Let's hash out the distinction between Original Sin and Total Depravity.

Well Benjamin,
Here is where we can see what's what. The thread is about depravity ,related to mans fall into sin and death. here is a link I posted with scriptures everywhere. Feel free to examine any verse offered ,and dazzle us with your philosophy as to why the verse does not say what the teacher set forth......

Show where this is a smokescreen, or opinion.....I do not think you can begin to do it.....let's see what you have....

 

Weelll Iconoclast: Sorry, I don’t see the words “total depravity” in any of those verses or the reasonings that are even addressing that doctrine. It is clear that all have sinned (Rom 3:32), no one is arguing that, so what’s your point? Could you please point to where the words “total depravity” is used in the Bible or are you coming to those conclusions by some other means.

Total depravity, I don’t see those words in the Bible anywhere??? I do see where all mankind is called to believe in God and Jesus Christ. Would you like me to post a few of these??? Exactly how does “total depravity”, which words I can not find in the Bible, correspond with God’s genuine commandments for all men to respond to His callings? Seems you are claiming on the philosophical grounds of some obviously false doctrines of very confused men (“Total depravity” brought forth by Calvin and his follower) that the Bible says we can not do something God commands us to do?

Anyway, the point I made concerning this tread, which you have ignored, is that you are using philosophical principles of men and declaring them not to be opinions. At least, tell me how these opinions “relate” to the false doctrine of Total depravity and how they prove God’s calling is not genuine to all men. If you don’t want to use your own opinions on this all you have to do is show me where the words “total depravity” are written in the Bible and I will no longer believe your reasoning to be based on the distorted forced to fit false doctrines of confused men trying to support the philosophical principles of Calvin.

BTW, are you and EWF serious that we are required to read all your links and before continuing with the debate here must address every error in their doctrines? Are you two trying to avoid something here??? You kinda know that's a smokescreen tactic now don't cha? Come on, tell the truth. :laugh:

 

"How can God rightly condemn mankind with eternity in hell for not fulfilling a requirement that they are not even given the ability to fulfill?"

The problem as I see it is; We think and believe it is all about man and mankind.

That God created the first man, Adam in his own image and man fell, therefore God had to go to plan B, when in reality plan B is plan A.

From the foundation of the world, world being this current system, let there be light, I believe God was doing this:

2 Cor. 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.

Christ the Lamb was slain from the time it was said let there be light.

The first man Adam was created subject to sin bringing death to all men for the purpose of God, that being, in the second man, the Lord from heaven, the last Adam death (which was in concept and in existence before the first man Adam was created and was present on the earth, see darkness in Gen 1:2. The reason darkness was on the face of the deep is because God had removed his presence from the earth when Satan sinned.) the last enemy, death, could be destroyed.

God is reconciling through Christ followed by election according to grace. Even the Christ is of the elect being a seed of Abraham and David. It was to Abraham and his one seed the Christ the promises were made. We are made heirs, not yet inheritors, through the Christ.

By The Way. They do not need the ability to a requirement. See the rest of 2 Cor 5:19 not imputing their trespasses unto them;

I can hear your question. All I can say is, Take it up with the Potter.

 

ooooh, oooooh (hand raised) I know the answer. Number 2!

 

So without this power, men cannot see nor respond to the truth. Is this a work of the Spirit?

 

Let's break it down. One thing at a time.

You say the Gospel has power to inform. Is there a resistance or barrier of some kind that the message must overcome? Or are you simply saying men were ignorant of the Gospel, and then they were informed? And if the latter is the case, how does the power of the Gospel differ from, say, the power of Windows 7 for Dummies?

 

Skan,

Men are not saved primarily from condemnation...they are saved from sins.
When the elect are saved from sins...there is no longer any condemnation.

Sinners are truth suppressors.they know there is a God...but will not and cannot submit to Him on His terms.

 

They should not disagree with any of these verses at all. These sins listed show the nature of depraved mans sins.
In your scheme you have this reality of sin and depravity as no obstacle whatsoever for the sinner to overcome ...much less a satanic blindness.
2cor4:4-6

 

Benjamin,
this post of yours is non responsive to the challenge I offered you in post 21.
The sins listed here as examples show that man as a truth supressor is intellectually, morally, emotionally perverted....as I posted earlier. if you list the sins from this one list it is evident.

yeah...it's right next to trinity....grow up just a bit please. To go to absurd reasoning is not going to get it done. if you want to go off on semantics play with someone else.

If someone was serious about the word of God you would read the links.. a couple of paragraphs is not going to hurt anyone. You and others do not come to truth here because you are not teachable.
You made claims about the links...but as I figured..you cannot show anything wrong with the scriptural teaching...but again you address me personally.

I did notice you offered one verse.....I am thankful for that:thumbs:

God's call is genuine to all men

To list all the verses that encompass this teaching can and has been done.

In romans 1 we are told that God has given men over to a reprobate mind for example...then all manner of sins are listed...as in eph2,4,5 1cor 5,6
we both know that tulip is a summary phrase of the biblical teaching.....as you have no answer to any of the links at all...you will want to drone on and on..about show me this word or that. let me know when you want to address the scriptures...as I have said before...i would help you...but I need to obey in principle Mt7:6 for now....until i see otherwise.
Your errant views of God's decree....coupled with your wrong view of fatalism might be too much for you to overcome.

 

Let's say a man sent by God goes into a prison yard containing 500 men all 500 unsaved. He preaches the sermon of his life. Did God send that word of salvation to all 500 of those men as their chance to respond to him, being the next day the prison is bombed and all are killed?

I will even agree that was a dumb question. Except, I think about Paul. Why did not Paul on the day Stephen was stoned not fall to the ground in repentance toward God? Surely he heard the sermon of Stephen. Was that sermon meant for Paul? Maybe God was just slowly drawing Paul at the expense of Stephen. Did God grant to Paul on that day on the road to Damascus something he did not have the day he held the coats of those who stoned Stephen?

BTW I have more questions here than I do answers.

 

The Total Depravity of Man by A.W. Pink and a book by W. R. Downing are not a few paragraphs nor are they scripture ("the word of God"); which brings me back to my objection which you continue to ignore:

Again, you have not answered my objections to you using, yet denying that you use the philosophical principles of others and while declaring them not to be opinions/i.e. “philosophy, carnal logic and reasoning” of men. You are “appealing to authority” of these men as if they were scripture and certainly these philosophical principles are not equivalent to scriptures nor is the doctrine of “total depravity” equivalent to the doctrine of Trinity for that matter.

I will not play games of chase the rabbit with you. It is you that is not teachable in the truth as you refuse to be edified; stick to the point that I have raised and be honest about relying on the philosophical principles of the followers of Calvin. You have clearly been referring to these Calvinistic doctrines as inerrant and not being of opinions (that can only mean one thing); answer my objection truthfully which shows that you in fact do not “reject the subjective world of philosophy, carnal logic and reasoning” which is really not the base to my objection but that you proclaim these doctrines to not be of men’s opinions and that only leaves one option, that you believe they are equivalent to scripture. I object to your comparisons of these men’s words to the truth of scripture and to your denial of the use of human reasoning and logic to come to your conclusions.

 

This makes waaaaay tooooooo much sense Bro. Skan. I likened this to setting in the class, and eventhough they never offered you the book to study, you will fail that class anyways.

 

What brings condemnation?

 

To answer #2: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

That "oooooh ooooooh" had me worried for a moment there Brother Quant. I thought you might have mistaken an "ex-lax" for an Hershey bar..... and that does cause #2 ya know?