Total Depravity, Not Quite Total

[ForumChaplain]

Shilo:
Does ken's post help any? I know that you asked for God's sovereign. He found a lot of sovereign Lord, but no God'sovereign. Does close count???

 

[shilo]

This forum is for the discussion of issues relating to calvinism and arminianism. If you wish to discuss Bible versions, please use the appropriate forum.

[ October 17, 2002, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[shilo]

back to the topic at hand...

We all agree that Man is totally depraved but we aren't speaking about that we are speaking about INABILITY.

The flesh cannot be changed, reformed, trained, improved, or reconciled to God unless and until God changes it..but to say that because of this "INABILITY" a man cannot believe the gospel is another matter!

The Bible speaks of God being "Pleased" with Enoch (Heb. 11:5) with solomon's request (1 Kgs. 3:10) with choices made by Eunuchs (Isa. 56:4) With making ISRAEL HIS PEOPLE ( 1 sam 12:22) when Israel was blessed ( num 24:1) for his rightousness sake (Isa 42:21) when he revealed Christ to Paul (Gal.1 :16) with spiritual sacrafices (heb 13:16) and especially with his son(Isa 53:10, Mat.17:5,Col. 1:19)

But there are two other occassions when God Is said to be pleased. the first concerns man in general.

"when a man's ways please the LORD he maketh his enemies to be at peace with him" (pro. 16:7) and more relevant to the subject at hand:

"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, It pleased God by the Foolishness of preaching to save them that Believe" (1 Cor 1:21)

Sirs what Must I do to be saved? They said BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Chrirst and thou shalt be saved.." ( acts 16:30,31)

So although man has the inability in his flesh to please God, God is pleased when sinners believe the Gospel.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Chappie:
He found a lot of sovereign Lord, but no God'sovereign. Does close count???

Really, Chappie, really? Maybe you should go back through the list again. You missed this or else ignored it to try to make a silly point that you are totally wrong about. You obviously misrepresented what was in the brief, non-exhaustive list. Somehow, I am not surprised.

(Dan 4:17 NIV) "'The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men.'

Also, as I said the list is not exhaustive. If Shilo is a one of those KJV-only types he can go the Bible Versions Forum and argue there.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chappie:
He found a lot of sovereign Lord, but no God's sovereign. Does close count???

Really, Chappie, really? Maybe you should go back through the list again. You missed this or else ignored it to try to make a silly point that you are totally wrong about. You obviously misrepresented what was in the brief, non-exhaustive list. Somehow, I am not surprised.

(Dan 4:17 NIV) "'The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men.'

Also, as I said the list is not exhaustive. If Shilo is a one of those KJV-only types he can go the Bible Versions Forum and argue there.

Ken
A Spurgeonite</font>[/QUOTE]Really Kenneth, really. I mean really, really really.

Why you always accusing the Chap man of misrepresenting. The Chap man just sees things a little more precisely than a spurgie.

Perhaps if i placed one phrase on top of the other, you might be able to detect some subtle differences. Here we go;

He asked for, ---------God's sovereign.
You came up with. ----Sovereign Lord.
Now you substitute.---The Most High is sovereign.

Count the number of letters in each phrase, that should help a little bit.

The Chap man ain't no misrepresenter.

[ October 17, 2002, 06:06 AM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Are you denying that YHWH (LORD) is God? Are you denying that the Most High is God? Surely you are not stooping to that becuase that will get you banned from this forum since you have departed from trinitarian theology. Of course YHWH is God; when someone asked for references, you didn't think you would get them. Then when they showed up, you weren't sure what to do with them so you stoop to things like this ...

 

[Johnv]

Being first "very good" then it is truly a matter of my exhibiting my "very goodness" as opposed to my second nature which is sinful. If I can learn to do this, then I have no need of a Saviour.

No, not at all.

Step 1- we're craeted "very good" by God.
Step 2 - We're immersed within sinful nature and are this inhierantly depraved. Our depravity prevents our ability to be fully "very good" as God created us.
Step 3 - Jesus washed us of our depravity, and we are therefore once again able to be the "very good" creatures that God made us to be.

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Are you denying that YHWH (LORD) is God? Are you denying that the Most High is God? Surely you are not stooping to that becuase that will get you banned from this forum since you have departed from trinitarian theology. Of course YHWH is God; when someone asked for references, you didn't think you would get them. Then when they showed up, you weren't sure what to do with them so you stoop to things like this ...

Is this post addressed to me, not quite sure...

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Chappie:
Are we on the same page here.

I sincerely doubt it if you think it is man's goodness (ability to do right) that enables him to accept Christ.

Ok, relax amigo. I do not think that. I think that it is the Gospel that enables man to accept Christ. The Gospel, the good news; the power of God unto salvation. Can we be friends now?

It does not mean that none ever does right.
It does mean that none ever do right for the right reason within their own will.

Moses, Daniel and Job did something to please God, he speaks of their righteousness. Read it for yourself. Perhaps you willbelieve the bible if not me...

Ezek 14:14
14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

Show me the context where their righteousness is really not their righteousness.

[ October 17, 2002, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Chappie:
Is this post addressed to me, not quite sure

Well, Chappie, I think so. Wanna own up to your mistake?

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ October 17, 2002, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Chappie:
Is this post addressed to me, not quite sure...

Of course. I did not quote you since I immediately followed your post. You made this statement. I am wondering if you will stick with it or change your view.

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chappie:
Is this post addressed to me, not quite sure...

Of course. I did not quote you since I immediately followed your post. You made this statement. I am wondering if you will stick with it or change your view.</font>[/QUOTE]"This statement", what statement? I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. Yet I have said nothing that I feel I need to retract.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what statement you think I made. If i believe myself to be in error, I will admit it. If not, I will not.

Originally posted by shilo:
God's sovereign...Can someone open their Bible up and please find that word for me?? or even that phrase.

Shilo asked for someone to open their bible and find the words, “God’s Sovereign, or even the phrase.

Ken responded with scriptures that had the words:
You came up with. ----Sovereign Lord.
Now you substitute.---The Most High is sovereign.

I responded, he asked for the words or phrase: “He asked for, ---------“God's sovereign”.

Then you show up with these very friendly and Christian comments:
“Are you denying that YHWH (LORD) is God? Are you denying that the Most High is God? Surely you are not stooping to that because that will get you banned from this forum since you have departed from Trinitarian theology. Of course YHWH is God; when someone asked for references, you didn't think you would get them. Then when they showed up, you weren't sure what to do with them so you stoop to things like this ...”

What are you talking about.

[ October 18, 2002, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

[ForumChaplain]

Anybody want to talk about total depravity, aka, total inability. If so, what do you do with this passage.

Ezekiel 18:31 "CAST OFF from upon yourselves all your transgressions through which you have transgressed and MAKE FOR YOURSELVES a new heart and a new spirit. Why should you die?...Turn back and live!"

 

[Frogman]

Bro. Chappie,

I appreciate your determination. But in the full reading of Scripture the Word of God does not contradict itself.

While we are looking at Ez. 18.31 let us also look upon Ez. 20 (the whole chapter), with attention to vss. 31-38.

God makes the plea in 18.31, certainly, this shows only the responsibility of man, not the ability;

"Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" Rom. 2.4

(this is not referring to you; nor your character; I do not know you; I am only providing Scripture on the topic)

God Bless you in your walk and service to Him.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Chappie:
What are you talking about.

Shilo asked for the biblical teaching that God is sovereign. Ken provided a list of verses proving that which you appeared to deny were talking about God becasue they used the name YHWH rather than elohim. What I was asking is if you are denying that YHWH is Elohim? That is what you appeared to deny. If you accept that YHWH is Elohim, then you should accept that verses describing YHWH as sovereign also apply to Elohim, since they are the same. If you deny that "sovereign Lord" can be applied to God, then you are denying a fundamental aspect of monotheism and trinitarian theology. It was a simple question, very kindly asked. You responded wrongly for some reason. All you had to do was explain what you meant. You did not need to respond as you did.

My question stands: Do you believe that YHWH and Elohim are the same God or not? If you believe that they are, then why do you deny that the title "Sovereign Lord" applies to Elohim as well?

 

[Eric B]

I think what he was looking for was "sovereign" as an adjective (i.e. God is sovereign), rather than a title (and a poor translation of YHWH or Elohim at that--"Sovereign Lord").
He's not denying that Sovereign Lord is God; just that it is not the statement that God is "sovereign" [in the calvinistic sense] that he asked for.
I think this further illustrates the problem of questioning "sovereignty". It's not whether God is sovereign or not, but whether he exercises that sovereignty by electing and preteritioning individuals.

 

[Frogman]

Who hath measuered the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counselor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding? Isa. 40.12-14 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: That bringeth the princes to nothing: he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. Isa. 40.21-23

God Bless
Bro. Dallas

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chappie:
What are you talking about.

Shilo asked for the biblical teaching that God is sovereign. Ken provided a list of verses proving that which you appeared to deny were talking about God becasue they used the name YHWH rather than elohim. What I was asking is if you are denying that YHWH is Elohim? That is what you appeared to deny. If you accept that YHWH is Elohim, then you should accept that verses describing YHWH as sovereign also apply to Elohim, since they are the same. If you deny that "sovereign Lord" can be applied to God, then you are denying a fundamental aspect of monotheism and trinitarian theology. It was a simple question, very kindly asked. You responded wrongly for some reason. All you had to do was explain what you meant. You did not need to respond as you did.

My question stands: Do you believe that YHWH and Elohim are the same God or not? If you believe that they are, then why do you deny that the title "Sovereign Lord" applies to Elohim as well?</font>[/QUOTE]Pastor:
Your question was asked under threat of being banned should i post an answer that you did not approve of. How much value can anyone place on my answer under such circumstances. How much value would you place on it.

I could be lying, or i could be telling the truth, depending on how much I wanted to stay here on Baptist Board.

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Eric B:
I think what he was looking for was "sovereign" as an adjective (i.e. God is sovereign), rather than a title (and a poor translation of YHWH or Elohim at that--"Sovereign Lord").
He's not denying that Sovereign Lord is God; just that it is not the statement that God is "sovereign" [in the calvinistic sense] that he asked for.
I think this further illustrates the problem of questioning "sovereignty". It's not whether God is sovereign or not, but whether he exercises that sovereignty by electing and preteritioning individuals.

(((((((((( BINGO ))))))))))

 

[Frogman]

So now are we discussing deism?

Dan. 4.34-37

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas