Total Depravity

Huh? First it's a choice, and now it's a question? I never thought of "If you fall off the Empire State Building you'll go splat" as a question.

That's what God says in Deuteronomy. If you do this, I'll bless you. If you do that, I'll curse you.

If you keep reading, you'll see that God then says (and I paraphrase), "You're going to do that, and then I'm going to curse you. Then I'm going to circumsize your hearts so that you can love me and live."

If I had to interpret the above in terms of free will, it sounds a lot to me like God is saying, "I'm going to leave it up to your so-called free-will so you can see for yourself that you have no power but to choose wrong. And when I'm done making that point, I'll change your hearts so that you can live."

There you have a reasonably clear offer of a choice, spelled-out consequences, the action on the part of man, but a conspicuous absense of free will. Because as I've said before, if the will can do no good without the grace of God, then the will is not free.

 

Pastor Larry,

With all due respect I probably have had more formal instruction in Calvinistic and Arminian theology than you, because I have studied in both kinds of seminaries. I had a Calvinistic theology professor try to tell us that God was the author of sin. I too, have been through the system.

Ray

 

Until one takes an action, the IF remains a question with many possible answers, thus choices.

 

And what? You are now a wiseman because you went to seminary? Just because you studied in a calvinistic seminary does not make you 'more qualified' then the next guy.

Because it's all about the recipitant, all seminaries can do is give you knowledge, it's up to you to imbibe it.

And, most likely, you probably ignored all the Calvinistic teachings...
----------------------------------------------

IF is not a question, it starts a conditional.
"If you beleive, you will be saved"
Which is true, but it does not say that man has the ability to choose and will do so on his own.

What If is a hypothetical question and is to NEVER be used in theological debates.

 

Now here is an "if" that is made a question....

If the scripture so often addresses itself to those who have ears to hear..... would that not seem to imply there are those who don't have ears to hear?

Second question (No if).... How would you present a logical argument to one who does not have ears to hear?

I have written many, many, many more posts to this board than I will ever be credited with.... because after finishing the post..... I choose not to use the add reply button..... While the truth has set some of you free it really makes the rest quite mad.

 

Well I guess that indicates that you are not Totally Depraved, else you would not be able to choose, but rather be compelled to post,

 

Yelsew,

See, you didn't hear a word I said.....

 

The Travelin Minstrel,

Two things stand out in my mind that I learned at the Five Point seminary. Number one: I learned more about eternal security that I already believed; and number two: I learned about God's evaluation of our work accomplished in His Name while here on earth. {I Corinthians 3:9-15} These were the positive things that I remember.

 

Then you need to start acting like it. Let your posts show your knowledge. You have given no evidence that you have this education: 1) You make clearly wrong statements; 2) You accuse us of believing things that we do not believe; 3) You will not divulge these seminaries that you have studied at. What are we to believe Ray? You want us to believe you have all this education but everything you say undermines your assertion. If you have this education, then start showing it by your posts.

 

IMO, there’s nothing here that challenges Calvinism’s Total Depravity. Nor is there anything supporting it. Before entering this forum, everyone has made a choice about the subject and locked themselves into their view. I doubt there’s anything that can be said to change their mind. It’s completely useless to argue over scripture or the concepts themselves in this case. So what has been accomplished here? Has anyone learned anything? I have. I’ve learned that most are not interested in rethinking their theology. Growth will not occur without being inquisitive about God. Do we really think we understand the scriptures? Are we certain we’re interpreting them correctly? Better take another look. Better make sure you have the right disposition. The right frame of mind. The right intention. The right goal. If the result is a determination to tell everyone you’re right and their wrong, have you really understood the scriptures?

 

And does that mean their ears chose not to hear?

If I could only remember that more often it would save me a lot of trouble.

ROFL!! And isn't THAT the truth?!?

 

I'm not sure you can discover the truth that way. Your verse could mean at least two things out of context like that.

To illustrate why you need context, I'll argue in favor of something I do not believe it means: It could mean that man has a split personality -- part spiritual and part natural (the flesh). The natural cannot discern the things of the Spirit of God, but the spiritual can. So if one is willing to submit to one's spiritual side, one can then discern the things of the Spirit of God, because one is exercising their ability of spiritual discernment.

Now I don't believe the above at all, but IMO it COULD mean the above if you take it alone. I can't demonstrate that it's wrong except by putting your verse in context with other verses (particularly those that lead up to the one you cited).

 

Virtually all that distinguishes man from animals, is spirit. So, everything of man hinges on spirit. So it matters much who man submits to, hense the struggle between good and evil.

If man has no choice regarding who he submits too, as Calvinism's Total Depravity suggests, Satan has already won. Everyone who posts here would agree that God does not force himself on humanity, else there would be no "lost".

 

Pastor Larry,

As to whether I actually have a Th.D. degree is your question. As our Lord has said, 'Be not faithless but believing.' I don't recall that I question whether you are really a pastor. I just believe that you are what you say you are. It's not difficult. Have a tiny bit of faith in your fellow-heir in the Kingdom of God.

 

That's not really my question. My question deals with the worth of yoru education in light of the kinds of things you are posting here. The stuff you are posting is stuff that would have been corrected at the very primary level of seminary education. Yet you are still espousing clearly false statements. I will be glad to tell you where I am a pastor if you doubt it. So far, I don't think my posts have really created any doubt about that.

I don't need to have faith in you. That is not my point. My question is how do you say the stuff you do if you have the kind of educational background you claim to have. I can't understand why someone with a degree from a reputable place would not be willing to post it. Are you ashamed of it?

The point of mine is that you are denying total depravity based on things that we agree on. You cannot agree with me and then use that agreement to dispute my position. It would be like me agreeing that you have a red shirt on and then using that to argue that you have no shirt on. It just doesn't make sense. But it stems, it seems, from your failure to understand what we are saying and your unwillingness to accept the explanations of it.

 

Posted by Primitive Baptist:

Along with npetreley, I disagree. There are just too many transparent presumptions to rightfully discuss scripture. Terms, assumptions, prejudices, intentions, etc, are usually not addresed and so confustion occurs almost immediately. As many threads here are, the dicussions will be circular and people will get frustrated. For example, already in your posting concering I Cor. 2:14, npetreley has illustrated how he could twist it to mean something he doesn't even believe. IMO, it all has to do with presumptions and preconcpetions that are never addressed.