offer any hope to the infants because Arminians insist there are conditions one must meet in order to secure his or her acceptance with God. However, that would not be by grace. To treat the issue of infants with little or no concern would be to deny the justice of God and His condemnation of sin.

--------------------------------------------------
(Job 14:4) Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

(Psa. 51:5) Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

(Psa. 58:3) The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
--------------------------------------------------

Scripture clearly teaches mankind is separated from God from the time of conception because of sin, and to teach there are, in fact, two ways of salvation for adults and infants is totally unbiblical. I do not have the authority to answer this issue fully nor do I have the obligation or concern because, "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his..." (2 Tim. 2:19) In regards to the case of the child of David, one case is not necessarily a model for all. However, if you believe there are conditions to eternal salvation, which you do, then be consistant and teach the wholesale damnation of all infants, mentally impared, and heathens. Have you found the unanswered post I was inquiring about?

--------------------------------------------------
(Rom. 1:20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

(Rom. 2:14) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
--------------------------------------------------

God will righteously judge all sin. He would have been righteous to pass over all, "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." (Eph. 2:4-7) The "light" refers to the revelation of Jesus Christ which calls mankind to accountability. Before you say something like, "But they could not do anything about it," pray over Romans 9 and maybe God will grant you understanding of His infallible and forever-abiding word.

[ July 19, 2002, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

Even Calvinists would say that a person must confess and believe (they just say it happens after regeneration). This doesn't take away that it's solely about the sacrifice. Arminians believe this too.

We do? Such as what? I don't think you know this side as well as you think you do.

Or to confirm the grace and love of God.

No, I haven't found it - what are you talking about?

Again, I will state that you don't know the Arminian position as well as you think you do, if you think that the death of infants is problematic. Scripture says that David will see his child again. The Holy Spirit dwelt in John the Baptist before his birth.