Total Depravity = Hardening?

[Skandelon]

No. The Scriptures are clear. Those who are chosen are not chosen because of any inherent quality. They are chosen on the basis of God's purposes according to election.

I didn't say they were chosen because they were better, I said they are better because they are chosen...

To the carnal mind, yes, but not to a renewed mind. What's interesting is now that you're forced to admit an essential element of your theology, that some people are naturally better than others, you're twisting the Scriptures to support it.

"Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness." "Well done thy good and faithful servant." "Heb. 11" The scripture has no problem crediting men for their "goodness" because it is the basis for a system of reward and punishment. In your system it should be, "God cause Abraham to believe and was credited to God." "Well done God" etc etc.

There is no basis for reward or punishment in your system because God is the only actor, decider or doer of anything. Its more of a picture of a kid playing with his GI JOES for several hours and then handing them medals at the end of the day for all their great work.

 

[quantumfaith]

If you used proper hermeneutics you would believe in the grace of God as the reformers did. You would not look to re-define everything.

Translation: If you have half a brain, then you would be (remain) a calvinist.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No. It's very simple. In the view you extol here, men are hardened only after they've sinned enough to earn that punishment. Up to that time they are free to choose the Gospel.

Their choice of the Gospel is 100% non-compulsory. IOW God hasn't done one thing inside the individual who chooses that He hasn't done in one who hasn't chosen. That leaves only one possibility—those who choose the Gospel have more love for it than those who don't, and that love must be an inherent, innate quality.

Bottom line, those who choose are inherently better than those who don't. There is no other possible conclusion.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Translation: If you have half a brain, then you would be (remain) a calvinist.

Seems like it dont it.....:wavey:

 

[Robert Snow]

Translation: If you have half a brain, then you would be (remain) a calvinist.

It isn't a matter of using only a small percentage of their brain that is the problem with reformers. It's the dependence on their beloved reformers of the past, such as Calvin, in place of the clear teachings of scripture that is the problem. No one reading the bible would come up with this erroneous system. It takes extra-biblical teaching to become a Calvinist.

 

[quantumfaith]

It isn't a matter of using only a small percentage of their brain that is the problem with reformers. It's the dependence on their beloved reformers of the past, such as Calvin, in place of the clear teachings of scripture that is the problem. No one reading the bible would come up with this erroneous system. It takes extra-biblical teaching to become a Calvinist.

Isnt that why it takes more than "half a brain"?

 

[Robert Snow]

Isnt that why it takes more than "half a brain"?

Maybe Rush Limbaugh is a Calvinist. He is always talking about having half his brain tied behind his back. :laugh:

 

[Rippon]

It's the dependence on their beloved reformers of the past, such as Calvin, in place of the clear teachings of scripture that is the problem. No one reading the bible would come up with this erroneous system. It takes extra-biblical teaching to become a Calvinist.

The above is false to the core.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It isn't a matter of using only a small percentage of their brain that is the problem with reformers. It's the dependence on their beloved reformers of the past, such as Calvin, in place of the clear teachings of scripture that is the problem. No one reading the bible would come up with this erroneous system. It takes extra-biblical teaching to become a Calvinist.

I think we have proven that we start with Christ.And the suggestion of systematic Christianity is erroneous is just stunningly superficial.

 

[Skandelon]

It isn't a matter of using only a small percentage of their brain that is the problem with reformers. It's the dependence on their beloved reformers of the past, such as Calvin, in place of the clear teachings of scripture that is the problem. No one reading the bible would come up with this erroneous system. It takes extra-biblical teaching to become a Calvinist.

Actually, its just the opposite for many of them. Most Calvinists today (according to a study I read recently) are young white males. In my experience many of them do little in-depth study of the historical reformers. Some do, maybe even many here (so don't attack me, I'm speaking in generalities and we all know with your handling of Rom 9 you don't know how to understand that ), but many neo-calvinists come to their new found beliefs through popular authors or speakers like Piper, Chandler and Driscoll types and never take the time to really understand the scholarly issues of this disagreement throughout Christian History.

 

[webdog]

And all the people said "Amen" :thumbs:

Using the calvinist understanding of "all" I see?

 

[Skandelon]

Whether or not our sin/guilt is inherited from Adam or not seems to be a secondary matter considering the end result is the same: we all sin and need a savior.

The question of the OP deals with something of significance however because the end result is not the same.

Either a man is born (1) unable to see, hear, understand and repent or (2) he is born able to see, hear, understand and repent and once he rebells over a period of time grows hardened making it more and more difficult for him to respond to God.

Can you explain the difference between one who is Totally Depraved but not yet hardened and one who has become hardened?
What part of the definition for hardening is not consistent with Total Depravity?

Still haven't seen a response to this question which addresses the real distinction of those with Total Depravity and not hardened versus those who have become hardened.

Why does the bible speak of people growing blind if they were born totally blind? Growing deaf if they were born totally unable to hear? Explain this please.

 

[MB]

If you used proper hermeneutics you would believe in the grace of God as the reformers did. You would not look to re-define everything.

Do you know why your hermenentics fail? Because it attempts to pass down the unbiblical assumptions of those who came before. All of there mistakes you receive as the gospel truth when all the while we have the Holy Spirit who teaches us. You place your hermeneutics above scripture.

We have no need of teachers who pass down all the mistakes of the past. Calvinism does not teach grace in actuallity. What it claims as grace isn't true grace at all. It just isn't graceful to offer Salvation to a particular few while condemning others to hell with out recourse. There simply is no grace in Calvinism. There is no submission in Calvinism there fore there is no grace. Calvinism only offers particularism, for those who want to be particularist. The grace you may have received certainly isn't because of your failing hermeneutics or what Calvinism teaches.
MB

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Do you know why your hermenentics fail? Because it attempts to pass down the unbiblical assumptions of those who came before. All of there mistakes you receive as the gospel truth when all the while we have the Holy Spirit who teaches us. You place your hermeneutics above scripture.

We have no need of teachers who pass down all the mistakes of the past. Calvinism does not teach grace in actuallity. What it claims as grace isn't true grace at all. It just isn't graceful to offer Salvation to a particular few while condemning others to hell with out recourse. There simply is no grace in Calvinism. There is no submission in Calvinism there fore there is no grace. Calvinism only offers particularism, for those who want to be particularist. The grace you may have received certainly isn't because of your failing hermeneutics or what Calvinism teaches.
MB

OK, how do you know your dealing with the Holy Spirit? And why are you taking it on yourself to explain grace. If God tells you something that you dont like do you tell him, " No I find it not fair & by my interpretation its just not biblical"? Admit it, your a humanist.

 

[DHK]

If you used proper hermeneutics you would believe in the grace of God as the reformers did. You would not look to re-define everything.

Please respond to my post in #57.

The passage is John 10:19:38.
Verse 19 indicates a division among the Jews. Some of them said that he had a devil. Some believed. Jesus appealed to his works or his miracles as evidence of his deity.
Then he said: Those that hear, follow. (Those are the ones that believe). To them he gives eternal life. Those ones will never perish. Notice that hearing the Word of God comes first.

In the second group, they also hear the Word of God. They heard and understood distinctly what Christ meant when he said "I and my Father are one (vs.30), but they rejected his words of their own free will. In fact His words made them very angry. They tried to stone him. They made it very clear that it wasn't for the miracles that they were stoning him, but for the fact that he, being a man, was claiming to be God and (to them), that was blasphemy.

That was not only a rejection of the Word of God (the words of Jesus), but a rejection of the Holy Spirit, or the conviction of the Holy Spirit. They were resisting the Holy Spirit's conviction on their lives. That is why they were so angry.

Others had heard and accepted his word, and gladly became his sheep. They had made that choice, and had received eternal life as a result of the choice that they made. No one forced them.
Both heard the Word of God, and both reacted in very different ways. Both will be held accountable for the decision that they made.

As an anecdote when I was younger I used to go door to door visitation. When I got back the pastor would ask:
"Did you make anyone glad?"
No.
"Did you make anyone sad?"
No.
"Then you have failed. The gospel with either make one glad (saved), or mad (under conviction of the Holy Spirit so that he will be angry at you like the Jews were angry at Jesus).

He wasn't totally serious; he was only teaching a truth. For many are simply apathetic toward the gospel, and we both knew that.
But in John 10, it wasn't so.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Please respond to my post in #57.

The passage is John 10:19:38.
Verse 19 indicates a division among the Jews. Some of them said that he had a devil. Some believed. Jesus appealed to his works or his miracles as evidence of his deity.
Then he said: Those that hear, follow. (Those are the ones that believe). To them he gives eternal life. Those ones will never perish. Notice that hearing the Word of God comes first.

In the second group, they also hear the Word of God. They heard and understood distinctly what Christ meant when he said "I and my Father are one (vs.30), but they rejected his words of their own free will. In fact His words made them very angry. They tried to stone him. They made it very clear that it wasn't for the miracles that they were stoning him, but for the fact that he, being a man, was claiming to be God and (to them), that was blasphemy.

That was not only a rejection of the Word of God (the words of Jesus), but a rejection of the Holy Spirit, or the conviction of the Holy Spirit. They were resisting the Holy Spirit's conviction on their lives. That is why they were so angry.

Others had heard and accepted his word, and gladly became his sheep. They had made that choice, and had received eternal life as a result of the choice that they made. No one forced them.
Both heard the Word of God, and both reacted in very different ways. Both will be held accountable for the decision that they made.

As an anecdote when I was younger I used to go door to door visitation. When I got back the pastor would ask:
"Did you make anyone glad?"
No.
"Did you make anyone sad?"
No.
"Then you have failed. The gospel with either make one glad (saved), or mad (under conviction of the Holy Spirit so that he will be angry at you like the Jews were angry at Jesus).

He wasn't totally serious; he was only teaching a truth. For many are simply apathetic toward the gospel, and we both knew that.
But in John 10, it wasn't so.

So what your saying is the group that was rejecting Jesus were given the call by God, right?

 

[DHK]

So what your saying is the group that was rejecting Jesus were given the call by God, right?

Absolutely. "God is not willing that any should perish..."

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, (Titus 2:11)

 

[Aaron]

. . . but only the better ones accepted it . . .

 

[quantumfaith]

. . . but only the better ones accepted it . . .

They are certainly in a better state because they accepted it.

 

[psalms109:31]

Begger

. . . but only the better ones accepted it . . .

If you are meek and humble and trust in the name of the Lord, you are a begger deserving nothing only getting what the Master has promissed you.

We who come know what the price of our sin is, death. We are saved by grace, because we haven't paid our debt Jesus did.

Trust in the Lord and we will not be disappointed or put to shame what a promise.