Total Depravity
- Thread starter TMS
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I have been saying that... love does not force. We are shown the love of God in many ways, but we are also tempted to follow the flesh.
We can choose who we follow.
The Spirit or the flesh.
The Lord has appeared of old to me, saying:
“Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love;
Therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you.
Jeremiah 31:3
Calvinists .....
What are they missing making them able to accept TULIP?
grace and peace ...............
Because calvanists get the fist point wrong.
There is no point talking about the other 4 T.... U,L,I,P.
Like most of the devils deceptions truth is mixed with error.
God is spirit - therefore what sense does it make that something has to be corporeal in order to be 'real' to Him?
God knowing the number of my days, every hair on my head, and my whole heart before He created me doesn't make me co-eternal with Him. it makes Him a conscious, skillful, deliberate Creator. He knows what He is doing.
Jackson Pollock is not God.
do you believe He has given us eternal life? does this make us equal to Him?
Some seek novelty to stimulate their emotions. Seeking one's own solution for emptiness.
Its a substitute for finding the actual meaning of something in the Bible, and in doing so;
gaining the peace of God he grants for those who walk in knowing actual truth.
grace and peace ................
the three bring the offerings God instructed, which is tantamount to confession, because they were told the offerings were for the guilt of the things they had said.
Job is not told to make any similar offering for speaking wrongly. This, and the fact that God's statement about Job having spoken what is right is directly coupled with His statement about the three not having spoken rightly, makes the interpretation that God was **only** referencing Job's final apologetic words, very unlikely IMO.
gotta love Elihu tho
I often boast about my ability to catch a fly with chopsticks, as much as I am given opportunity. How acute do you suppose God's reflexes are. 
I'm not sure the value of humility should ever be underestimated. Seeing that Elihu introduced his thoughts with his own in mind, we can conclude that he took great care not to speak wrongly. And this God did neither admonish nor offered applause for the things Elihu said I think showed him right to approach even the subject of God with such a manner. So why then would Job be given any 'credit', you might ask? Because he eventually came to that attitude, after having misspoken and so would need that, indeed, the nod of 'correction' was acknowledged, to teach his three friends of it as much as to reinforce Job's learning.
I'm not sure the value of humility should ever be underestimated. Seeing that Elihu introduced his thoughts with his own in mind, we can conclude that he took great care not to speak wrongly. And this God did neither admonish nor offered applause for the things Elihu said I think showed him right to approach even the subject of God with such a manner. So why then would Job be given any 'credit', you might ask? Because he eventually came to that attitude, after having misspoken and so would need that, indeed, the nod of 'correction' was acknowledged, to teach his three friends of it as much as to reinforce Job's learning.
I understand ... and I still do not agree with your source. Job was righteous in his own eyes (Job 32:1) ... which is why Job mentioned more than a few times that he wanted to talk to God to find out what was going on ... but I do not agree that Job accused "God of attacking him with terrifying violence for no reason" because I do not believe Job believed God was his enemy ... I do not agree that Job named "God an amoral tyrant who destroys everyone regardless of moral character, who laughs at good people when they suffer disaster, and deliberately frustrates the execution of justice in the world" ... I do not agree that Job believed "God is a moral monster, and his creation a kind of inner city ghetto, filled with the unanswered screams of the innocent".
Recall that satan had told God put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face (Job 1:11). That was the test. Job never cursed God for the turmoil he endured ... satan attacked and God hid Himself so Job endured the attack on his own ... Job passed the test in that he did not curse God. But you would not know that from the comments you submitted from your source.
You are free to agree with your source. I do not.
.
That's an interesting read. Thank you!
i notice the author highlights the same objection i made, that the text sure seems to indicate God's approval of Job's speech extends throughout the whole account, not just his final expression of humility - and this is perhaps the greatest difficulty in interpreting that commendation he receives from God. The text really doesn't allow the "easy" interpretation
But that's typical of scripture isn't it?
And why should we think the word of a God is simple anyhow, ha!
i really think if we have to attack men we should be talking about Augustine instead of Calvin. But we should be talking about scripture and Christ instead of men, period. It is historically a formulation his followers came up with after he had died to combat heresies that emphasized the supposed sovereignty of human will and works above the sovereignty of God.
all of these topics are things Calvin drew from Augustine, and TULIP isn't something Calvin himself ever came up with.
it seems unfair to me for so many people to be dragging this man's name through mud for things that didn't originate with him. and they didn't really originate with Augustine either, did they? Neither of these men spoke without justifying what they said from scripture. It's so easy to attack a man instead of dealing with the texts, especially a man who has been dead a thousand years and can't defend himself.
i have neither read all of Augustine nor actually a single page of Calvin.
Is there anyone here who has actually read them both?
kinda curious about that point.
Nope. Calvin Derangement Syndrome. Seems some let Calvin live rent free in their heads.
