Featured Calvinism Fact Sheet #1, by Joel Barnes: Total Depravity (or Total Inability)

Yet another verse eisegetically misused by calvies and applied out of context much in the same way 2 Corinthians 2:14 is. In both cases it’s talking about using a worldly view point not that it’s the only view point we can have

 

I'm not here to play games. Man naturally can't please God. Does Faith please God? As far as what Heb 11:6 says, yes it does. So that obviously means that man naturally can't exercise faith that pleases God.

 

Sorry it's a verse that stands, and not much you can do about it but wish it wasn't there Rom 8:8!

 

All of your sorry in the world cannot make up for your inability to make a coherent defense for your own position.

 

So far it's not been refuted.

 

so far you have not offered a defense of your claims

 

Man naturally is not a sinner. Sin is UNnatural.

Using words without understanding their meanings only makes you sound ignorant.


If you actually read Augustine where plenty of your wrong ideas come from he explains what is natural and how evil corrupts.

Commonly corrupted I can buy that , “naturally corrupt” you don’t know what naturally means and it makes one look stupid.

You can think yourself perfect having never sinned and you still cannot please God.

This idea God has granted you a device or ability to please God separate and independent from God is again another example of stone-age Calvinist stupidity it needs to be revised.

 

If we had a candle or small fire and we throw a bucket of water onto it then the fire goes out.

This is natural.

If tomorrow most of the water or all water was corrupted to where it does nothing to fire we don’t say well that is natural.

It is corrupted.

Man is not naturally corrupt. All God’s creation is naturally Good.

You can say it is corrupted you can’t say “naturally” corrupt. Sin is not natural, God never created sin and said it was good.

 

And yet Scripture says that very thing, does it not?
He does speak parabolically to those that it is not given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God:

" And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." ( Matthew 13:10-11 ).

" And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:
12 that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them." Mark 4:10-12 ).

" And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." ( Luke 8:9-10 ).

He did it in parables ( which are truths that are concealed ), and he did it to deliberately hide those things from those that were not His disciples.

 

There's that word again.
I'm beginning to wonder if you'll ever stop using it, as the reality of it is that many here that do not take their understanding of the Scriptures from John Calvin, and never have.

Yet, despite all of this, you are offended when someone characterizes you as an Arminian and have made it abundantly clear that you are not one.
How about extending that same courtesy to those who disagree with you and end up agreeing with some of what John Calvin taught ( or was reported to have taught )?

I think that it's only fair that you treat others as you would have them treat you,
Don't you?

 

That's been done by others ( and I've even labored to a great extent at it, myself ),
and to me, you continue to reject what's been presented, Mark.

I also recognize that it's your prerogative to agree or to disagree, and it reminds me of an old adage...
"A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."
I happen to agree with that.

Also, it seems to me that accusing him of not being able to defend "his position" can also be looked at as accusing him of not being able to convince you of the truth of it...
Wouldn't you say?

At the end of the day, he believes what he sees in the Scriptures, and you believe what you see.
I express to others what I see and understand, and you and he do the same...
What you call eisegesis, I call exegesis...believing the very words on the page at face value and that they mean what they say;
Which to me, you do not appear to be doing in the case of John 6:64-65, nor John 6:44 and many other passages.

As an example,
When Jesus Christ says, "no man can...except the Father" ( John 6:44 ), I conclude that He actually means, "no man can...except it were given to him of my Father" ( John 6:65 ), exactly as He said it.
Incidentally, this same truth of "no man" can be found in John 10:27-29 where the Lord Jesus tells us in no uncertain terms:

" My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father’s hand."

That said,
If you don't agree with what is written, just say so.

Since I've been on this forum I've seen many professing Christians that find things in the Bible that they disagree with the words of...
Some don't believe in a literal millennium and a literal fulfilling of Micah 4, some disagree with a literal 6 day creation, and some here even say that there is no eternal torment awaiting the lost in the Lake of Fire.

Please believe me when I say that it does not surprise me to find people who don't agree with other things that the Scriptures say ( in the very words on the page ), either, or that they think that the context of other passages doesn't warrant its belief, literally.


I wish you a good evening,
and may God bless you in many ways, despite our disagreements.

 

You ought to take that up with God since God has ordained and fated him to not behave otherwise.

You sound like he has a choice in the matter a free will.

 

And you just further prove my point. If calvies were correct about election there would be no need to do that.

 

Show me one post where he made any attempt to do anything other than just make a claim. Can’t be done

 

Lol, in your imagination, God knows better !

 

Man naturally is not a sinner ? Sounds far out to me !

 

great please show me the post

 

thats on you

 

I don't think I've proven anything in that direction, Mark.
Quite the contrary, I think it proves what the Scriptures say.

From my perspective, having admitted that He does indeed do "that" ( reveals Himself to some and hides Himself from others by giving some to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven and speaking to others in parables ) ...
The Lord's prerogative to save whom He wishes ( election ), is demonstrated ( at least in principle ), right there.


God deciding to reveal Himself to some and not to others ( Matthew 11:25-27 ) is plainly taught in the Scriptures.
Jesus Christ telling His disciples that it is given to them to know the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, but to others in parables so that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not hear ( Matthew 13:10-11, Mark 4:10-12, Luke 8:9-10 )...is plainly taught in the Scriptures.
In addition,
God choosing people and causing them to approach Him is clearly taught in the Scriptures ( Psalms 65:4 ).


To me, it makes perfect sense given that God shows mercy and compassion on some, and not others ( Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14-18 ),
and He makes vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath ( Romans 9:22-24 );
Some to glory, and the others for destruction.


Lastly,
Though the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved ( Romans 9:27 ).
That remnant is said to be according to the election ( choosing ) of grace.

Election is not based on anything that we do,
but only on what God does for those whom He foreknew ( Romans 8:28-30 ).

 

Furthermore,
Whether or not we as men "see a need" for God to do something, is ultimately irrelevant...
Our will and purposes don't dictate His ( Daniel 4:35 and many others ), and our opinion of whether or not there is a need for Him to do something, from our perspective, does not dictate whether or not He actually does something or does not do something.

He is God, and His ways are not our ways...
He is God and we are His creations.
He doesn't need to run anything by us before He does it,
or prove it's "worth" to us in order to satisfy our curiosity or sense of justice.

But I must confess, seeing this subject in His word many years ago,
I did the exact same thing that you appeared to do above...

I asked myself, "Why would God need to blind people to the truth of the Gospel, and why would God need to speak to some in parables to hide His truth, while revealing it plainly to others?"
You know what I eventually realized for an answer?

He's not beholden to me, and what "makes sense" to me is irrelevant.

If He decides to do something, who am I to question whether or not He does it and why?
The fact that the Scriptures say that He does or did something, is all that I really need to know.
He has His reasons, and later on I read that in some cases, He actually spells out those reasons.

For example:

" But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

Question:
Why does He allow Satan, the god of this world, to blind the minds of those who do not believe?
Answered in the text of His word:
Lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

This is my last reply in this thread.


I wish you well, as always.