Faith Received Part 2!

Right on Rippon. It's good to see another who can see the nonsense that goes on.

Anyhow, Augustine may have been catholic, but that doesn't mean everything He said was unscriptural. Now, I do know some Baptists, and just about everything they say is unscriptural. They too might as well be Catholic.

 

Total Depravity, as commonly ascribed to TULIP, is therefore commonly ascribed to Calvin, and most think it started there. Most do not share your zeal that Calvin = the Bible. It does not. The fact that this doctrine "Total Depravity" was around long before Calvin demonstrates that it is not part and parcel of Calvinism. I don't share the same views of many of the zealots on this board that equate Calvinism with the gospel or Calvinism with the Bible, etc.

 

Reply to Jesusfan,

Yes, when God gives us the right to become children of God, that grace is irresistible. But that has nothing to do with how Calvinism defines the term, they have it causing a person to "receive Him." In other words, Calvinism has the cart before the horse.

The Calvinist view is shown false by Matthew 23:13, because the men who were entering heaven, had to have undergo "irresistible grace" in order to be entering heaven, yet they were turned aside, demonstrating that whatever the grace was that allowed them to be "entering heaven" it was not irresistible.

 

You don't pay attention. I have had threads that documented that Calvin did not originate what is nicknamed Calvinism. No Calvinist believes that John Calvin started what is called Calvinism. He deserves a lot of credit from systematizing things,but he did was no inventor of the doctrines.

Now you admit that Total depravity did not originate with John Calvin. However,TD is indeed part and parcel of Calvinism. It is an undeniable fact. Don't you read much?

And once again,you avoid addressing your slander of John Calvin. Document where he ever was guilty of plagiarism. Cite scholars who have charged him with that. Put up or shut up. Say you were wrong or produce evidence that substantiates your absurd claims.

 

I have made my point and that is enough. Total Depravity is commonly ascribed to Calvin, when (as you know), it existed far before him. Ask the common person where did the doctrine of Total Depravity come from, as defined in TULIP, and what do you think they will say? But where did Calvin really get this teaching from? That is the point I was making.

 

Reply to Preacher4truth

I did wonder what the word meant because I saw may Calvinists use it for code for irresistible grace. But the word means to make alive, as in we are made alive together with Christ. So we are "quickened" when God spiritually places us "in Christ." Everyone outside of Christ is spiritually dead, and everyone spiritually in Christ is spiritually alive. Ephesians 2:5, Colossians 2:13.

The issue is not that the words "irresistible grace" are not found in scripture, the issue is the idea conveyed by those words, are not found in scripture.

There is nothing wrong with supporting each and every statement I make with multiple scriptural references that contextually demonstrate my view. To claim I am proof-texting, is to simply dismiss scripture.

Everything we have comes from God. That is true. Lets agree that "A" has been proven. Now what Calvinists do is use "A" to claim "B" irresistible grace has been proven. No sale.

 

Your Scriptural references don't support you contextually. They're used as proof texts. You've never oncce used them in an expressed contextual analysis.

Acts 9 destroys your premise that Gods Grace is irresistible to His elect.

 

You make a "point" by lying? How is that proving a point? Calvin did not plagiarize Augustine or anyone else. You failed to put up so you need to say you were wrong and that you won't do that kind of thing again.

 

At least DHK is right saying Total Depravity existed way before Calvin. He's correct (accidentally.) It has existed since man fell.

 

Reply to Preacher4truth

Please reference a verse that I used to demonstrate my view, that I did not use contextually. To make a charge like this is simply to seek to dismiss what you cannot counter biblically.

First, God's grace - bestowal of divine favor - takes many forms, some resistible such as providing opportunity, and some irresistible, such as providing eternal security. Your generalized statement is meaningless.

Second, the conversion of Paul might illustrate "irresistible grace" toward Paul to become His apostle to the Gentiles. But does it demonstrate "irresistible grace" to compel Paul to become a believer? That is really your claim, if you peel the onion of your vague statements.

Ananias did indeed tell Paul what to do, but it appears Paul chose to do it, to call upon the name of the Lord.

In summary, both your vague and unsupported with specifics claims do not stand up to study. Maybe that is what you had in mind with "expressed contextual analysis."