Is total depravity (radical corruption) a biblical teaching?

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

And yet all three of you are RT /Calvinist/TULIP defenders. And P4T has a signature style much like your own, promoting RT/Calvinism.
While UWC added this to their signature:Warning: I am not entertained by the weak, emasculated god of free-willers, who cannot accomplish his purposes.
And P4T has this message added on for the non's among us.
Plagiarus The (not so) Great
To many it isn't "Jesus Saves!" it's "Choosing Saves!"

I think it was 7, though I may be in error, who mentioned in a thread not long ago about posting styles making someone's remarks appear to be also a member with a similar posting style.


No, I did not do that. If you go back and read my post you will see this.As for what needs to stop, as it appears others are of the same mind, threads intending to tell the Non-Reformed, or non-Calvinist they are any number of insults levied by certain posters who belabor the push for TULIP, Calvinism and RTw/TULIP, need to stop in their agenda to regurgitate the same argumentative points under different thread titles. And for the same motives.

Pelagius The (not so) Great is directed at me as he is poking fun at me. It's a running joke that if I post something that he was thinking, he will jokingly accuse me of plagiarism.

And he is spot on with he "To many it isn't "Jesus Saves!" it's "Choosing Saves!"

Let someone come on here and promote Modalism and none of y'all will confront them. It's just a difference of opinion, right?
Let someone come on here and promote Arianism and none of y'all will confront them. It's just a difference of opinion, right?
Let someone come on here and say that free will is not biblical and the claws come out as y'all come climbing down from the rafters, out of the barn, out of the woods to attack those heretics.

But I get it....

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

The reason why they sound so similar is within Reformed theology, we are in lockstep with probably <95% of our beliefs. Were our differences come in is mainly eschatology and ecclesiology. But that is why @preacher4truth and @UnitedWithChrist sound so much alike.

Right..there's a lot of agreement within Reformed circles.

I would say another issue is between covenant theology and dispensationalism.

I am not exactly into covenant theology or dispensationalism either one. I adhere to 1689 Federalism, with some minor differences.

And, I am amillennial and not dispensational premillennialism.

However, all those things are really minor. The doctrines of grace are the important things.

Free willers are all over the board on so many different topics.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

And yet all three of you are RT /Calvinist/TULIP defenders. And P4T has a signature style much like your own, promoting RT/Calvinism.
While UWC added this to their signature:Warning: I am not entertained by the weak, emasculated god of free-willers, who cannot accomplish his purposes.
And P4T has this message added on for the non's among us.
Plagiarus The (not so) Great
To many it isn't "Jesus Saves!" it's "Choosing Saves!"

I think it was 7, though I may be in error, who mentioned in a thread not long ago about posting styles making someone's remarks appear to be also a member with a similar posting style.


No, I did not do that. If you go back and read my post you will see this.As for what needs to stop, as it appears others are of the same mind, threads intending to tell the Non-Reformed, or non-Calvinist they are any number of insults levied by certain posters who belabor the push for TULIP, Calvinism and RTw/TULIP, need to stop in their agenda to regurgitate the same argumentative points under different thread titles. And for the same motives.

In other words, free-willers have been used to bullying people on this forum, and you insist that their bullying must continue unimpeded.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

They wouldn't be able to do that as they'd be preaching to the choir.
What appears to be happening here is, because now UWC has said they're going to expand on this thread and go through all the points of TULIP, which they have done to a certain degree already, so we're to believe they're going to reiterate threads on Unconditional Election and the like again, UWC has committed now to posting threads that are expressly aimed at telling all non-reformed members here that they're not only wrong, but as we see in their post #18. they think non-reformed Christians beliefs are garbage.

They're trolling for Calvin! As someone said already in one of their other threads.

What more can be said by Christians that proves TULIP and RT doctrine is false, when all these threads UWC has started have been responded to repeating the same truths against his doctrine push as often as he posts new threads to push it?

You'll forgive me if I go so far as to say, if he posts it and we pay it attention he'll just keep going.
He's intending, as post #18 comes out and says, to degrade, insult, mock, and in my view, Troll, Christians who are not reformed!

That is also why he doesn't spend that time as UWC on Reformed Christian forums.
Now, Preacher4Truth? That's a different matter. They do. And if you read P4T they sound oddly familiar at those sites to one UWC.
Christianity Board Preacher4Truth -"I'm a Reformed Baptist"

Preacher4Truth - Baptist Board Posts
*Post #11 especially, (sound like UnitedWithChrist in the TULIP/Calvinism threads? )2014
Some flaws to Calvinism.. Reformed we need to get it together!

Lead by the Holy Spirit , I tell you, what we're witnessing is a dedicated campaign to malign non-Calvinists here. Just read the language of UWC. But see if P4T in that link above doesn't sound just like him.

1. You don't have to read the threads.

2. Why are you upset? My guess is that you are happy with a situation where you are able to use strawmen argumentation and misrepresentation to degrade Reformed people on the forum. My attempt is to explain the theology, referring to biblical passages, as well as identifying the misrepresentations on this forum regarding it.

By the way, I created the threads after numerous foul and misinformed remarks concerning Reformed theology expressed by free-willers. Are we not allowed to defend our beliefs? Are we prohibited from beginning threads defending them, while free-willers have numerous threads saying foul things about Reformed theology?

And, I think it's amusing that you can't see a difference between me and other Reformed individuals on this forum, as I certainly can see the differences. It could be that we are similar because we all take the Bible seriously, though.

My signature indicates that I am not pleased by attempts to redefine God in terms of the acceptable parameters that free-willers assign to him. Their parameters are shaped by humanism and not by Scripture. Some here even support open theism, claiming that God doesn't even know the future, because they cannot consistently maintain their humanistic presuppositions without reducing his omniscience and omnipotence. It's disgusting, really.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

This is atleast a better explanation than those who say we are completely guided by God. I believe in total free will while you believe partial. But if both are of the elect and hear the same voice then still why do they contradict?

I'm not sure I'm following the convo.

Do you believe that true Christians do not conflict with each other in terms of non-essentials?

The elect hear Jesus' voice in terms of salvation, not in terms of every detail of their understanding.

I know that some people believe they hear the voice of God closer than others, though, and usually they are quite self righteous

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I would not presume to say whether or not the Holy Spirit is indwelling them. God believes in us. The whole world whom He loves. God also knows our heart and is a forgiving God.
If someone loves Jesus and accepts the Gospel message as Christ taught it, I do not think I am entitled, nor would I presume, to say anyone of that nature is or is not a Christian.
God sent Jesus so that we would find and believe in that Savior. God did not send a man in the 16th century to lead us to believe in him.

I will say that TULIP conflicts with the Gospel.

Scripture teaches Reformed theology.

John Calvin and others simply believed Scripture and taught it.

You must not understand that John Calvin and Martin Luther were both Augustinian, who lived 1100 years before them, and Augustine understood Scripture.

That nonsense about being saved by John Calvin is simply propaganda.

I believed in predestination and election before I even knew John Calvin's name. My Arminian pastor is the one who told me about John Calvin after I explained what I was seeing in Scripture. Then he proceeded to tell me about Servetus, etcetera.

His hero was John Wesley, but he failed to tell me that John Wesley denied a former girlfriend communion due to being jilted by her.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

But this is only your opinion from your presupposition that your view is 100% correct. You believe your right and the opponents believe they are right. Your side could just as easily be the ones to find out they was wrong. This debate isn't clear as night or day. Both sides view the same scripture and see it differently in interpretation.

So technically only God knows and more than likely both sides are not 100% accurate.

Maybe we should live into that more. Debate is good but bashing and separating is bad on this issue. I could debate my view all day but would never suggest the opposition in here on this thread isnt saved. I just do not see the theological differences to be devastating. Both views technically will not be known completely until we die or Christ returns. So we might as well admit that.

Obviously there are some who probably do not see their opponents as saved but I believe Protestants have been working together for centuries and many people have been saved through the denominations united on the simple Gospel.

You have many good thoughts that I am in agreement with, but believing the gospel is not the cause of eternal salvation.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

You have many good thoughts that I am in agreement with, but believing the gospel is not the cause of eternal salvation.

🚨🚨🚨Hyper-Calvinism alert.🚨🚨🚨

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

But this is only your opinion from your presupposition that your view is 100% correct. You believe your right and the opponents believe they are right. Your side could just as easily be the ones to find out they was wrong. This debate isn't clear as night or day. Both sides view the same scripture and see it differently in interpretation.

So technically only God knows and more than likely both sides are not 100% accurate.

Maybe we should live into that more. Debate is good but bashing and separating is bad on this issue. I could debate my view all day but would never suggest the opposition in here on this thread isnt saved. I just do not see the theological differences to be devastating. Both views technically will not be known completely until we die or Christ returns. So we might as well admit that.

Obviously there are some who probably do not see their opponents as saved but I believe Protestants have been working together for centuries and many people have been saved through the denominations united on the simple Gospel.

Concerning evangelism, I consistently state that if someone believes and repents, God will save them.

Sometimes anti-Reformed people will claim that Reformed theology keeps people from salvation, but this is not true. Election and predestination is an advanced topic, and it is not appropriate to tell someone that they may be saved if they are one of the elect.

Actually my view is that anyone who is truly interested in a relationship with God is likely being called to a relationship to him with an effectual calling. I believe there are some pretenders who are more interested in getting stuff from God, such as money and possessions, rather than having a relationship with him (like health, wealth and prosperity people), though. They have other motives that are not related to enjoying the LORD. Instead, they want the gifts he gives.

It is hard to minister with people of a different persuasion on those issues, but in doing parachurch ministry, I found the free-willers to be accomodating. I had to endure their preaching and criticism at times, but they endured mine too

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

You have many good thoughts that I am in agreement with, but believing the gospel is not the cause of eternal salvation.

Regeneration causes faith and repentance. Faith in what? In the Gospel, and the LORD Jesus Christ.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Regeneration causes faith and repentance. Faith in what? In the Gospel, and the LORD Jesus Christ.

Bingo! He’s posting Hyper-Calvinism.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Regeneration causes faith and repentance. Faith in what? In the Gospel, and the LORD Jesus Christ.

There is a deliverance (not eternal) for the born again child of God in having faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. When we are first born spiritually we are just babes in Christ and our spiritual faith is weak because we are living on the spiritual milk of the word. As we grow and are fed with the knowledge of the gospel our faith keeps growing stronger until we are able to feed upon the meat of the gospel. Some babes in Christ, if they are fed a false gospel, in their weakness, will not mature in the knowledge of the true doctrine, resulting in a diversity of beliefs, as we have evidenced here on this forum. Faith is a fruit of the Spirit.

 

[Whispered]

Scripture teaches Reformed theology.

John Calvin and others simply believed Scripture and taught it.

You must not understand that John Calvin and Martin Luther were both Augustinian, who lived 1100 years before them, and Augustine understood Scripture.

Please don't presume people don't know about Luther, Calvin, nor Augustine of Hippo. It doesn't serve your agenda to post thread after thread to a people whom you disagree with while then implying they're too ignorant to know what you're talking about.
I assure you, when you repeat that behavior in these threads as you have done, your behavior in that regard does not make those you hope to call ignorant look bad.

That nonsense about being saved by John Calvin is simply propaganda.

No, because John Calvin's doctrine that teaches what it means to be elect under TULIP does exactly that. Makes Calvin's doctrine a road to salvation for the elect only.

I believed in predestination and election before I even knew John Calvin's name. My Arminian pastor is the one who told me about John Calvin after I explained what I was seeing in Scripture. Then he proceeded to tell me about Servetus, etcetera.

That's quite a flip flop to have allegedly been Arminian and then after hearing about Calvin, and hopefully the truth of is pursuit against Servetus, de-converted from Arminianism to Calvinism.

His hero was John Wesley, but he failed to tell me that John Wesley denied a former girlfriend communion due to being jilted by her.

Your former Arminian pastor held a high church Anglican as a hero? That's odd.
By the way, what you were told about John Wesley and the g/f is not true.

 

[Whispered]

🚨🚨🚨Hyper-Calvinism alert.🚨🚨🚨

Well, there being so many preaching Calvinists aboard, why not a Hyper one?

Let's see if what you're saying about a self identified, Primitive Baptist, is true.
...A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

"...Deliberately excluded from hyper-Calvinist "evangelism" is any pleading with the sinner to be reconciled with God. Sinners are not told that God offers them forgiveness or salvation. In fact, most hyper-Calvinists categorically deny that God makes any offer in the gospel whatsoever. "
Full article and source:
A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism
As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die" (Ezekiel 33:11).

 

[Whispered]

1. You don't have to read the threads.

Why are you pushing Calvinism?
Many scriptures tell the Christian it is their duty to confron false teachers and their doctrine. The Book of Titus chapter 1 being an example.

2. Why are you upset? My guess is that you are happy with a situation where you are able to use strawmen argumentation and misrepresentation to degrade Reformed people on the forum. My attempt is to explain the theology, referring to biblical passages, as well as identifying the misrepresentations on this forum regarding it.

Now you're deflecting.
Your threads in this particular forum show us you are pushing Calvinism and TULIP. And your language when confronted by those who disagree is offensive, not kind. And not representative of the wisdom in the Book of Ephesians chapter 4 verse 29.
Our words to others is a reflection of our heart.
Calling free will teachings garbage does not speak well to yours.

By the way, I created the threads after numerous foul and misinformed remarks concerning Reformed theology expressed by free-willers. Are we not allowed to defend our beliefs? Are we prohibited from beginning threads defending them, while free-willers have numerous threads saying foul things about Reformed theology?

And there is another example.
Free willers is not a word. It therefore means nothing.
You are promoting your beliefs while seeking to offend those who know more than you do regarding them, and who do not ascribe to the doctrine you incessantly push here.
What you do not realize is that how you treat people who do not agree with you , while defending what is presumably your belief, be it Calvinism, TULIP, or a denomination under the umbrella of TULIP - Reformed Theology, tells readers what your belief system causes you to become.
While those who are in Christ are to imitate Christ. And as such, we do not resort to foul coarse language and cast aspursions upon people so as to hurt their feelings, so that we feel as if we've "won" the argument. You do that. As do your contemporaries who speak as you do even in foulness.
You are an example of your beliefs.

And, I think it's amusing that you can't see a difference between me and other Reformed individuals on this forum, as I certainly can see the differences. It could be that we are similar because we all take the Bible seriously, though.

And another example still.
No, I do not believe the reason is the latter.

[My signature indicates that I am not pleased by attempts to redefine God in terms of the acceptable parameters that free-willers assign to him. Their parameters are shaped by humanism and not by Scripture. Some here even support open theism, claiming that God doesn't even know the future, because they cannot consistently maintain their humanistic presuppositions without reducing his omniscience and omnipotence. It's disgusting, really.

Well, at least you didn't resort to calling us garbage. Again.
Your signature is intended to insult people who disagree with your theology on a constant basis as you believe they shall see it even if they scroll past your posts, so as to be offended over and over as you cast aspersions against those you intend to insult here.
You're unaware that a member is able to set their profile so as to not see signatures.
Your effort in the undertaking again speaks to where your theology has taken you heart.

You also believe in Double Predestination, yes?

 

[Whispered]

In other words, free-willers have been used to bullying people on this forum, and you insist that their bullying must continue unimpeded.

There is no such word as free-willers. You appear to be very young.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Please don't presume people don't know about Luther, Calvin, nor Augustine of Hippo. It doesn't serve your agenda to post thread after thread to a people whom you disagree with while then implying they're too ignorant to know what you're talking about.
I assure you, when you repeat that behavior in these threads as you have done, your behavior in that regard does not make those you hope to call ignorant look bad.

No, because John Calvin's doctrine that teaches what it means to be elect under TULIP does exactly that. Makes Calvin's doctrine a road to salvation for the elect only.

That's quite a flip flop to have allegedly been Arminian and then after hearing about Calvin, and hopefully the truth of is pursuit against Servetus, de-converted from Arminianism to Calvinism.

Your former Arminian pastor held a high church Anglican as a hero? That's odd.
By the way, what you were told about John Wesley and the g/f is not true.

I prefer the word Reformed/Reformed theology over Calvinist/Calvinism.

If you insist on using Calvinist to refer to me, though, I can think of worse terms than free-willer.

Additionally, my claims regarding Wesley are accurate. Check them out. Her name was Sophy Hopkey. He was actually dismissed from his position due to his bad attitude.

The account is fuzzy, as the Methodists will tell you. My position is that he felt jilted and decided to take it out on her by denying her communion.

http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/need-love-advice-dont-ask-john-wesley

Sophy Hopkey
On his missionary journey to Georgia, Wesley met and fell in love with Sophy Hopkey, whom the anonymous Methodist preacher describes as “the attractive niece of the chief magistrate of Savannah.”

According to Reasonable Enthusiast: John Wesley and the Rise of Methodism by Henry D. Rack, “Wesley was in love and would have liked to marry Sophy, but was torn by conflicts between love, duty, notions of the value of celibacy, and more…which led him to blow alternately hot and cold until the bewildered girl married elsewhere.” From there, the story gets a little fuzzy.

In his role as Hopkey’s pastor, it appears Wesley advised her not to marry for the sake of her spiritual growth. When she did, Wesley felt it his duty to rebuke her and refused to serve her communion. Her new husband pressed charges, and Wesley’s reputation was tarnished. Before things escalated too far, Wesley boarded a boat back home to England.

So, there you have it from the mouths of the Methodists. Of course, I can't tell you exactly what was going through John's mind, but I believe it was because he was jilted and wanted to exact revenge.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Why are you pushing Calvinism?
Many scriptures tell the Christian it is their duty to confron false teachers and their doctrine. The Book of Titus chapter 1 being an example.

Now you're deflecting.
Your threads in this particular forum show us you are pushing Calvinism and TULIP. And your language when confronted by those who disagree is offensive, not kind. And not representative of the wisdom in the Book of Ephesians chapter 4 verse 29.
Our words to others is a reflection of our heart.
Calling free will teachings garbage does not speak well to yours.

And there is another example.
Free willers is not a word. It therefore means nothing.
You are promoting your beliefs while seeking to offend those who know more than you do regarding them, and who do not ascribe to the doctrine you incessantly push here.
What you do not realize is that how you treat people who do not agree with you , while defending what is presumably your belief, be it Calvinism, TULIP, or a denomination under the umbrella of TULIP - Reformed Theology, tells readers what your belief system causes you to become.
While those who are in Christ are to imitate Christ. And as such, we do not resort to foul coarse language and cast aspursions upon people so as to hurt their feelings, so that we feel as if we've "won" the argument. You do that. As do your contemporaries who speak as you do even in foulness.
You are an example of your beliefs.

And another example still.
No, I do not believe the reason is the latter.

Well, at least you didn't resort to calling us garbage. Again.
Your signature is intended to insult people who disagree with your theology on a constant basis as you believe they shall see it even if they scroll past your posts, so as to be offended over and over as you cast aspersions against those you intend to insult here.
You're unaware that a member is able to set their profile so as to not see signatures.
Your effort in the undertaking again speaks to where your theology has taken you heart.

You also believe in Double Predestination, yes?

Is a forum a place for discussion, or not?

Are you the one who dictates the terms and topics of the discussion?

My assessment is that free-willers don't like their theology being questioned, therefore they are very irate with a person who questions it. And the reason is this: they want to continue to spread misrepresentations without any challenge to them. They are traditionalists who cannot coherently support their views, and if someone presents a logical, scriptural argument against them, their deception is on open display.

I did not call people garbage, I called the theology garbage because it portrays God as an emasculated god who cannot accomplish his purpose without their power of free will, and portrays Christ as someone who accomplished the actual atonement of NO ONE. He simply made it possible, subject to the power of their free will.

I have not used foul, coarse language.

I do not believe in equal ultimacy if that is what you are asking. I believe God saves the elect, and allows the rest to continue to reject Him. He doesn't have to do anything to cause them to reject Him, because they do it by nature as rebels against Him due to the Fall.

By the way, I'm putting you on ignore. Others have told me I have nothing to gain by conversing with you.

And, you are able to put me on ignore, and to avoid my threads. Why don't you do it?

 

[Whispered]

Is a forum a place for discussion, or not?

Are you the one who dictates the terms and topics of the discussion?

My assessment is that free-willers don't like their theology being questioned, therefore they are very irate with a person who questions it. And the reason is this: they want to continue to spread misrepresentations without any challenge to them. They are traditionalists who cannot coherently support their views, and if someone presents a logical, scriptural argument against them, their deception is on open display.

I did not call people garbage, I called the theology garbage because it portrays God as an emasculated god who cannot accomplish his purpose without their power of free will, and portrays Christ as someone who accomplished the actual atonement of NO ONE. He simply made it possible, subject to the power of their free will.

I have not used foul, coarse language.

I do not believe in equal ultimacy if that is what you are asking. I believe God saves the elect, and allows the rest to continue to reject Him. He doesn't have to do anything to cause them to reject Him, because they do it by nature as rebels against Him due to the Fall.

By the way, I'm putting you on ignore. Others have told me I have nothing to gain by conversing with you.

And, you are able to put me on ignore, and to avoid my threads. Why don't you do it?

Oh, I believe it is very clear that you and those who advised you as you claim, have demonstrated you all have nothing to learn from me or from anyone who knows the faults in Calvinism, TULIP and TULIP RT. And who very often know more about those doctrines than you do.
As I said, Titus 1 itself tells the Christian they are to rebuke false teachers and false doctrine. That's why you're not on ignore.
Your putting me on ignore is your prerogative. I will still see your threads promoting , pushing, Calvinism, TULIP and TULIP RT.

No response to my query? You believe in Double Predestination, yes?

 

[Ghoti2]

I had no idea what kind of an arrogant, hateful person Calvin was until I read his very own words in The Institutes for the first time.