A question for a Calvinist

[Rippon]

Your opinions aren't facts even if you presume they are.

Rip : Is that a fact?


God does not condemn a person for not doing something he can not do.[/quote]

Pelagianism is rearing its ugly head again I see. One of the first principles of Pelagianism is that ability limits obigation. That is, man can't be held responsible for that which he can't perform.So,if the reprobate have no power (ability) to believe the gospel they should not be held responsible for something they can't do -- i.e. repent and believe.These unregenerate ones can't believe in Christ -- therefore they should be exonerated on that basis.After all God is fair and will not hold them accountable.

However, you should know better than that. A reprobate's inability doesn't discharge him from his obligations.

 

[Rippon]

The Calvinistic addition to TD is just your 'opinion' of what scripture states and not actaully what scripture says.

The doctrine of Total Depravity in Calvinistic circles is also called Total Inability.It's your feeble opinion that Calvinism "adds to what Scripture teaches" on the subject.

I guess you would have it that people are just sick in sin.

I suppose that merely some folks have an inclination to think bad things from birth.

It's perhaps your opinion that the hearts of only some are only one-quarter filled with evil.

I guess you suspect that people love twilight;not out-and-out darknes rather than light.

It looks like you think that the mind of humanity is set on midemeanors in occasional miscommunication with God.

I could go on. Calvinists believe and teach the opposite view regarding the state of man's condition of TD.And biblical TD at the very least would not countenance man's ability.Mankind has total inability.

 

[Allan]

Pelagianism is rearing its ugly head again I see. One of the first principles of Pelagianism is that ability limits obigation. That is, man can't be held responsible for that which he can't perform.So,if the reprobate have no power (ability) to believe the gospel they should not be held responsible for something they can't do -- i.e. repent and believe.These unregenerate ones can't believe in Christ -- therefore they should be exonerated on that basis.After all God is fair and will not hold them accountable.

Again, you seem to show how little you understand of Pelagianism.
His point was the man had the ability without any intervention from God or need for grace. His point was that man was able because man did not need God. THAT was his main point.

However, you should know better than that. A reprobate's inability doesn't discharge him from his obligations.

Wrong. The fact that man is responsible necessiates ability to respond - otherwise responcibility is meaningless.

 

[Allan]

The doctrine of Total Depravity in Calvinistic circles is also called Total Inability.It's your feeble opinion that Calvinism "adds to what Scripture teaches" on the subject.

I guess you would have it that people are just sick in sin.

I suppose that merely some folks have an inclination to think bad things from birth.

It's perhaps your opinion that the hearts of only some are only one-quarter filled with evil.

I guess you suspect that people love twilight;not out-and-out darknes rather than light.

It looks like you think that the mind of humanity is set on midemeanors in occasional miscommunication with God.

I could go on. Calvinists believe and teach the opposite view regarding the state of man's condition of TD.And biblical TD at the very least would not countenance man's ability.Mankind has total inability.

You know that the above 'assumptions' of yours are not accurate nor do the speak to the truth of anothes views, so why type that non-sense.

I understand you 'opinion' of what scripture teaches concerning depravity and that 'opinion' is both flawed and goes beyond the intent of scripture.

Mankind of and by himself is unable to know or come to God, but you always leave out that no non-cal or Arminian say that man of himself comes to God without grace or influence. If it were not for God's grace, revealing, convicting, and drawing no man would believe. But when God begins to work on their hearts they at that point are enabled to choose. Choice is when you have two or more differing options or views that one can take. Man when left to himself only has one view and thus one option. However when God enters the equation man now has two options - mans view or God's truth. Man can not live godly nor can he work works of righteousness but he can 'believe' that what God said is truth.

 

[MB]

I never stated that men come to God without the working of God first in their life, so I have no clue as to where you got that from.

Since I never said you did, I’ll let you work that out.

Secondly, just because a person chooses to believe the truths revealed by God does not negate the fact that salvation is of God. No man can save himself, and no man will come to God of or by himself. The fact that God comes to man, reveals truth that one might be saved, and to all who believe saves them. It is without question all of God.

You do not choose to believe you are either convinced or not convinced and if your convinced it is entirely the work of the one who convinced you. Truth doesn’t ask for permission to be believed. We can all recognize truth but truth is believed because it is truth not because we choose to believe it. We believe because we are convinced of the truth. We may want to deny it all the while inside we still know it is truth and truth will haunt us if we deny it. This is but one reason why some men will not listen they just don’t want to hear it because it convicts them to the bone and they will not bare it. This is the man in the darkness who will not come to the light.

Thirdly, scripture is replete with godly men asking people to believe, be reconciled, repent, ect.. all of which implies a choice because they are asking people to do this.

Implications can be mistaken. It could be a plea not to choose to rebel. Which in reality is what people do when they would rather stay in the dark and not be exposed.

If God only convinces then there is no need for the scripture to make any requests or commands - it will just be done. But scripture does not say it is something that just happens but it is something man must choose. Even both C and A groups (though they differ as to when) agree that man is accountable to believe God. You might be convenced of truth but you will not be saved unless you act on it. Thus the nature of the Greek work for faith/believe in the verb form. And just because a person knows these things by revelation of and from God Himself (convenced it's true) does not mean they will receive it. ex Rom 1:18-33

Being convinced isn’t all that is needed I didn’t say that in my post to you. There is also conviction and submission. You should have read it more carefully.

Lastly, man does not 'choose' to save himself or get saved, man chooses to believe what God said. Salvation - the act of saving a person is completely and only done by God Himself. And He does this toward those who believe.


I'm not exactly where you heard/learned this view, be interested to know thoug.

Everything I believe comes from scripture and I’m sure you would know this if you had read my post a little more carefully.

Strictly speaking in the English language you can't get what you are ascribing to it regarding no choice (as far as I can see). However in the Greek there is no way this can be maintained. If there is one place in scripture where we a clear choice is seen to be offered regarding salvation it would refute your entire position. And there are several.

Please show me

The passage I quoted in Post #99 in Duet. Also Paul pleading with the people in book of Romans to "be reconciled", as well as he telling the people "do not harden your hearts as in the days of provocation". Apparently one can reject or harden themselves against the truths God reveals.

Again though, I have never heard or read historically you view contended. It was interesting.

Perhaps you have never heard of it because you have form an opinion with out considering all the evidence. So far your opinion of what I believe is base on your scan of my post and not reading the entire post. Maybe after you have read this one you’ll understand a little better. Maybe not if you only scan it.
MB

 

[MB]

HI RB;

Just curious, If saving Grace is resistible why is it that some people get saved and some people don't?

Some love darkness and won't come to the light because they recognize the light as the truth. Christ said;
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
This not only says that they love the darkness but that they made a choice to stay in the darkness hiding from the light.

If God grace was irresistible then it would be a forced Salvation if it were shown on those in the darkness who wished to stay there.
MB

 

[Reformer]

I honestly do not believe in Total Depravity as defined by Calvinists.

how about this definition

The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God.

 

[Reformer]

HI RB;

Some love darkness and won't come to the light because they recognize the light as the truth. Christ said;
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
This not only says that they love the darkness but that they made a choice to stay in the darkness hiding from the light.

If God grace was irresistible then it would be a forced Salvation if it were shown on those in the darkness who wished to stay there.
MB

OK I'll ask (but I'm getting tired of this

)

Why is it that some recognise the light as the truth and others hide from the light?

and that last statement is simply not true; God replaces our heart of stone with a heart of flesh and at that moment we seek the Lord, we desire to glorify Him, we come to the place of salvation ALL WILLINGLY, and at the same moment we are saved. And not by force but by rebirth :thumbs:

 

[Jarthur001]

It might help you to 'actually learn' a little more about what it is you are talking about.
You obviously need to learn a little more about what Pelagaus taught.

To help you out here, let me inform you:

Your opinions aren't facts even if you presume they are.


Wrong and agian it would do you good to actaully know what others believe instead of regurgitating what some other reformer/calvinist has said about it. Many times they were incorrect about other's believed.


Spurgoen was a man and though right on many things he was also wrong on a few things as well.

The Calvinistic addition to TD is just your 'opinion' of what scripture states and not actaully what scripture says.

Allan,

I'm not sure you own the right to all right opinions, nor do you own all definitions. Many times you limit your definitions to how you view it. You seem to seek out only those that agree with you rather then seek for the truth of the matter.

Case in point, you have a view narrow view of Pelagaus. I have read all writings by Pelagaus that I could find, and this is why I say this. That is not my opinion, but can be seen. Now given most of his work was burnt and lost forever.

anyway...i'm not sure if you knew you were coming across like this..."the only one that has the right definitions"...but in fact you are. You too must understand most of what you post is "so says Allan" and not the gospel.

 

[Allan]

Allan,

I'm not sure you own the right to all right opinions, nor do you own all definitions. Many times you limit your definitions to how you view it. You seem to seek out only those that agree with you rather then seek for the truth of the matter.

Case in point, you have a view narrow view of Pelagaus. I have read all writings by Pelagaus that I could find, and this is why I say this. That is not my opinion, but can be seen. Now given most of his work was burnt and lost forever.

anyway...i'm not sure if you knew you were coming across like this..."the only one that has the right definitions"...but in fact you are. You too must understand most of what you post is "so says Allan" and not the gospel.

James, I appreciate your post. However, I never stated in any form that what I said is the end all of any matter nor that what I have to say is inerrant, just that Rippon was incorrect in what he considered a 'Pelagian view' and trying to say that is what I was holding to.

He was wrong and I pointed that out not only about his understanding Pelagius views but also about his view that Calvinism is the only real truth.
Thanks for the advise though and I do thank you for stopping by. :wavey:

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Reformer

You asked.........

“Why is it that some recognise the light as the truth and others hide from the light?”

Here is what the Lord said.......

John 3:19-21
V.19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
V.20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
V.21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

 

[Rippon]

Wrong. The fact that man is responsible necessiates (sic) ability to respond - otherwise responcibility (sic) is meaningless.

This was Allan's reply to my comment :"However,you should know better than that.A reprobate's inability doesn't discharge him from his obligations."

Now Allan,you shouldn't try to pretend that you know what you are talking about. As I had said earlier,it's Pelagian to insist that ability limits obligation.As a matter of fact it's the underlying premise of that heretical system.

The Pel-man believed that man can't be held responsible for things outside his power to perform.Please correct me if I'm mistaken -- do you also believe this teaching of Pelagius?

He taught that everyone has the power to believe the gospel and to keep the law of God.It's just up to man to exercise his free will in order to effectuate that.

I had also said before that Arminians/Semi-Pelagians do not really believe in Total Depravity/Total Inability.You outright deny the doctrine of TI which is virtually connected to the very same thing.IOW,to say on the one hand that you whole-heartedly believe in TD, but disavow TI is just not logical and quite unbiblical.If you deny TI -- you also deny TD.

Now,just to be straight here,do you think people have the power within to do all that God commands?

Do you believe that people should not be accountable to God for things which lie outside their ability to do?IOW,do you maintain that their inability negates their responsibility?

 

[Allan]

This was Allan's reply to my comment :"However,you should know better than that.A reprobate's inability doesn't discharge him from his obligations."

Now Allan,you shouldn't try to pretend that you know what you are talking about. As I had said earlier,it's Pelagian to insist that ability limits obligation.As a matter of fact it's the underlying premise of that heretical system.

The Pel-man believed that man can't be held responsible for things outside his power to perform.Please correct me if I'm mistaken -- do you also believe this teaching of Pelagius?

He taught that everyone has the power to believe the gospel and to keep the law of God.It's just up to man to exercise his free will in order to effectuate that.

I had also said before that Arminians/Semi-Pelagians do not really believe in Total Depravity/Total Inability.You outright deny the doctrine of TI which is virtually connected to the very same thing.IOW,to say on the one hand that you whole-heartedly believe in TD, but disavow TI is just not logical and quite unbiblical.If you deny TI -- you also deny TD.

But you (and intinionally) forget that Pelagius beleived that man did not need God's grace or influence toward man for anything, including and especially salvation. Man was all that was needed to come to God, know God, and even save himself without anything from God. Your parallel is misinformed and untrue.
Just for a quick snippet of his view from Wiki:

Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius (ca. 354 – ca. 420/440). It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which God called very good), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid.

emphasis mine

You consistantly only give half the his view so as to maintain you misinformation. Typical but you know better. I would still encourage you to read a bit more about his actual views.

BTW - I do not deny TD. I deny Calvinist version and understanding of it. Then again I deny anything that I see as un or extra-biblical as do you.

Now,just to be straight here,do you think people have the power within to do all that God commands?

What is this 'power within'? I have never used such a phrase and don't know what you mean by it.

Is man able to respond to God's calling as God is dealing with him? Yes.
Is man responsible to what he does with God's calling? - Yes.
Can man come to God apart from God - No.

Again, if you take away from responsibility ability you take away the force of the word and make it meaningless. Look it up. You actually are not even talking about 'responsibility anymore when you do this but some made up version of it.

Do you believe that people should not be accountable to God for things which lie outside their ability to do?IOW,do you maintain that their inability negates their responsibility?

Lets rephrase that question;
Do I believe the bible states that people are held accountable to God for things things that lie outside their ability?
Answer: No, I do not.

I base that not upon my feelings or some emotional view of fairness but scripture and the 'Just' nature of God. But what does ask from man first and formost works or faith. Faith!

 

[Rippon]

BTW - I do not deny TD. I deny Calvinist version and understanding of it.


Rip: You claim to believe in TD;but you deny it by saying that man has no inability.Do you grasp the meaning of total?Total is not partial.You believe in partial depravity.You think people are sick in sin -- not dead in sin.
_____________________________________________________________


Again, if you take away from responsibility ability you take away the force of the word and make it meaningless. Look it up. You actually are not even talking about 'responsibility anymore when you do this but some made up version of it.

Rip : The old Pelagian error is what you espouse. Allan,people do not have the ability to obey God;yet they are fully responsible to God.

______________________________________________________________


Do I believe the bible states that people are held accountable to God for things things that lie outside their ability?
Answer: No, I do not.

Rip : What do you think Perdition is for? People are not able on their own to do what God commands;yet the Lord holds them accountable despite your protestations to the contrary.

______________________________________________________________

I base that not upon my feelings or some emotional view of fairness but scripture and the 'Just' nature of God.

Rip :Yep,you feel it would be unjust of God to demand total compliance to His commands by beings without the ability to do so.You are not operating under the authority of Scripture here.

 

[Allan]

BTW - I do not deny TD. I deny Calvinist version and understanding of it.

Rip: You claim to believe in TD;but you deny it by saying that man has no inability.Do you grasp the meaning of total?Total is not partial.You believe in partial depravity.You think people are sick in sin -- not dead in sin.

Please show where and when I stated man was either partially 'depraved' or that it means sick. You either need to learn to say what other are actaully saying or just go back to bed.

Man is totally corrupt in that man nothing man learns, knows, or imagines, of his own, can produce any good thing or spiritual knowledge. However, what you FAIL to grasp is the intervention of God which brings man to something he never could have obtained himself in any manner.
_____________________________________________________________

Again, if you take away from responsibility ability you take away the force of the word and make it meaningless. Look it up. You actually are not even talking about 'responsibility anymore when you do this but some made up version of it.

Rip : The old Pelagian error is what you espouse. Allan,people do not have the ability to obey God;yet they are fully responsible to God.

Your ignorance regarding pelagianism aside...

And biblically your wrong. People do have the ability to believe or reject when God intervenes and 'that' is why they are fully held responsible.

"Again, if you take away from responsibility ability you take away the force of the word and make it meaningless. Look it up. You actually are not even talking about 'responsibility anymore when you do this but some made up version of it. " Facts are facts.

______________________________________________________________

Do I believe the bible states that people are held accountable to God for things things that lie outside their ability?
Answer: No, I do not.

Rip : What do you think Perdition is for? People are not able on their own to do what God commands;yet the Lord holds them accountable despite your protestations to the contrary.

Perdition does not mean they could not believe, it relates to the fact they 'would not' NOT that they 'can not'.
______________________________________________________________

I base that not upon my feelings or some emotional view of fairness but scripture and the 'Just' nature of God.

Rip :Yep,you feel it would be unjust of God to demand total compliance to His commands by beings without the ability to do so.You are not operating under the authority of Scripture here.

Again, you have great trouble speaking truth. Please show where I stated "I feel it would.." anything. Oh wait, you had to 'make it up' didn't you Of course you did but what else is new.

Tootles. :thumbs:

 

[Jarthur001]

Please show where and when I stated man was either partially 'depraved' or that it means sick. You either need to learn to say what other are actaully saying or just go back to bed.

Man is totally corrupt in that man nothing man learns, knows, or imagines, of his own, can produce any good thing or spiritual knowledge. However, what you FAIL to grasp is the intervention of God which brings man to something he never could have obtained himself in any manner.
_____________________________________________________________


Your ignorance regarding pelagianism aside...

And biblically your wrong. People do have the ability to believe or reject when God intervenes and 'that' is why they are fully held responsible.

"Again, if you take away from responsibility ability you take away the force of the word and make it meaningless. Look it up. You actually are not even talking about 'responsibility anymore when you do this but some made up version of it. " Facts are facts.

______________________________________________________________



Perdition does not mean they could not believe, it relates to the fact they 'would not' NOT that they 'can not'.
______________________________________________________________


Again, you have great trouble speaking truth. Please show where I stated "I feel it would.." anything. Oh wait, you had to 'make it up' didn't you Of course you did but what else is new.

Tootles. :thumbs:

Hello Allan,

I'm going to have to go with Rip on this one. Do you grasp the meaning of total? Yes I admit you say over and over you believe man is totally depraved. But I think what you mean when you say that is totally bad...or totally corrupt. You are redefining for your own use the meaning of the phrase. You add.."People do have the ability to believe or reject"...which means man has the ability. This is not what is meant by the phrase Allan.

The reformers said stuff like this when talking about depravity..

But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of any by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good, but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.

And....

In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.

And...

Free Will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without Grace. . . . I affirm, therefore, that this grace is simply and absolutely necessary for the illumination of the mind, the due ordering of the affections, and the inclination of the will to that which is good..

And this...

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing.

Total means ....not able. Total...or all of man, even his will. Total means man has no ability to believe and not what you said.."People do have the ability to believe or reject"

 

[Allan]

Hello Allan,

I'm going to have to go with Rip on this one. Do you grasp the meaning of total? Yes I admit you say over and over you believe man is totally depraved. But I think what you mean when you say that is totally bad...or totally corrupt. You are redefining for your own use the meaning of the phrase. You add.."People do have the ability to believe or reject"...which means man has the ability. This is not what is meant by the phrase Allan.

The reformers said stuff like this when talking about depravity..



And....



And...



And this...



Total means ....not able. Total...all of man. Even his will. Total means man has no ability to believe and not what you said.."People do have the ability to believe or reject"

You agreeing with Rippon... now there's a surprize

It should be noted that though the Reformers said man was 'Total' they contradict themselves in assuming that man can do common good things.
That IF man were TOTALLY depraved then man would not ever do one thing that was not absolutely evil. He couldn't even do common good but the reformers do not deny this.

That deravity in which man is in regards him in a state that is absent of any influence or grace of God. Thus in the absense of God man can/will do nothing that is spiritually good thus 'totally depraved' or totally spiritually corrupt. But things change through the working of the Holy Spirit .. unless of course you believe God must submit to the all powerful sin nature of man and unable to cause men to see what they didn't see before allowing him to believe or even reject the truths that God is revealing.


I will agree here though:

Free Will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without Grace. . . . I affirm, therefore, that this grace is simply and absolutely necessary for the illumination of the mind, the due ordering of the affections, and the inclination of the will to that which is good..

But I would end that the 'inclination' does not necessitate they will or must accept it.

 

[Jarthur001]

You agreeing with Rippon... now there's a surprize

It should be noted that the Reformers didn't take it to the extreme you do either.

IF man were TOTALLY depraved then man would not ever do one thing that was not absolutely evil. He couldn't even do common a good but they do not deny this.

But as I stated, the Reformers were wrong on some things and right one others.
Your quoting 'their' understanding isn't going to do much here because it is already flawed most specifically in that they presumed regeneration preceded salvation which of course biblically it doesn't.

That deravity in which man is in regards him in a state that is absent of any influence or grace of God. Thus in the absense of God man can/will do nothing that is spiritually good thus 'totally depraved' or totally spiritually corrupt. But things change through the working of the Holy Spirit .. unless of course you believe God must submit to the all powerful sin nature of man and unable to cause men to see what they didn't see before allowing him to believe or even reject the truths that God is revealing.


I will agree here though:

But I would end that the 'inclination' does not necessitate they will or must accept it.

All of the people I quoted were non-Calvinist. Arminius said most of what I quoted. the last quote was the 3rd article of Remonstrance. I quoted them to show the meaning of the phrase.

Wesley said Arminianism was usually charged with five errors:
1. they deny original sin
2. they deny justification by faith
3. they deny absolute predestination
4. they deny the grace of God to be irresistible
5. they affirm a believer may fall from grace

Wesley said that they pleaded "not guilty" to the first two charges.

In fact Wesley claimed the doctrine of original sin was "the first, grand, distinguishing point between heathenism and Christianity." Concerning justification he also wrote that he thought just as Mr. Calvin did. "In this respect I do not differ from him an hair's breadth."

You must agree that you have changed meaning.

 

[Allan]

I'm having trouble at work typing this.. I have to save it, then correct it, then save it, then re-write it...

However I will answer a little better when I get home.

 

[Allan]

Ok, now I can actually read this thing

All of the people I quoted were non-Calvinist.

Sorry, I was having a great deal of trouble at work with the computer and how it was rendering these posts in edit form and being able to see other posts. I should have waited on replying. My fault, sorry.

Yes, I see they are not reformers, when I was trying to figure out what it said through much of the garble - I only saw in passing reformers said .. about depravity.. . That is why I didn't comment on each individually. However in seeing them, they do not differ from anything I have said so far.

Arminius said most of what I quoted. the last quote was the 3rd article of Remonstrance. I quoted them to show the meaning of the phrase.

And they correlate to what I have been saying. Look:
Your first quote:

But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of any by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good, but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.

A posts of mine earlier:

Man is totally corrupt in that man nothing man learns, knows, or imagines, of his own, can produce any good thing or spiritual knowledge. However, what you FAIL to grasp is the intervention of God which brings man to something he never could have obtained himself in any manner.

.................
Is man able to respond to God's calling as God is dealing with him? Yes.
Is man responsible to what he does with God's calling? - Yes.
Can man come to God apart from God - No.

..............
Mankind of and by himself is unable to know or come to God, but you always leave out that no non-cal or Arminian say that man of himself comes to God without grace or influence. If it were not for God's grace, revealing, convicting, and drawing no man would believe. But when God begins to work on their hearts they at that point are enabled to choose. Choice is when you have two or more differing options or views that one can take. Man when left to himself only has one view and thus one option. However when God enters the equation man now has two options - mans view or God's truth. Man can not live godly nor can he work works of righteousness ..

..............
No one of or by himself will seek after God and that is why God seeks after men. Thus no one will come to Christ unless God is the one bringing them. ... All are taught of God therefore no man got this of his own accord, intellect, or reasoning.

..............
I never stated that men come to God without the working of God first in their life, so I have no clue as to where you got that from.

Secondly, just because a person chooses to believe the truths revealed by God does not negate the fact that salvation is of God. No man can save himself, and no man will come to God of or by himself. The fact that God comes to man, reveals truth that one might be saved, and to all who believe saves them. It is without question all of God.

..............
That deravity in which man is in regards him in a state that is absent of any influence or grace of God. Thus in the absense of God man can/will do nothing that is spiritually good thus 'totally depraved' or totally spiritually corrupt.

Your second quote:

In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.

Again, see my above comments and all of my posts ever regarding the subject.


Your third quote:

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing.

\Again look back at what I have been consistantly saying.

In fact Wesley claimed the doctrine of original sin was "the first, grand, distinguishing point between heathenism and Christianity." Concerning justification he also wrote that he thought just as Mr. Calvin did. "In this respect I do not differ from him an hair's breadth."

I have NO IDEA where you are trying to go with this.
I do not deny original sin nor justification by faith. As a matter of fact it is 'justification by faith' that is one of the key principles that biblically refutes regeneration preceding faith.

You must agree that you have changed meaning.

No, I just proved I am consistant with it.