Is total depravity (radical corruption) a biblical teaching?

[Chester]

If men could not choose they would be not held accountable.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

It really does not take much to know that I can choose to believe the gospel or choose not to believe the gospel. But believing does not come because of me, but through the grace of God at work in my life.

In essence, Reformed theology comes from one side of the question, and "free-will" theology comes from the other side of the question. The polar extreme of either view misses the point of the Gospel. The properly informed Reformed theologian believes essentially the same thing as the properly informed "free-will" theologian.

 

[posthuman]

If men could not choose they would be not held accountable.

that's 'common wisdom' but i'm not sure it's necessarily true. i don't mean to be trite by so often repeating it, but Romans 9:19-20 addresses exactly that objection. is God unjust? not at all - He has mercy on who He will have mercy. our choices aren't completely free; you and i surely if we'd had our druthers would have chosen to be born without the poison of sin in our natures at all, but were we? and are we unaccountable to Him for our flesh? but i wouldn't dare accuse God! i thank God He's opened my eyes to see that in my life, and know that my hope belongs only in Him!

 

[posthuman]

In essence, Reformed theology comes from one side of the question, and "free-will" theology comes from the other side of the question. The polar extreme of either view misses the point of the Gospel. The properly informed Reformed theologian believes essentially the same thing as the properly informed "free-will" theologian.

part of that is probably from allowing team A to define for us what team B is all about, and/or take team B's view of what team A believes. rather than let them speak from themselves. Pelagians say Calvinists don't evangelize, and Calvinists say Pelagians try to save themselves - but neither one would ever say that about themselves. they're not as polarized as they make each other out to be.

 

[Laish]

I don't think I ever mentioned Predestination, TULIP, or Calvinism at all. I said I read his premier work The Institutes of The Christian Religion..... (at the moment, I am in the midst of rereading it — [this will be four times, total]), and I find him to be much less of a man than I had once thought he was.

Why ?
You say you don’t like his doctrine. You don’t like his arrogance. I take it you got that from the first time around . So why the other times and now ? Why ? to find more stuff you dislike . That’s kinda disturbing.
Back when I worked for the sheriffs office we had special cells for folks like that
Blessings
Bill

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

@Roughsoul1991 why won’t you answer this?

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...-biblical-teaching.187718/page-4#post-4072823

It’s pg 4 post # 76. I have answered every post where you’ve ask me a question, so please do the same for me.

 

[Hevosmies]

@Roughsoul1991 why won’t you answer this?

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...-biblical-teaching.187718/page-4#post-4072823

It’s pg 4 post # 76. I have answered every post where you’ve ask me a question, so please do the same for me.

I think we call this check mate.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

I think we call this check mate.

Well, I’ve been courteous to him and answered every post he has asked me a question in...if I haven’t I guess I missed it...but as far as I know, I’ve answer everything he’s asked. I expect the same common courtesy from him. I’m not asking too much from him by pushing him to answer post # 76 on pg 4.

 

[tourist]

By the way, I will admit that Calvin had the capacity for coming across as arrogant.

I don't think that was prevalent in the Institutes, but in some of his early works, such as a paper he did refuting soul sleep, he called those individuals teaching it "ignorant persons".

However that was tame speech compared to Luther and others at that time.

The free-willers on this forum are a lot more rude than John Calvin. And, if you are passive with certain people, they will simply bulldoze you.

Jesus wasn't passive with Pharisees either.

Calvin or Moses
Peter or Paul
Jesus or Muhammad
Ginger or Maryanne

These seem to be the logical choices of who to follow. I'm currently trending towards Maryanne but that's 'cause I'm a heathen in need of reformation. I'm obviously totally depraved.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Calvin or Moses
Peter or Paul
Jesus or Muhammad
Ginger or Maryanne

These seem to be the logical choices of who to follow. I'm currently trending towards Maryanne but that's 'cause I'm a heathen in need of reformation. I'm obviously totally depraved.

Why not just follow Jesus?

By the way, I haven't promoted that anyone follow John Calvin. In fact, I haven't even read the Institutes, and have been exposed to memes where Calvin is quoted.

The doctrine of predestination is clear-cut, and those who deny unconditional election are simply ignoring Scripture and the power of God.

 

[tourist]

Why not just follow Jesus?

By the way, I haven't promoted that anyone follow John Calvin. In fact, I haven't even read the Institutes, and have been exposed to memes where Calvin is quoted.

The doctrine of predestination is clear-cut, and those who deny unconditional election are simply ignoring Scripture and the power of God.

I have every intention of continuing to follow Jesus. Maryanne was hot though.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I have every intention of continuing to follow Jesus. Maryanne was hot though.

Compared to Ginger..I think so, too.

You do realize she is about 81 years old now?

The actresses who played Mary Ann and Ginger are the only two living ones from the original cast. Sad.

 

[seed_time_harvest]

All men are spiritually dead at physical birth.

What about that verse that says sin Is not Imputed where there Is no law.

The bible says that the law was added,why was the law added
answer=because of transgression

True, man became separated from GOD because of sin/disobedience to the VOICE of GOD.

GOD gave man the right to make a choice because GOD IS a righteous loving GOD and after man chose to be disobedient/sin to the VOICE of GOD,man would have to be perfectly righteous (law) In his own strength but we know that no man with the seed of Adam can be perfectly righteous according to the flesh In his own strength because of the weakness of his flesh although he delights In the law of GOD after the Inward man he would see another law warring against h9s mind and bringing him Into captivity to the law of sin which Is In his FLESH.

GOD IS a SPIRIT and those who worship HIM MUST worship HIM In Spirit and In Truth.

GOD loves righteousness and HE IS just and knew that ALL would come short of HIS glory.

Sin Is not Imputed where there Is no law.

IMO,this would be talking about the conscience or age of accountability.So then Is the law Imputed to physically new born babies?

I mean would GOD accept a baby Into heaven If the baby Physically died .

 

[tourist]

Compared to Ginger..I think so, too.

You do realize she is about 81 years old now?

The actresses who played Mary Ann and Ginger are the only two living ones from the original cast. Sad.

I loved watching Gilligan's Island. Yes, only 2 castaways remain alive. Hopefully, one day their ship will come in but it will not be the Minnow.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

What about that verse that says sin Is not Imputed where there Is no law.

The bible says that the law was added,why was the law added
answer=because of transgression

True, man became separated from GOD because of sin/disobedience to the VOICE of GOD.

GOD gave man the right to make a choice because GOD IS a righteous loving GOD and after man chose to be disobedient/sin to the VOICE of GOD,man would have to be perfectly righteous (law) In his own strength but we know that no man with the seed of Adam can be perfectly righteous according to the flesh In his own strength because of the weakness of his flesh although he delights In the law of GOD after the Inward man he would see another law warring against h9s mind and bringing him Into captivity to the law of sin which Is In his FLESH.

GOD IS a SPIRIT and those who worship HIM MUST worship HIM In Spirit and In Truth.

GOD loves righteousness and HE IS just and knew that ALL would come short of HIS glory.

Sin Is not Imputed where there Is no law.

IMO,this would be talking about the conscience or age of accountability.So then Is the law Imputed to physically new born babies?

I mean would GOD accept a baby Into heaven If the baby Physically died .

I think so, but there's no clear evidence in Scripture regarding the death of children.

I don't think anyone fails to come under the condemnation of Adam, though, so these deceased infants would still be under grace and the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, and not sinless. They can still sing songs of praise to their Savior.

By the way, in the Mosaic Covenant, a woman bearing a child had to offer a sin offering. It was twice as much if the child was female. I believe that points back to the Fall, and the fact that Eve was the first one who doubted God and sinned. So, I believe this offering points back to original sin.

 

[notuptome]

It really does not take much to know that I can choose to believe the gospel or choose not to believe the gospel. But believing does not come because of me, but through the grace of God at work in my life.

In essence, Reformed theology comes from one side of the question, and "free-will" theology comes from the other side of the question. The polar extreme of either view misses the point of the Gospel. The properly informed Reformed theologian believes essentially the same thing as the properly informed "free-will" theologian.

So the Calvinist drives the narrative so far to the extreme that it no longer resembles the biblical truth it was intended to represent? Just as the progressive evangelical drives the narrative so far from biblical truth that it's power is lost. Crop duster theology just make a commitment and forsake the need for repentance as seen as the new life walking in the Light with Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

It really does not take much to know that I can choose to believe the gospel or choose not to believe the gospel. But believing does not come because of me, but through the grace of God at work in my life.

In essence, Reformed theology comes from one side of the question, and "free-will" theology comes from the other side of the question. The polar extreme of either view misses the point of the Gospel. The properly informed Reformed theologian believes essentially the same thing as the properly informed "free-will" theologian.

I don't think so.

The real issue is, where does faith and repentance come from?

In the free-willer worldview, it is a decision made from a heart of stone. The result is the receipt of a heart of flesh.

In the Reformed worldview, God gives the person a heart of flesh, which bears the fruit of faith and repentance.

I believe they are worlds apart. In fact, I think that free-will theology is basically baptized humanism.

 

[preacher4truth]

It really does not take much to know that I can choose to believe the gospel or choose not to believe the gospel. But believing does not come because of me, but through the grace of God at work in my life.

In essence, Reformed theology comes from one side of the question, and "free-will" theology comes from the other side of the question. The polar extreme of either view misses the point of the Gospel. The properly informed Reformed theologian believes essentially the same thing as the properly informed "free-will" theologian.

It's amazing that you're still clueless yet you've claimed to have taught Greek. That and you believe your brother in law over God in 1 John 2:19.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

So the Calvinist drives the narrative so far to the extreme that it no longer resembles the biblical truth it was intended to represent? Just as the progressive evangelical drives the narrative so far from biblical truth that it's power is lost. Crop duster theology just make a commitment and forsake the need for repentance as seen as the new life walking in the Light with Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

You mean these truths?

"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”[Matthew 1:21]

Notice, the angel proclaimed He will save His ppl from their sins. Why He does not save everyone is because not everyone is His ppl.

11 “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, 15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep."[John 10]

Again, the Christ plainly tells us who He, the good Shepherd, was giving His life for. He is a Shepherd of the sheep, not a goat herder.

1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 3 This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4 I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; 8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. 9 I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; 10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. 11 I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. 12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled."[John 17]

In His High Priestly prayer, we can read that He is praying for those whom the Father had given Him out of the world, and He protected them and they also kept His word. Ppl will say He was praying only for those at that time, but not so! He also prayed 20 “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me."[John 17]

So, this High Priestly prayer was not solely for those who He had been given by the Father at that time, but for al those who had been given to Him by the Father.

And the Hebrews' writer supports this by writing Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.[Hebrews 7:25]

And with drawing, I have already covered the Greek usage of that word and that it means an effectual drawing, a literal dragging off. Not that He drags us kicking and screaming against our wills, but that when He draws, they are effectually drawn and come to Him.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

You said you believe in a total free will. Let's ponder on God's free will for a moment. You quote 2 Peter 3:9 where it says that God is not willing any should perish, but all come to repentance. When I study I do my level best to study with His attributes in mind. Let's look at His immutability. God is never changing. That is why He told Moses to tell them(Egyptians) "I AM WHO I AM sent you."[Exodus 3:14] And He is the same yesterday, today and forever[Hebrews 13:8].

So, God loves all mankind w/o exception. On the day of judgment, those who stand condemned and the Christ says ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’[Matthew 7:23] Will He....

Love them who He punishes with an everlasting punishment?

Or...

Will He then go from loving them to hating them?

In either scenario, you are confronted with a conundrum. He either loves them who are vessels of wrath, as these are the ones punished in Romans 9:22, and that is a clear contradiction of Paul's writing.

Or...

He goes from loving them to hating them, as He will never punish those He loves, as that would violate His very nature.

So which is it?

He loves those He punishes in hell?

Or...

He goes from being immutable to mutable and goes from loving them to hating them.


You've got a huge problem in your theology here and I exposed it mightily.

@Roughsoul1991 This is the 4th or 5th time I have asked you to address this post. It is post # 76 on pg 4. Ignoring this will not make it go away. Will you be courteous enough to answer it? I have answered everything you've asked me, so I think you should do the same.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

@Roughsoul1991 This is the 4th or 5th time I have asked you to address this post. It is post # 76 on pg 4. Ignoring this will not make it go away. Will you be courteous enough to answer it? I have answered everything you've asked me, so I think you should do the same.

Like I told one of you guys. This to me isnt a soul salvation issue so it is fun to debate but I try not to spend much time on it. So I have not seen your post you are referring to but maybe in the future when I'm bored and we cross discussions again you can ask whatever burning questions you have.

But for now I will let yall tear each other apart and address more crucial issues of the day and our culture. Nothing against you but a personal choice to trying to keep myself out of the weeds.