The Reprobate Calvinist

[steaver]

So you're on of those either/or guys huh?

I don't see it as a guy thing. The positions force an either or. You can't be pro Calvinism and neutral non Calvinism at the same time. The two oppose each other.

Btw. You still did not answer my question about what all the OT saints did not receive before the cross.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin's post doesn't reference the correct passage.
MB

In what respect? Here is what I posted:

since the fall, man's will is in bondage to sin (John 3:19) and he cannot perceive spiritual truth unless and until God is pleased to give him new birth (John 3:6; 1 Cor. 2:14).

There are indeed several other texts that I might have quoted, but on reflection, I'm quite happy with these.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You did not answer my question. So what is it you see as the OT saints having not received prior to the cross?

That is a question you put to Robustheologian, not to me.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

A small sect of Christians do believe that to be true. I have thoroughly researched it and find TULIP's version to be incorrect.

Perhaps it might be helpful if you explained what your problem is with 'Total Depravity,' and exactly what you own version of Depravity is.

Isaiah 1:5-6. 'Why should you be stricken again? You will revolt more and more. The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faints. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but wounds and bruises and putrifying sores; they have not been closed or bound up nor soothed with ointment.'

Jeremiah 13:23. 'Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil.'

Jeremiah 17:9. 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?'

 

[steaver]

That is a question you put to Robustheologian, not to me.

Oh that's right! lol. Now where did he go?

 

[steaver]

Perhaps it might be helpful if you explained what your problem is with 'Total Depravity,' and exactly what you own version of Depravity is.

Isaiah 1:5-6. 'Why should you be stricken again? You will revolt more and more. The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faints. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but wounds and bruises and putrifying sores; they have not been closed or bound up nor soothed with ointment.'

Jeremiah 13:23. 'Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil.'

Jeremiah 17:9. 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?'

You present Isaiah 1:5-6 as proof all men are Totally depraved?? Isaiah 1 is speaking of the nation Israel, which the Lord hath "nourished and brought up" and they as a nation has rebelled against Him. Yet there has always been a remnant of true believers which pleases the LORD and whom the LORD preserves.

Jeremiah? It is the LORD who changes the heart through faith.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You present Isaiah 1:5-6 as proof all men are Totally depraved?? Isaiah 1 is speaking of the nation Israel, which the Lord hath "nourished and brought up" and they as a nation has rebelled against Him.

Indeed. But if Isaiah's words apply to Israelites, how much more to the Gentile nations? How would you argue partial depravity from that verse?

Yet there has always been a remnant of true believers which pleases the LORD and whom the LORD preserves.

Indeed again. 'Unless the LORD of hosts had left to us a very small remnant we would have become like Sodom, we would have been made like Gomorrah' (v.9). So tell me about this remnant: looking at this verse, did the remnant preserve itself by its righteousness, or did the Lord preserve it by His mercy? You might want to consider Titus 3:3-8 and Romans 5:6 in connection with it.

 

[steaver]

Indeed. But if Isaiah's words apply to Israelites, how much more to the Gentile nations? How would you argue partial depravity from that verse?

Indeed again. 'Unless the LORD of hosts had left to us a very small remnant we would have become like Sodom, we would have been made like Gomorrah' (v.9). So tell me about this remnant: looking at this verse, did the remnant preserve itself by its righteousness, or did the Lord preserve it by His mercy? You might want to consider Titus 3:3-8 and Romans 5:6 in connection with it.

If you choose to use Isaiah 1:5-6 for a case for total depravity for all men then ALL of Israel was depraved, every single person. Of course not, Isaiah 1:5-6 is speaking about Israel as a nation. Isaiah even states there is a remnant of true believers preserved by God's mercy.

No one preserves themselves, none is righteous apart from the imputed righteousness of God. Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. Ro4:3, Gal3:6, Jas2:23. Notice it does not say "God made Abraham believe and it was imputed unto him for righteousness". Calvinism must reword most of the scriptures in order to support it's doctrines.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If you choose to use Isaiah 1:5-6 for a case for total depravity for all men then ALL of Israel was depraved, every single person.

'Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem; see now and know; and seek in her open places if you can find a man, if there is anyone who executes judgement, who seeks the truth, and I will pardon her. Though they say, "As the LORD lives," surely they speak falsely' (Jer. 5:1-2).

Of course not, Isaiah 1:5-6 is speaking about Israel as a nation. Isaiah even states there is a remnant of true believers preserved by God's mercy.

I am glad that you agree with me that the remnant is always of God's mercy and not by anything in the remnant itself.

No one preserves themselves, none is righteous apart from the imputed righteousness of God. Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. Ro4:3, Gal3:6, Jas2:23.

There is nothing between us in these verses. Abraham did indeed believe God and it was indeed imputed to him for righteousness.

Notice it does not say "God made Abraham believe and it was imputed unto him for righteousness". Calvinism must reword most of the scriptures in order to support it's doctrines.

Eph. 2:4-5. 'But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)..........'

I am aware of those who believe that 'dead' does not really mean dead, but instead means 'not very well,' but you obviously can't be one of those because you do not believe in 'rewording the Scriptures.' So how do we get around the fact that 'us' obviously means Paul and the rest of us, and that would include Abraham. As I have said before, Abraham did not come to God saying, "What would you like me to do?" He couldn't. He was dead in trespasses and sins. No, no! 'The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia' (Acts 7:2) even when he and his dad were worshipping idols in Ur (Joshua 24:2). God chose him (Eph. 1:4), drew him (Jer. 31:3), gave him new birth (1 Peter 1:3) and called him (1 Sam. 3:4-5) to follow him, and guided him (Psalm 73:24). That is why Abraham is called the father of believers. 'Thy people shall be willing in the day of they power' (Psalm 110:3, KJV). God's call to His people is irresistible, and they, like Abraham, believe it and obey it.

It's all of Him and none of us. Praise His glorious Name!

 

[TCassidy]

A small sect of Christians do believe that to be true. I have thoroughly researched it and find TULIP's version to be incorrect.

So, again I ask you, what part of man was not damaged by the fall and therefore is of sufficient merit to come to God on its own?

I asked you this question before and you said none, which is the Particular Baptist (what you call "Calvinist") position.

First you say you disagree, then you say you agree, then you say again you disagree.

So which is it? What part of man was NOT ruined by the fall and thus is sufficiently holy and just and righteous to come to God on its own merits?

No dodging, weaving, and ducking the question. Just a simple answer. What part of man was not ruined by the fall? His body? His soul? His spirit? What part remained holy through the fall?

 

[Van]

Lets see, here is the question: What part of man was NOT ruined by the fall and thus is sufficiently holy and just and righteous to come to God on its own merits?

And the answer: None!

So why is TC repeating the question?

Here is a new question, if the Fall resulted in the "Total Spiritual Inability" of every person, then why did Jesus speak in parables or why did God harden the hearts of Jews? No answer will be forthcoming, just obfuscation.

 

[TCassidy]

So why is TC repeating the question?

Because "none" = Total Depravity. Duh!

 

[TCassidy]

Here is a new question, if the Fall resulted in the "Total Spiritual Inability" of every person, then why did Jesus speak in parables or why did God harden the hearts of Jews? No answer will be forthcoming, just obfuscation.

He spoke in parables for two reasons. To illustrate his teaching to the elect disciples, and to obscure his teaching to the non-elect.

And God hardened the hearts of the Jews because they were not elect, just as he gave new living hearts of faith to the elect.

This is so simple if you would just take off the blinders of works based salvation and see that salvation is by Grace alone through faith alone, plus nothing.

 

[robustheologian]

Oh that's right! lol. Now where did he go?

I'm sorry for the delay. I'm trying to complete a 40-page paper for my Scripture and Doctrine class (coincidentally) by Friday so I'm kind of tied up.

Btw. You still did not answer my question about what all the OT saints did not receive before the cross.

Though there is a more comprehensive answer to this question I'll give you the short answer....the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. As I said earlier, I do not deny that OT saints were regenerated. (Regeneration is simply God granting the ability to hear, understand, believe, obey and even enter the kingdom of God) How else could OT saint come to trust in God? But the primary difference between OT saints and NT saints is that not only are the NT saints regenerated by the Holy Spirit but they are then indwelt by it. We must not confuse the regeneration by the Spirit with the indwelling of the Spirit. Yes they are connected but they are not the same thing.

 

[steaver]

I'm sorry for the delay. I'm trying to complete a 40-page paper for my Scripture and Doctrine class (coincidentally) by Friday so I'm kind of tied up.


Though there is a more comprehensive answer to this question I'll give you the short answer....the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. As I said earlier, I do not deny that OT saints were regenerated. (Regeneration is simply God granting the ability to hear, understand, believe, obey and even enter the kingdom of God) How else could OT saint come to trust in God? But the primary difference between OT saints and NT saints is that not only are the NT saints regenerated by the Holy Spirit but they are then indwelt by it. We must not confuse the regeneration by the Spirit with the indwelling of the Spirit. Yes they are connected but they are not the same thing.

Well that sure is a different twist indeed. No brother, regeneration is the joining of God to man as one new creation, Christ in you! Without it, no man can enter heaven....

 

[steaver]

He spoke in parables for two reasons. To illustrate his teaching to the elect disciples, and to obscure his teaching to the non-elect.

And God hardened the hearts of the Jews because they were not elect, just as he gave new living hearts of faith to the elect.

This is so simple if you would just take off the blinders of works based salvation and see that salvation is by Grace alone through faith alone, plus nothing.

Hmmmm....why would He have to obscure His teaching from those who could not hear it anyways......and harden the hearts of those who had a dead heart anyways.....

 

[TCassidy]

Hmmmm....why would He have to obscure His teaching from those who could not hear it anyways......and harden the hearts of those who had a dead heart anyways.....

Why did God say that his eye goes to and forth throughout the world searching for someone to show himself strong in? Doesn’t God know everything? Why then does He have to search?

2Ch 16:9 For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars.

Why did God say that the spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching out the very depths of his heart? Doesn't God know everything?

Pro 20:27 The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.

Why did God say that He removed Himself from Hezekiah to see what was in his heart, doesn’t He know already?

2Ch 32:31 Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him to enquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart.

God uses language which can be misused in light of the analogy of faith (comparing scripture with scripture). The example Van is using is such a one. Christ was using that language to proclaim of judgment via spiritual blindness against a hardened people, yet that does not mean that man is not totally depraved, in Exodus "God hardened Pharaoh's heart and Pharaoh "hardened his own heart." The prophetic judgement of Christ via parables is a display of God's distinguishing grace against the Jews which was prophesied to occur in the prophets, therefore, a biblical theology helps in understanding this passage, along with a comparison of similar prima facie problem texts in scripture.

In God's infinite mercy He gives the knowledge and truth we need at the level and timing we can handle it. Then, He brings us deeper into His Word and gives us a deeper understanding as we grow in our faith. These truths will not contradict, but rather expound and expand our faith. The more we know and have grown in our faith and knowledge, the more reasonability we have to model and tell it to others. This is also why many Christians are not involved in Discipleship and why most churches do not teach from the Bible or only offer superficial messages; the pastors and members are in fear of their growth because they do not want to responsibly model Jesus or show and tell Him to others. Many Christians prefer disobedience rather than an effectual faith that is contagious.

So, when we are ready, we get it; when we get it, we are responsible for it and have the passion to run with it. If you do not get it, you are too prideful, too apathetic or too immature or too young in the faith to understand because you have not learned and applied what must come and become before. You cannot play Beethoven when first learning the piano, nor can you do calculus when you are just learning fractions. You build up to it, practicing and meeting challenges that are appropriate for where you are.

When Jesus first taught these parables, the disciple were not ready, thus they did not get it; they were too young in the faith.

The Pharisees did not get it not because of their ignorance; they were certain of what they knew, and they just were so prideful that they would not allow the Truth to penetrate their conceit and traditions. When they were ready, they "got it" and a multitude of these very Jews were then saved.

 

[robustheologian]

Well that sure is a different twist indeed. No brother, regeneration is the joining of God to man as one new creation, Christ in you! Without it, no man can enter heaven....

The joining of God to man?!? What's your scripture support?

 

[Rippon]

Here is a new question, if the Fall resulted in the "Total Spiritual Inability" of every person, then why did Jesus speak in parables or why did God harden the hearts of Jews?

He spoke in parables to hide the truth --not bring it to light.

He hardens the hearts of some Jews just as He does Gentiles --due to His good pleasure. He hardens those whom he wants to harden. Do you have a problem with that? I will warn you --it's God's Word you have issues with if you disagree.

No answer will be forthcoming, just obfuscation.

You style yourself as some kind of prophet with that lind of line which you bandy about continually.

I have given you a scriptural response --with clarity.

So an answer came forth from my keystrokes --what kind of prophet does that make you?

 

[Rippon]

I notice that TC already gave Van an answer to Van in post 133. I posted after the fact.