-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The "Rich Young Ruler"
- Thread starter The Archangel
- Start date
salzer mtn
Well-Known Member
Does anyone that knows why the law was inacted actually believe the rich young ruler kept the law from his youth up ? I don't. Did he keep the law in thought by never thinking a bad thought toward anyone ? in word by never letting a idle word out of his mouth against anyone ? and deed, maybe he did in deed by actually not committing a crime against anyone. This man showed his ignorance of the law and arrogance by saying which, as if keeping the law was the easiest thing in the world, not knowing the inability of man and that knowledge of inability to keep the law reveals sin. The rich young ruler perhaps kept the letter of the law but I believe he was ignorant of the spirit of the law as of keeping the law in his heart. Jesus showed compassion on the multitude because they were as sheep without a shepherd and he had compassion on the multitude because they had not eaten when he fed them with loaves and fishes, but later rebuked them because they were seeking him only because they had been fed. I believe Mark in his account of the rich young ruler saw the great compassion that Christ had and would call this love.
Yes, I know, Yeshua1 assertion I did not understand the TULIP was not an attack on my knowledge nor cognitive ability, no it was just an observation. Like this one, Calvinists ignore what is said, and nit-pick some minor item to evade discussion. This is not an attack on the courage and character of Calvinists, it is just a observation.
So we get a Good Grief, rather than providing an answer for natural fallen men "entering heaven."
Last edited by a moderator:
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
You are not correct.
The idea of Total Depravity and Total Inability are most decidedly not what you are describing.
First, Total Depravity does not mean that everyone is as bad as they can be and it does not mean that humans are incapable of any "good." The doctrine of Total Depravity simply states that there is no part of man that is untouched by the Fall. A better rendering of what the doctrine states would be "Radical Depravity" or--my preference--"All-pervasive Depravity." Our depravity, as humans, is all-pervasive in that it affects all aspects of the human experience--mind and body--and infects any human being at every level.
Second, Total Inability refers to man's inability to remove himself from his own sinful condition. Here's a good definition:
Total depravity also means "total inability"; that is, an individual cannot extricate himself from his sinful condition. A sinner cannot by his own volition bring his life and character into conformity with the demands of God. The taint and power of sin is such that the individual cannot deliver himself from sin or justify himself in God's sight. As sinners, we are powerless "to please God or come to him unless moved by [God's] grace." "We are totally unable to do genuinely meritorious works sufficient to qualify for God's favor."
-R. Norman Stanton, "Human Sinfulness," in A Theology For The Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2007), 454-455.
Stanton's explanation is good, and quite the corrective to your misinformation.-R. Norman Stanton, "Human Sinfulness," in A Theology For The Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2007), 454-455.
The issue, really is not the Rich Young Ruler's coming to inquire of Christ. Many did that, many departed. Many investigate Christ today, and many today also depart. The issue is whether one is willing to come to Christ on His terms--repentance and faith. The Rich Young Ruler is seeking to come to Christ on his own terms, something none of us can do and expect to be saved.
The Archangel
convicted1
Guest
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup::thumbs:
Inspector Javert
Active Member
He is absolutely correct...He described the relevant portion of the doctrine accurately.
Yes, they are, and you do not refute him here....you simply launch into a tangential issue which wasn't even what he described in the first place.
...And....that's your tangential issue.
He said nothing about that, and his statement had no commentary on this....
I've realized your M.O....
Simply say someone is "wrong" about something they didn't argue, and then launch into a tangential debate which they never referenced in the first place.
Van said NOTHING about men being "as bad as they could be"....NOTHING....
You argue like Barrack Obama. Make any argument about the merits of an Iraq invasion an attack on over-taxing the poor in order to argue what you want to argue, instead of what was actually proffered. That's good. Real good. It also fools the implacably stupid.
Yes it does.
Inasmuch as you placed "good" in quotes, you've already proved it to be so. It isn't meritorious, and it isn't counted by God to be a non-damnable deed, so it isn't even "good" to begin with. You can't even type the word without surrounding it in quotes.....That means...that it isn't "good"....
You know....just like you are arguing.
Full-blown Pelagianism doesn't even deny that...
Van certainly wouldn't argue otherwise, so what's your point?
No Christian Theology on Earth denies that. Certainly not Van.
Every 50-100 years Calvinists come up with new verbiage in order to obfuscate the obvious....
You can call it "All-encompassing", <--- Calvinists will within 50 years..."Holistic" <---Calvinists will within 100 years, "Pandemic" <---Calvinists will within 100 years, or "Universal"....it doesn't matter. It's the same concept no matter who is speaking of it. The only reason to bicker about precision in verbiage like that is to obfuscate the point.
You aren't fooling anybody....well, except your preexisting sycophants anyway.
"All-pervasive"?
Do you mean like it's
"All-encompassing" or
"Holistic"
or
"Total"
or
"Complete"?
Is that what you mean? Or is there a nuance to it we don't comprehend?
Oh, right, I forgot it's now:"PERVASIVE" :laugh:
Wouldn't have gotten that much from the fifty other synonyms used over the centuries.
That's fundamental to all Christian Theology.
Van accepts that. He always did. Always expressed as much.
There's a new one...
Did Van deny that?
Obviously he DOES deny it or you wouldn't have said:
.
So...
Van denies that does he?
Where does he deny it?
You said he was "incorrect" right??
So, where does he debate this?
Van would personally affirm this...So, where do you get off calling him "incorrect"?
What portion of that statement can you quote him as refusing to affirm?
It's one of a billion ways an innumerable number of Theologians have all expressed the same thing. It was nothing new.
Nothing quoted above contradicts anything Van said.
Nothing.
To say it "corrects" his "misinformation" is a lie.
A sick, stupid and twisted lie.
That's precisely what Van said actually. Pretty much precisely.
So...
What's new?
And what "misinformation" is it you accuse him of?
Last edited by a moderator:
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Sigh.....
There is nothing of substance in your response.
The point of my response to Van was to point out that his concept of "Total Depravity" and "Total Inability" expressed in the post cited and other posts from the past (uncited) is a flawed understanding leading him to set up a Strawman.
It's obvious you're arguing against the same Strawman. And, I might point out, your statement (following) is wrong, too.
Pelagianism does deny that.
Now, you're free to argue against the accepted, orthodox definition(s) of Total Depravity and Total Inability. But, when you say my simple statement of the doctrines--intended to correct misconceptions common and uncommon--is "a sick, stupid and twisted lie" and you imply that I am "the implacably stupid" one for having believed them, you demonstrate yourself to have a grasp of systematic theology that is even worse than your grasp of biblical Hebrew.
The Archangel
To say one is a slave of sin, and then to say they are not as bad as they can be is a direct contradiction. If their nature compels them to sin, they will always sin the worst possible sin. If that person can choose a lesser sin, then he is not compelled to sin, and is not a slave.
When the scriptures say we are servants to sin, it is not saying we are compelled by our nature to sin. It is saying that we belong to sin (personified) as a piece of property, like a slave bought in the ancient markets.
A slave is not compelled to obey his master, he can disobey. He can even run away, but the slave master can appeal to the law and that escaped slave can be captured and brought back. And this is what is meant by being "captive to the law of sin". Sin owns us and there is no escape except death.
The scriptures DO NOT teach that a slave or servant cannot obey the gospel and believe it as is falsely taught by Calvinism. In fact, we are directly shown in Romans 6 that persons who were servants to sin in fact obeyed the gospel and believed it, and when they did they were THEN made free from sin and became the servants of righteousness (righteousness also being personified).
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Vs. 16 shows that men have the ability to either sin unto death, or obey unto righteousness. The words "whether" and "or" showing both ability and option.
Vs. 17 shows these Romans, while they were YET servants to sin obeyed the gospel from the heart. This utterly refutes Total Inability right here.
Vs. 18 makes it even more clear that a servant of sin can obey the gospel, this verse tells us AFTER these Romans who were yet servants of sin obeyed the gospel, it was BEING THEN that they were made free from sin and BECAME the servants of righteousness.
Servant of sin ------> obeyed they gospel -------> being THEN set free from sin --------> BECAME servant of righteousness.
So, Total Depravity/Inability is clearly and plainly refuted by scripture. It is completely false doctrine.
When the scriptures say we are servants to sin, it is not saying we are compelled by our nature to sin. It is saying that we belong to sin (personified) as a piece of property, like a slave bought in the ancient markets.
A slave is not compelled to obey his master, he can disobey. He can even run away, but the slave master can appeal to the law and that escaped slave can be captured and brought back. And this is what is meant by being "captive to the law of sin". Sin owns us and there is no escape except death.
The scriptures DO NOT teach that a slave or servant cannot obey the gospel and believe it as is falsely taught by Calvinism. In fact, we are directly shown in Romans 6 that persons who were servants to sin in fact obeyed the gospel and believed it, and when they did they were THEN made free from sin and became the servants of righteousness (righteousness also being personified).
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Vs. 16 shows that men have the ability to either sin unto death, or obey unto righteousness. The words "whether" and "or" showing both ability and option.
Vs. 17 shows these Romans, while they were YET servants to sin obeyed the gospel from the heart. This utterly refutes Total Inability right here.
Vs. 18 makes it even more clear that a servant of sin can obey the gospel, this verse tells us AFTER these Romans who were yet servants of sin obeyed the gospel, it was BEING THEN that they were made free from sin and BECAME the servants of righteousness.
Servant of sin ------> obeyed they gospel -------> being THEN set free from sin --------> BECAME servant of righteousness.
So, Total Depravity/Inability is clearly and plainly refuted by scripture. It is completely false doctrine.
This is a claim without foundations or evidence. Do you have anything to support your claim here?
Inspector Javert
Active Member
As I have pointed out before Calvinists present non-Calvinist views as if they reflected Calvinist. No one can save himself, all our works of righteousness are as filthy rags. Yet this Calvinist presents this fundamental truth as if that was the doctrine of total spiritual inability. But the assertion is utterly false and misleading, it is disinformation. Here is the actual complete doctrine, rather than the edited version leaving out man"s supposed inability to receive the gospel or seek God.
Bottom line, the story of the rich young ruler, seeking eternal life and asking what he needed to do, proves conclusively that total spiritual inability is mistaken doctrine. The fact that Paul was zealous for God while rejecting Jesus proves total spiritual inability is mistaken doctrine. And Matthew 23:13, where unregenerate mean were actually entering heaven proves total spiritual inability is an unbiblical fiction.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is common sense and logic. If we are compelled to sin, we will always choose the worst sin possible. We are driven in that one direction.
Let's say you rob a bank, but you allow the bank employees to live. You are practicing restraint. You are resisting evil, at least to some degree. If you were truly compelled to sin, you would kill them and you would love every moment of it.
If we can choose a lesser sin, we are reversing course, we are exercising option, and therefore are not a slave in the sense that we are compelled to sin.
What is the whole argument about? When a sinner is presented the gospel, Calvinism teaches the man cannot possibly will to believe it. He hates it, he must reject it, he must go the other direction from it, go further and further astray.
If he can move toward the gospel, he can move all the way.
Again, scripture easily refutes Total Inability. Romans 6 says we are servants to whom we "yield" ourselves to obey, "whether" (option) of sin unto death, "or" (option) of obedience to righteousness.
Our choices are not determined by our nature, our nature is determined by our choices.
This is why Jesus said "Either make" (option/ability) the tree good and it's fruit good, "or else make" (option/ability) the tree corrupt and it's fruit corrupt.
Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
The Bible and Jesus does not teach that we are compelled by our nature to reject the gospel, the scriptures teach we can either choose to do good, or choose to do evil.
And this is exactly how the Romans were saved, when they were yet sinners and servants of sin they chose to obey the gospel from the heart. When they did so, they were THEN made free from sin and BECAME servants of righteousness.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
This scripture is very straightforward and very easy to understand. It shows that people have the option and ability to yield themselves either to sin, or righteousness. And even though these persons were servants to sin, they were able to obey the gospel from the heart.
At that moment they believed, they were made free from sin and became the servants of righteousness.
Total Inability is utterly false. Scripture absolutely refutes it.
Last edited by a moderator:
So no evidence or support?
THAT logic would mean tghat all of us before getting saved were Hitler, or Jeffrey dalmar!
This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
John 17:3 Nas
but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
John 20:31 Nasb
Seems pretty clear!