Featured doctrines of grace ?

I'm not exactly sure where MB stands here. I think HeirOfSalvation may be more inclined to disagree if Justification is defined along reformed lines, but thus far MB has (as far as I know) declined to depart from "traditional" views.

I try to be careful (perhaps overly so) to define other people's beliefs for them. I believe that the topic of salvation extends far beyond those issues of the Reformation, which has caused me to bump heads with some and face false accusations by others. What's that saying...Once bitten twice shy .

The problem starts when people refute Calvinism by saying "Calvinists believe" followed by interpretations of Calvinism that are not widely held by actual Calvinists. And the same goes for any belief. It is simply better to debate doctrine than it is systems of belief.

 

That's the thing. We are each persuaded in our understanding. I am satisfied with the passages I believe supports the doctrine of total depravity, in context of what I believe the doctrine to mean.

Even within Calvinism there are disagreements about the precise meaning of some doctrines. Some debate what it means to have sinned "in" or "with" Adam. Others may debate whether it is proper to view God as choosing out of fallen man a people compared to God choosing a people prior to the Fall. Within Calvinism people debate the degree to which Christ died for all as compared to His death as an applied atonement. Calvinists debate covenants and dispensations.

Add to this the fact that all Reformed theologies (here I mean those systems that grew out of the Reformation or turned to the Reformers) are indebted to the Reformation. Some would claim they owe their doctrine to the Reformers who developed theories now accepted; others that the Reformers brought out truths that had been neglected, or perhaps were out of view until that time. I think we can safely say that all Reformed theologies at least owe a debt to the Reformation for the articulation of their view. There are Christians who simply do not accept either the conclusions or the context that arose from the Reformation. Limited Atonement, for example, is not a major concern for one holding strictly to a Christus Victor theory of atonement.

The problem that I see with denouncing a doctrine based on what persuades another to hold that doctrine is that you are refuting the evidence without refuting the thing itself. This is why I asked for you to deny what Calvinists hold as total depravity (not what it means to you, or what TCassidy offered as proof). At a minimum you have confirmed John Piper's view of total depravity. Since Piper is a 7 point Calvinist, I guess that makes you a 1 pointer with a long way to go.

 

And that is his problem. Over and over again I have explained to him that "Total Depravity" does not mean every person is as bad as he/she could be, but that all three parts of a person, body, soul, and spirit have been affected by the fall. But he just ignores that, says that "Total Depravity" means nobody can do anything good then says the verses given don't support TD. Except they do. They support the REAL definition of TD, not his false definition.

 

I never said you had to believe in it to discuss it. Please refrain from twisting my words to mean something not stated. I don't look to play juvenile games with your posts. Please don't with mine.

If you honestly inferred my comment to mean one has to believe a doctrine to discuss it, then either read more carefully or ask for an explanation. You seem to be an intelligent brother in Christ. I think perhaps the stupidity of your reply was merely a result of careless reading. Please revisit my post and ask for clarification if needed.

 

This makes absolutely no sense, brother.

My comment was that in order to debate Total Depravity, there were presuppositions that had to be met. One who rejects the doctrine that Adam's sin had an effect on human nature is not in a position to debate the extent of that effect. The object of their debate, in this case, would be "original sin". If you wondered, people do believe that we have degrees of depravity.

You chose to twist my comment that these doctrines can only be debated by those who hold what they assume (here, total depravity assumes an effect from the Fall) to indicate one can only discuss these things if they believe them.

This is a juvenile game. Unfortunately too many today are obsessed with entertainment and games. I've seen adults driving around with Transformer logos on their vehicles, Hitman logos as avatars, and Star Wars tattoos. We live in a juvenile culture.

I do not know what you mean that you don't "own your posts". You do own your words, and while this is a public forum your words are subject to the rules of the forum. If you do not understand, then please feel free to PM me and I will explain.

 

Yep. Somewhere I read that "People are more likely to be right in what they affirm than in what they deny" (oh yea....that's my signature ) . This has proven true more often than not. I understand that some people (at least one on this thread) legitimately reject the doctrine of TD, but here it seems he is unwilling to reject TD so he redefines it simply because Calvinists believe it.

 

I suspect this is true of all of us.

I agree insofar as there are several views of “original sin”.

That said, debates typically carry certain presuppositions. All I was saying was that if one rejects the presuppositions then they are not in a position to debate what those presuppositions yield.

In seminary we had such arguments. But we also had a list of those things presupposed. Here is a larger example – one who denies that Jesus lived is not in the position to debate the scope of the Atonement. He may discuss the topic, of course, but insofar as debating what Christ’s death accomplished his opinions are obsolete.

I can debate believers baptism. But I cannot honestly debate the proper methods for infant baptism. I hope this clarifies what I intended to convey and apologize if I was less than clear.

I think we agree here. This would be an interesting discussion as well. I don’t believe that we are condemned for our nature but for our sin (Jesus had a human nature as well, but without sin).

I’m glad you posted “prominent strands”. While I am not sure what constitutes “prominent” here, it is good to see that at least you acknowledge differing views. I agree that some take the allegory of the lost being spiritually dead too far. I also agree that forming doctrine based on the order of salvation can be problematic. Insofar as the need for God to work in the will and heart of a man in order for that person to repent and believe, I do find enough evidence. I believe God to be immutable – there is only one way of salvation, one redemptive plan. So I see passages that indicate God will forgive us and give us “new hearts” and His Spirit, and influence our actions through His Spirit as enough evidence for me. But what this means and how it is expressed is, of course, a topic of debate – even within Calvinistic belief.

Just be careful when it comes to assuming beliefs on other people. I do not refer to myself as a Calvinist precisely because it can mislead people regarding my beliefs. But I do try to be honest and forthcoming about what I do believe and why.

Mine was a simple, and I believe accurate, comment. I do not mean it to restrict debate but to state what is assumed. I think that this is evident in that the debate continued after my comment. I do, however, believe that certain presuppositions have to be met. If you did not hold at least some doctrine of the Fall corrupting human nature, then you would be in a position to debate if that corruption exists, but not its extent.

 

I agree. Disputing the doctrines of Grace is not only not off topic but is (from what I gather) the purpose of the thread.

I thought that it would be interesting to take them one by one, starting with TD, and see where people disagree. From what I understand (and he can correct me if I've misunderstood) HeirOfSalvation disagreed with TD because he rejects the idea of imputed corruption based on Adam's transgression. But others seem to affirm what many/most Calvinists view as TD (even if they reject the characterization they make of it).

Where do you stand on the topic? Starting with total depravity, do you believe that we come to God apart from the influence of the Spirit?

 

I agree with you regarding human nature. I do wonder, however, exactly what this "nature" entails. We often talk of it, but it is rarely defined. Did Jesus not have the same human nature that we have (only he did not sin)? I believe he did. So I do not know that we are necessarily sinners based on our nature (apart from actually sinning) as much as we are inclined inwards - to satisfy our desires, the desires of the flesh - rather than towards God. So I believe that Jesus had a human nature and was tempted as we are, but denied the flesh to glorify the Father. That said, taking on human nature also involves being under the curse, which is death. So I also agree that our natures are bent towards the flesh rather than to God. This is what it means to be human. Even now we bear our crosses, flee from sin, and subdue the flesh.

This is what I mean by total depravity. We are dependent on God to draw us. I also agree that this is not compulsion but rather the influencing of God. Spurgeon explained it well when he noted that the most common means God uses to draw men is persuasion. But even this, our acceptance of what so many have rejected, is the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

I agree that we resist God's drawing. But here we would also disagree. I believe that God draws all men in a general sense. This is evident in what is known of God through common means. All men are inclined to seek God in a manner. Jesus died as the Savior of mankind, so that men may be saved. And all men reject this salvation. There was a time for all of us that we were unsaved, in a state of rebellion against God because we have all sinned. But I also believe that God draws some of these who have rejected that general drawing or call in a particular sense. And they may be resistant here as well. But God prevails. This is irresistible grace, that God accomplishes his purpose - not by compulsion but by transformation.

The issue that I have seen on this thread (not necessarily with you, brother) is that sometimes people want to magnify disagreements by redefining the beliefs of others in such a way to "win" an argument. I've seen this done against various positions (not just Calvinism). I think that we can benefit from discussing our disagreements, even if we never come to the same conclusions. We get to learn of each other's beliefs, consider those interpretations, refine our views if necessitated, or perhaps strengthen our own arguments. But we cannot do this if we are not willing to work with the views of opposing brethern. I cannot debate your position if I consistently define your position for you. I have to deal with your view on your terms, or not at all. Sometimes people think that are fighting dragons when in truth they are battling windmills. They may achieve victory, but it is hollow and meaningless.

Too many people simply do not take the time to listen and learn what others are saying. I do not mean to be harsh - I have done this as well. But there comes a time when we need to pause and see what is really being said before proceeding (again, not directed at you but the direction of this thread).