doctrines of grace ?

[JonC]

These 4 things are true

Here is J.I. Packer’s explanation of Total Depravity:

“It signifies a corruption of our moral and spiritual nature that is total not in degree but in extent. It declares that no part of us is untouched by sin and therefore no action of ours is as good as it should be, and consequently nothing in us or about us ever appears meritorious in God’s eyes. We cannot earn God’s favor, no matter what we do, unless grace saves us, we are lost."

What part of J.I. Packer's doctrine of Total Depravity do you find so appalling?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Here is J.I. Packer’s explanation of Total Depravity:

“It signifies a corruption of our moral and spiritual nature

Firstly...what is the difference between a "moral" and a "spiritual" nature...

It sounds to me like he's being uneccesarily verbose without meaning.

that is total not in degree but in extent.

Have no idea what that means.
I couldn't imagine what the difference is between
"degree"
vs.
"extent"
This sounds like the same thing.
It is nonsense John.
Listen to, and read these people closely.

That was nonsense.
It meant nothing.
You are smart enough to see that.

It declares that no part of us is untouched by sin and therefore no action of ours is as good as it should be, and consequently nothing in us or about us ever appears meritorious in God’s eyes

Forget his self-serving statement about "meritorious in God's eyes"...
How about simply.............
Innocent?
or.........
Not, strictly speaking....sinful?

Don't or can't a Calvinist recognize the difference?
There's a difference between the categories of "Not sinful" and "Meritorious" aren't there?

Can you, Jon, not actually not see the difference?

If they do have the ability to do something "meritorious" (not a biblical term)
..even Pelagius himself could answer that....inasmuch as he'd claim that even a "meritorious" action is only possible given God's grace, and only God gave humanity the ability to do the right thing anyway so, it'd conflate into God's grace either way...and it would sorta collapse into word-games...

That's what made Pelagius a genius...

He had Calvinists outsmarted 1,700 years ago.

We cannot earn God’s favor,

We don't need to "earn" God's favor...
God absolutely favors humanity.
God loves humanity.
God made humanity in his image to be his perpetual ambassador and ruler over the Earth that he made.
Humans aren't disgusting to God.
God favors humans period.

no matter what we do, unless grace saves us, we are lost."

Even Pelagius would agree with that.
He would say no one can come to Christ except they have the ability...and they have that ability, and that ability is a God-given choice they have at birth that only God by his grace can endow them with....

That would be a doctine of "Grace".

What part of J.I. Packer's doctrine of Total Depravity do you find so appalling?

It's not appalling, it's just meaningless, it's uninformed, it creates distinctions without a difference, and it's stupid.

 

[TCassidy]

Remember you are done with me so stop insulting me.
MB

Just answer the question.

 

[JonC]

Have no idea what that means.

This sounds like nonsense.

Yes, I can see that you have no idea what these things mean. I’ll try to help, not only with the meaning of those words with which you struggle, but also with the doctrine. Hopefully, if you apply yourself, when we are done this will sound less like nonsense and you will be able to better understand the concepts discussed.

Firstly...what is the difference between a "moral" and a "spiritual" nature…

Typically when people speak of a “moral nature” they are speaking of our nature as it applies to right and wrong, good and evil where as “spiritual nature” is more implicit towards our relationship with God. Moral is often viewed as the external while spiritual often refers to the internal.

I couldn't imagine what the difference is between "degree" vs. "extent" This sounds like the same thing. It is nonsense John.

Degree can mean extent, you are right. But you need to read a little more carefully, with discernment, and pay attention to context. By “degree” he is referring to a point, as in progression or retrogression. Total Depravity does not mean we are depraved to the fullest degree (we are not as evil as we can be). By “extent” he is speaking of how much depravity encompasses, or extends. Sin has affected every aspect of our nature.

Forget his self-serving statement about "meritorious in God's eyes"...How about simply........Innocent? or......Not, strictly speaking....sinful?

When you get into reading God's Word, you will find some illustrations (Jesus talks of things like vines, trees, weddings, etc. but to illustrate or explain something else). For example, trees bear fruit. Our natures bear good fruit, or they bear bad fruit. Flesh yields the things of the flesh, and the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. I don’t want to overwhelm you here, but to keep it short – Scripture presents us as sinners, and sins as manifestations of our sinfulness.

"meritorious" (not a biblical term)..even Pelagius himself could answer that....inasmuch as he'd claim that even a "meritorious" action is only possible given God's grace, and only God gave humanity the ability to do the right thing anyway so, it'd conflate into God's grace either way...and it would sorta collapse into word-games...

That's what made Pelagius a genius....[snip] Even Pelagius would agree with that. He would say no one can come to Christ except they have the ability...and they have that ability, and that ability is a God-given choice they have at birth that only God by his grace can endow them with.....

The word “meritorious” means “showing merit” (from Latin meritōrius, earning money).If you have read Scripture and have yet discovered the concept (either affirmed or denied) therein, then perhaps you need to spend a bit more time there than here.

Your history is a bit off, brother. Pelagius taught that men were justified based on their merit, mankind is unaffected by the fall (Adam’s transgression could only affect Adam), and libertarian freewill – that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from God’s grace) to obey God and to merit salvation. Men need illumination (knowing what to do), not conviction, guidance, or any other work of the Spirit.

Now, if you were arguing that Arminians would have agreed with both Piper and Packer in terms of total depravity, you may have a point. But Arminianism holds to total depravity.

It's not appalling, it's just meaningless, it's uninformed, it creates distinctions without a difference, and it's stupid.

I know that this has been a lot to take in, particularly as you seem unfamiliar with not only the topic, word definitions and history, but also with Scripture. I hope at least a little light has been shown your way. Keep on studying and before long, you will know a bit more what you are talking about.

 

[MB]

Here is J.I. Packer’s explanation of Total Depravity:

“It signifies a corruption of our moral and spiritual nature that is total not in degree but in extent. It declares that no part of us is untouched by sin and therefore no action of ours is as good as it should be, and consequently nothing in us or about us ever appears meritorious in God’s eyes. We cannot earn God’s favor, no matter what we do, unless grace saves us, we are lost."

What part of J.I. Packer's doctrine of Total Depravity do you find so appalling?

I find it to be not according to scripture. Cornelious was righteous before he ever heard the gospel read act 10. He wasn't saved because he had never heard the gospel. True he believed in God although that belief wasn't enough. The only way to Salvation is through Jesus Christ
MB

 

[JonC]

I find it to be not according to scripture. Cornelious was righteous before he ever heard the gospel read act 10. He wasn't saved because he had never heard the gospel. True he believed in God although that belief wasn't enough. The only way to Salvation is through Jesus Christ
MB

You believe he was righteous (he stood justified before God; as we are in Christ) instead of devout and God fearing?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Yes, I can see that you have no idea what these things mean. I’ll try to help, not only with the meaning of those words with which you struggle, but also with the doctrine. Hopefully, if you apply yourself, when we are done this will sound less like nonsense and you will be able to better understand the concepts discussed.............

Oh, please, do tell...

Typically when people speak of a “moral nature” they are speaking of our nature as it applies to right and wrong, good and evil

Yes....that's obvious.

where as “spiritual nature” is more implicit towards our relationship with God.

And.................
That's a meaningless cacophony of words:
"implicit towards our relationship with God"...

Read that, and make sense of it:
"Implicit towards our relationship with God".

Yes, folks, that's the key difference between the "moral" nature and the "spiritual" nature.

Total Depravity does not mean we are depraved to the fullest degree (we are not as evil as we can be).

If it's taken to it's logical conclusion, it would mean that.
Non-passe non-peccarre means exactly that...men must always sin.
Either they are always as bad as they can be....
or sinful men are capable of being more wicked than they are and they yet aren't. (which would imply a freedom of will).

By “extent” he is speaking of how much depravity encompasses, or extends

Encompassing is to encircle or surround....it would mean to enclose a border entirely....
"Extend" is to go from a certain scale to expand beyond that scale and Enlarge....
They are somewhat opposite in scope actually.

Dude, Packer's quote was nonsense.

Sin has affected every aspect of our nature.

That I knew....
Actually, Pelagius knew that as well....
He used the metaphor of rust...covering a piece of iron slowly eating apart consuming it like a cancer (it's quite a beautiful and intelligent metaphor)...
You never knew that I'm sure, and never read that.
I'm sure Packer didn't know that either.

but, it's still so.
Packer's statement was still vapid and meaningless.

When you get into reading God's Word, you will find some illustrations

I'm a fan of God's word.
Packer's quote was moronic drivel.
It remains drivel no matter how much you insinuate that I'm a Biblical illiterate.
It's still stupid.

(Jesus talks of things like vines, trees, weddings, etc. but to illustrate or explain something else). For example, trees bear fruit. Our natures bear good fruit, or they bear bad fruit. Flesh yields the things of the flesh, and the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

Totally irrelevant and off-topic.

I don’t want to overwhelm you here,

Don't worry, you're not.

but to keep it short – Scripture presents us as sinners,

I know.
Everyone knows that...
Even Pelagius knows that.
I'm falling asleep with the obvious.

and sins as manifestations of our sinfulness.

That's a tautology...
It's tatamount to saying that squares are defined by their "squareness"
Packer's statement was STILL nonsense.

The word “meritorious” means “showing merit” (from Latin meritōrius, earning money).

Idiots may think that knowing the etymology of a word necessarily deepens or explains it's meaning more effectively.
I am not such a one.
In some instances it does.
In this one it does nothing to shed light on the subject.
Showing me the etymology of the word "merit" is as meaningful as showing me the etymology of the word "cafe" in English.....
It adds nothing to the conversation.
Packer's statement you cited remains vapid and nonsensical.

If you have read Scripture and have yet discovered the concept (either affirmed or denied) therein, then perhaps you need to spend a bit more time there than here.

I've read Scripture....
Packer's little statement was still nonsense.
Even given your irrelevant citing of the Latin root of the word "merit".

Your history is a bit off, brother. Pelagius taught that men were justified based on their merit,

I know what Pelagius taught....I've read everything he wrote numerous times...
You, I will bet, have not.
Those who have taught you what Pelagius believed have not.
You have no idea what he thought.
I know one thing for sure, I know Pelagius' thought MUCH better than you.

mankind is unaffected by the fall (Adam’s transgression could only affect Adam)

That, he said, yes..

and libertarian freewill – that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from God’s grace) to obey God and to merit salvation.

Yes, you see, that's not true.
Your history is off.
I do know Pelagius, you actually don't....You haven't read him.
Pelagius would NEVER HAVE affirmed that.
Not now, not ever.
Your history is dead wrong.

I've no doubt now, that you can find a million quotes from various Theologians who would state that...(so can I) but, no one who knows Pelagius and has really read him would say that.
That's simply wrong.

He's not the point really anyway....I use him just to sorta troll Calvinists mostly.... so, he's not that important.but, no, he never would affirm that.
That's dead wrong.

Now, if you were arguing that Arminians would have agreed with both Piper and Packer in terms of total depravity, you may have a point.

I know.
I'm not an Arminian.
Arminians keep the same Manichean heresy of Original Sin which plagues Calvinism.

But Arminianism holds to total depravity.

Yes, they also are heretics.

I know that this has been a lot to take in,

It's elementary....and some of it was wrong.

particularly as you seem unfamiliar with not only the topic, word definitions and history, but also with Scripture.

There you go...
I call out Packer's quote as vapid and meaningless, and you simply call me ignorant.

That's a good argument Jon.

It's the quality work we've come to expect from you.
(actually it's not...95% of the time you are way above this).
I'm many things perhaps, but, I'm not ignorant or uninformed.
You know that.
You aren't either...
You don't usually say such things, you are normally better than this.

Packer's quote was still stupid...I'm sorry.

I hope at least a little light has been shown your way. Keep on studying and before long, you will know a bit more what you are talking about.

Close your mind and insult.....c'mon.

You're still above this.

Many Calvinists aren't but you are above this.
You are better than this.

I know the Scripture.
I know the arguments.
I know Pelagius (way better than you actually).

My critique of Packer still stands....It was a vapid and stupid statement verbose and full of filler and little meaning.
Look, you aren't defending your own words here, so, you don't have to die on this hill. They were HIS words, not yours.

Your words are usually more intelligent and meaningful. (save this nasty unwarranted post of yours).

But Packer's statement was still vapid and kinda stupid....

Sorry.

 

[JonC]

You make a couple of good points, brother. But much of what you say here is meaningless to the topic, and much is logical fallacy. I will, out of respect for the effort of your reply, work through this one. BUT as and if we continue, please stick to the topic.

Non-passe non-peccarre means exactly that...men must always sin.
Either they are always as bad as they can be....
or sinful men are capable of being more wicked than they are and they yet aren't. (which would imply a freedom of will).

Total Depravity does, indeed, imply and state men sin. The doctrine attributes to man a state of sinfulness whereby his righteous works, his good deeds, are as “filthy rags” in the sight of God. And it ascribes to men a nature that cannot please God. Calvinism does not deny, by the way, a freedom of the will. Scripture denies libertarian free will, but never the freedom of the will. Our inability is, in fact, a matter of the will.

I know what Pelagius taught....I've read everything he wrote numerous times...
You, I will bet, have not.
Those who have taught you what Pelagius believed have not.
You have no idea what he thought.
I know one thing for sure, I know Pelagius' thought MUCH better than you.
I do know Pelagius, you actually don't....You haven't read him.

I admit that I took liberties to argue rather than engage what I took as insult, and in so doing offered a few characterizations.

But insofar as the fallacies I quoted above, you do not know me. So you have no way of knowing that I have read Pelagius and Augustine. This was a foolish statement, brother.

The reason I believe you misstated Pelagius’ heresy is that he did not teach a reliance on God towards salvation beyond illumination as he rejected the idea of “original sin” at the start. I believe Pelagius over responded to what he saw as exaggeration in doctrine (sinfulness imputed and considered apart from sins), and I believe that his words were exaggerated by his opponents. Consider his words here:

"I anathematize the man who either thinks or says that the grace of God, whereby 'Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, is not necessary not only for every hour and for every moment, but also for every act of our lives: and those who endeavor to disannul it deserve everlasting punishment."

The contention, however, is more along the lines of:

"That we are able to do good is of God, but that we actually do it is of ourselves."

That said, the topic here is not Pelagius. It is the five points of Calvinism. Let’s stick to the topic. My point is that anyone holding the presuppositions required to make it to these five points pretty much agree in the first one.

He's not the point really anyway....I use him just to sorta troll Calvinists mostly.

I agree, but don’t. You are better than that.

I'm not an Arminian.Arminians keep the same Manichean heresy of Original Sin which plagues Calvinism.

I never said you were. I don’t know what you believe, just as you do not know what I believe

Arminians keep the same Manichean heresy of Original Sin which plagues Calvinism.

This is where your discussion should have led you, rather than where you journeyed. But beyond that, you should have (and may have) realized by now that the Five Points of Calvinism (the topic here) were explanatory and not the ultimate topic itself. They addressed the Five Articles of the Remonstrants. But ultimately the issue was, at its foundation, one of providence and predestination. What I am trying to say is that the Five Points of Calvinism can only be debated among those who hold what the Canons of Dort assume as common belief. You are not qualified to debate the points as you reject the theological system in which it resides (you disagree with doctrines that form the foundation upon which the points are derived).

He's not the point really anyway....I use him just to sorta troll Calvinists mostly.

I realize this, but don’t. You are better than that.

Your words are usually more intelligent and meaningful. (save this nasty unwarranted post of yours).

I did not intend for my words to be “nasty”. Perhaps sarcastic, but not nasty. Your posts ventured into the provocative and I thought you were soliciting a certain response so I provided it. If I misjudged your post, then you have my apology.

 

[MB]

You believe he was righteous (he stood justified before God; as we are in Christ) instead of devout and God fearing?

I can only suppose you didn't read the whole account of Cornelious in Act 10.
This what maybe you missed.
Peter said;
Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Read the whole chapter if you want or desire the whole truth.
MB

 

[MB]

Of course. All of mankind is fallen. Even you.


How have I proved you are right for thinking man is not fallen and/or the fall did not affect the body, soul, and spirit?

The fact that you cannot provide scripture that fully supports your theories. All the scriptures you presented that are suppose to support your theories, do not have anything to do with your claims, when read in context. This is because you have taken scriptures and falsely claimed the doctrines of grace from them..
Calvinist love to assume that they are the replacement of the Jews as a whole and therefore apply all things things about the Jews, to them selves. The Jews are still God's chosen people. They may have given up on God, but God has not given up them up.
MB

 

[TCassidy]

The fact that you cannot provide scripture that fully supports your theories.

I provided the scripture. You ignored it.

All the scriptures you presented that are suppose to support your theories, do not have anything to do with your claims, when read in context.

The scriptures are what my understanding of biblical Soteriology are built on. You have failed to show they do not.

This is because you have taken scriptures and falsely claimed the doctrines of grace from them.

I have taken the scriptures regarding Soteriology and believed them. You, on the other hand, deny they mean what they say and say what they mean.

Calvinist love to assume that they are the replacement of the Jews as a whole and therefore apply all things things about the Jews, to them selves.

Once again you prove to the whole forum that you have no idea what you are talking about. I am not a proponent of replacement theology.

The Jews are still God's chosen people.

Yes, we all know that, but once again you prove you don't have a clue what we Particular Baptists believe.

They may have given up on God, but God has not given up them up.

Yes, again, the terrible grammar aside, we all know that.

 

[JonC]

I can only suppose you didn't read the whole account of Cornelious in Act 10.
This what maybe you missed.
Peter said;
Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Read the whole chapter if you want or desire the whole truth.
MB

I did read the whole chapter. Peter is talking about salvation being extended to the Gentiles, not man being righteous so that he can believe. We are righteous "in Christ".

I disagree that men have a righteous of their own leading to salvation. And you have yet to provide Scripture to the contrary.

 

[MB]

I did read the whole chapter. Peter is talking about salvation being extended to the Gentiles, not man being righteous so that he can believe. We are righteous "in Christ".

I disagree that men have a righteous of their own leading to salvation. And you have yet to provide Scripture to the contrary.

My point is that men who are not saved can do righteous things as Cornelious did. His doing things as best as he could is why he had a vision of the angle warning him of what he needed to do. He did send for Peter to come to him and tell him the gospel. Peter was amazed that God is no respecter of men where Salvation is concerned. Cornelious being a Gentile made no difference to God. God was drawing Cornelious and the gospel was all he needed to have faith in Jesus Christ and be saved
No man is ever saved with out Faith...
MB

 

[MB]

I provided the scripture. You ignored it.

The scriptures are what my understanding of biblical Soteriology are built on. You have failed to show they do not.

I have taken the scriptures regarding Soteriology and believed them. You, on the other hand, deny they mean what they say and say what they mean.

Once again you prove to the whole forum that you have no idea what you are talking about. I am not a proponent of replacement theology.

Yes, we all know that, but once again you prove you don't have a clue what we Particular Baptists believe.

Yes, again, the terrible grammar aside, we all know that.

You still haven't shown even one scripture that proves your doctrines. Maybe you are seeing things that just aren't there. You need to open your eyes to reading the whole story. Nothing is as blind as those who just will not see.

MB

 

[Yeshua1]

Firstly...what is the difference between a "moral" and a "spiritual" nature...

It sounds to me like he's being uneccesarily verbose without meaning.

Have no idea what that means.
I couldn't imagine what the difference is between
"degree"
vs.
"extent"
This sounds like the same thing.
It is nonsense John.
Listen to, and read these people closely.

That was nonsense.
It meant nothing.
You are smart enough to see that.

Forget his self-serving statement about "meritorious in God's eyes"...
How about simply.............
Innocent?
or.........
Not, strictly speaking....sinful?

Don't or can't a Calvinist recognize the difference?
There's a difference between the categories of "Not sinful" and "Meritorious" aren't there?

Can you, Jon, not actually not see the difference?

If they do have the ability to do something "meritorious" (not a biblical term)
..even Pelagius himself could answer that....inasmuch as he'd claim that even a "meritorious" action is only possible given God's grace, and only God gave humanity the ability to do the right thing anyway so, it'd conflate into God's grace either way...and it would sorta collapse into word-games...

That's what made Pelagius a genius...

He had Calvinists outsmarted 1,700 years ago.

We don't need to "earn" God's favor...
God absolutely favors humanity.
God loves humanity.
God made humanity in his image to be his perpetual ambassador and ruler over the Earth that he made.
Humans aren't disgusting to God.
God favors humans period.

Even Pelagius would agree with that.
He would say no one can come to Christ except they have the ability...and they have that ability, and that ability is a God-given choice they have at birth that only God by his grace can endow them with....

That would be a doctine of "Grace".

It's not appalling, it's just meaningless, it's uninformed, it creates distinctions without a difference, and it's stupid.

We are enemies aainst God, God wrath abides upon us due to us being sinnrs, that is due to His holiness, His love provided fo us the Cross. He cannot save any apart frm the Cross, so we MUSTaccept that to have His favor!

 

[Yeshua1]

You still haven't shown even one scripture that proves your doctrines. Maybe you are seeing things that just aren't there. You need to open your eyes to reading the whole story. Nothing is as blind as those who just will not see.

MB

He is giving you scripture, but your mind is already mde up on his issue.
What part of you was not affected by the Fall?
Why is it so bad in your opinion that unless God Himself intercedes to save us, all would be lost?

 

[MB]

He is giving you scripture, but your mind is already mde up on his issue.
What part of you was not affected by the Fall?
Why is it so bad in your opinion that unless God Himself intercedes to save us, all would be lost?

That we cannot live and walk in the garden with God as did Adam. Adam when He lived in the garden was with God many times, spoke to God personally.. Man was not disabled in any way. Adam spoke with God after being put out of the garden. Even Cain spoke with God after he had killed his brother. Cain did not loose his ability to speak with God or understand God. If men don't hear, it's because, they do not want to. Adam after he sinned spoke with God and blamed his sin on God for giving him Eve who tempted him. We are not responsible for another mans sin. We suffer because of Adam's sin because there is no more a garden to live in for man. We do not have the same chance Adam had. We have never experienced what Adam had so we didn't loose that either.You can't loose what you never had. Cain wasn't saved and he was the first to resist God. Cain was a man who would not follow instructions from God. Which is why he tried to out do what God had commanded them all to do. He must have thought that he was smarter than God.
A lack of ability doesn't exist except in the minds of men.
MB

 

[JonC]

My point is that men who are not saved can do righteous things as Cornelious did. His doing things as best as he could is why he had a vision of the angle warning him of what he needed to do. He did send for Peter to come to him and tell him the gospel. Peter was amazed that God is no respecter of men where Salvation is concerned. Cornelious being a Gentile made no difference to God. God was drawing Cornelious and the gospel was all he needed to have faith in Jesus Christ and be saved
No man is ever saved with out Faith...
MB

I agree. God was drawing him and he needed the gospel to be saved. This doesn't mean that he sought God without the work of the Spirit.

I think we can agree here, as most denominations hold to concept of depravity. Even those who reject the "total" part typically deny salvation as dependent on whatever part they feel unaffected by sin (the part no one seems able to name).

I don't think "unconditional" election will fare as well. While total depravity is the reason shared my many, election is a solution that divides people.

 

[SovereignGrace]

So, again, you make a personal attack instead of even trying to honestly contribute to the discussion and answer some very simple questions.

He started the OP, knowing he would not accept whatever was shown to him.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree. God was drawing him and he needed the gospel to be saved. This doesn't mean that he sought God without the work of the Spirit.

I think we can agree here, as most denominations hold to concept of depravity. Even those who reject the "total" part typically deny salvation as dependent on whatever part they feel unaffected by sin (the part no one seems able to name).

I don't think "unconditional" election will fare as well. While total depravity is the reason shared my many, election is a solution that divides people.

MB misses the central truth of Pauline Justification bsed upon Adam as head of fallen humanity, and Jesus as head of saved!