The Flawed Reasoning Of Total Depravity

[justbyfaith]

you have no biblical grounds for your gospel of meritorious salvation that God chose you because you did something.

The Bible indeed teaches that we did something to receive salvation: we called upon the name of the Lord and were saved, Romans 10:13.

 

[SovereignGrace]

These who receive Jesus are given the right to be born again, born of God.

Not . . .

Those who are born of God receive Jesus.

Giving the right to be born children of God comes before being born children of God.

I appreciate your desire to understand my pov, and I believe I understand yours, how you come to see it, and the arguments you offer sound very compelling at times.

I believe that I put words more according to thier context, and more according to their literal meanings. You may feel the same about me.

I think a greater difference in how you and I look at this question is, by who's nature do we understand these passages?

We can both point to Scriptures all day long that appear to support what we believe, as many have for a long long time. We both seem convinced by what we read. And while some (not you) may want to say I passionately hate God, I don't see that in you.

So let's say . . . we're both smart . . . we're both being honest in our approach to God and the Bible . . . we're both well studied . . . we're both reading the same Bible . . . differently . . . why?

I can't say why.

But I can give an observation.

Your pov centers on the nature of man - depraved, rejected, condemned, dead.

My pov centers on the nature of God - Creating, loving, forgiving, life-giving.

Much love!
Mark

Those who receive(d) the Christ were born of God. IOW, they had been given the new birth and they received Him. You have the effect before the cause.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Want to hear something more weird? I read the very same thing today.

I am amazed at how God works in the life of His ppl. :)

 

[SovereignGrace]

Hi SG,

Did you notice here, you've said that new birth comes before the right to new birth.

Much love!

That's not what I said.

 

[marks]

Those who receive(d) the Christ were born of God. IOW, they had been given the new birth and they received Him. You have the effect before the cause.

I'm sorry, I'm looking at the "right to be born again" and "being born again". If the right to be born again only comes after begin born again, then you are saying people who do not have the right to be born again, are being born again. Right?

But that doesn't make sense to me.

It seems to me that you first give someone the right to be born again, and then they are born again. Doesn't that seem more correct?

Much love!
mark

 

[marks]

That's not what I said.

Are you not arguing that God regenerates us, which then prompts us to receive Jesus, believing in His Name, which gives us the right to become children of God?

Much love!

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

I've been waiting for any one of you Calvinists to explain why the "light" of Calvinism so closely resembles the "darkness" of Luciferianism, but so far not one of you has stepped up to the challenge.

I have no doubt that challenge will continue to go unmet.

There is no challenge. You are posting like a horses azz. Your constant attacks show you as an accuser of the brethren, which is closer to the work of satan than any cal ever posts. You make accusations because you cannot articulate any scriptural position of any substance. man up and try and use some scripture if you can. I am not holding my breath as i see your weak drive by posts as quite lame.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

I'm sorry, I'm looking at the "right to be born again" and "being born again". If the right to be born again only comes after begin born again, then you are saying people who do not have the right to be born again, are being born again. Right?

But that doesn't make sense to me.

It seems to me that you first give someone the right to be born again, and then they are born again. Doesn't that seem more correct?

Much love!
mark

Your confusion is because you are not grounded in Scripture at all.. No one cares what it"seems to you". They care about what does scripture say, not your carnal philosophy.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

There is no challenge. You are posting like a horses azz. Your constant attacks show you as an accuser of the brethren, which is closer to the work of satan than any cal ever posts. You make accusations because you cannot articulate any scriptural position of any substance. man up and try and use some scripture if you can. I am not holding my breath as i see your weak drive by posts as quite lame.

It's like when grown men are together discussing what Scripture actually says when a callow man throws out a foolish and baseless statement like he's done. The grown men just look at one another and play the child off...then continue mature discussion among themselves.

 

[marks]

Your confusion is because you are not grounded in Scripture at all.. No one cares what it"seems to you". They care about what does scripture say, not your carnal philosophy.

Hi Anthony,

I'm sorry, I'm not confused on this point.

But I'm wondering why you want to give insults instead of rebuttal.

It's not me that's confused. Take a look again at the argument I'm refuting.

Much love!

 

[justbyfaith]

It seems to me that the Calvinists don't have an answer for the most recent arguments; so they are resorting to personal attack. i.e. "your carnal philosophy".

 

[marks]

It seems to me that the Calvinists don't have an answer for the most recent arguments; so they are resorting to personal attack. i.e. "your carnal philosophy".

There does seem to be a lot of that, doesn't there?

Much love!

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

It seems to me that the Calvinists don't have an answer for the most recent arguments; so they are resorting to personal attack. i.e. "your carnal philosophy".

What scripture did he offer? His last ten idiotic posts speak of this luciferian drivel.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I'm sorry, I'm looking at the "right to be born again" and "being born again". If the right to be born again only comes after begin born again, then you are saying people who do not have the right to be born again, are being born again. Right?

But that doesn't make sense to me.

It seems to me that you first give someone the right to be born again, and then they are born again. Doesn't that seem more correct?

Much love!
mark

No. Those who are born again are saved at that same moment. They receive the Christ at that same exact moment.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”[John 3:3]

No one can even see the kingdom of God, let alone enter it, until they’re born again.

 

[marks]

No. Those who are born again are saved at that same moment. They receive the Christ at that same exact moment.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”[John 3:3]

No one can even see the kingdom of God, let alone enter it, until they’re born again.

I'm not sure that answers my questions.

Can you be born again before you have the right to be born again? Perhaps I'm not understanding your answer.

Much love!

 

[Preacher4Truth]

What scripture did he offer? His last ten idiotic posts speak of this luciferian drivel.

He's not worth responding to bro.

 

[Nancy]

I'm sorry, I'm looking at the "right to be born again" and "being born again". If the right to be born again only comes after begin born again, then you are saying people who do not have the right to be born again, are being born again. Right?

But that doesn't make sense to me.

It seems to me that you first give someone the right to be born again, and then they are born again. Doesn't that seem more correct?

Much love!
mark

Ha, never thought of that one. :)

 

[marks]

The grown men just look at one another and play the child off...then continue mature discussion among themselves.

This really is how you think of the rest of us, isn't it?

Children to be "played off".

OK.

 

[Laish]

This really is how you think of the rest of us, isn't it?

Children to be "played off".

OK.

I guess it’s that or take seriously the Luciferian comparisons , the accusation that we seem to take glee people are in hell , or that some of us hate our Lord . There is also bleed over from other threads that call Reformed folks or Calvinist cult members .
Blessings
Bill

 

[justbyfaith]

Because we can always learn from others in the body of Christ. However, we can learn just as easily through our own personal reading and the other is not really even needed.



Um, "bruh" ;), I think that I was merely stating almost verbatim what is contained in the verses referenced. So your issue is with the verses. You think that taking the Bible at face value will produce a haughty spirit, then I think that your premise is "off-kilter".

Mine isn't.

You go by the teachings of men; I go by the teaching of what the holy scripture says to me at any given moment.

I try to stay open to what the Holy Spirit might want to say to me at any given moment.

And He certainly does not tell me to agree to a doctrine that would lead people to feel that they do not need to place their faith and trust in Jesus Christ for their salvation.

But if grace comes before faith, then faith isn't necessary.

Look at it from the perspective of an evangelist.

If the unbelieving mind would take a doctrine as saying that they can have salvation apart from Jesus Christ (even faith in Him); then that doctrine is detrimental to that person coming to know Jesus Christ through a saving faith in Him.

That person can resist placing their faith in Jesus Christ with extra power behind their reasoning, saying that they can be saved apart from faith in Jesus Christ, since grace comes before faith according to Calvinistic theology.

If Calvinism be true, then the unbeliever need not place his or her faith in Christ; they will be saved or lost based on God's predetermined choice regardless of whether there is any faith on their part.

Because grace comes first and not as the result of faith; and therefore faith is not necessary for salvation.

However, these ideas are contrary to what the holy scripture teaches.

I think that you secretly hate the Lord with a passion, @Dave L.



That is excellent and bears repeating.



By this you intend to say that salvation comes before faith. However, we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, Romans 5:2. Therefore faith is the catalyst for entering into grace. And since the Holy Spirit comes as the result of grace, I conclude that the faith that is a fruit of the Spirit is not the initial faith that we receive via the principle of Romans 10:17; but rather it is faithfulness (as it can be translated as such) once a person has become a recipient of grace.



Where to find one of those...



If someone calls on the name of the Lord, will the Lord reject them/cast them out? I would really like your answer to this question.

Oh wait a minute...your answer is in the above statement...you believe that the Lord just might cast them out, since if they call on the name of the Lord they would be choosing themselves into heaven, if calling on the name of the Lord would absolutely save them. Yet Romans 10:13 is clear that calling on the name of the Lord will absolutely save them. And John 6:37 is clear that the Lord will in no wise cast out the person who comes to Him.

It seems to me that the implication behind Calvinistic teaching is that if I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, there is the possibility that I am not saved; because it may be that the Lord did not choose me from before the foundations of the world. And also, that if I do not receive Jesus, there is the possibility that I am saved in spite of that.

However, Jesus said,

Jhn 10:9, I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Fact is, if I accept the good news and receive Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, the Lord will in no wise cast me out (John 6:37).

For those of us who have received Him, the issue of inability is a moot point. Fact is, we have received Jesus as our Lord and Saviour.

Now for those that we know and love and care about, we would not want them to reject Christ, touting as an excuse that some Calvinist told them that they had inability and that therefore they are just "waiting on God" to save them apart from any decision on their part to receive Christ.

We believe that the issue of salvation is both important and urgent for the sinner who is being faced with the gospel message.

For it is written,

2Co 6:1, We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.
2Co 6:2, (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

We believe that a person must make a decision to receive Christ as their Lord and Saviour; or else they are not saved. The option to receive Him is always given to them in the ever-present tense now; and therefore they are not unable to receive Christ in the ever-present tense now.

If you know that the Lord is calling you to Himself in the present moment, then know that He has not made it impossible for you to come to Him in the present moment to receive Him as your Lord and Saviour. He is drawing you to Himself in the present moment; and you are able to make a decision to receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.

And Calvinism is supposed to be the doctrine that secures the helmet of salvation on your head; it is supposed to be the doctrine of "eternal security".

I find that it in all reality does the opposite.

To every Calvinist I ask the question, what makes you so special, that you were chosen and others weren't? from your perspective it certainly wasn't your faith.

Where do you get the understanding that you are chosen?

I would say that you are being presumptuous, in thinking that (your) god chose you when there is nothing you did to receive it.

For all you know you are deluded to think that you are chosen by the god of Calvinism for salvation; for all you know he predestinated you to hell.