Luther and Erasmus

Yes you are wrong. I never said that God withholds ability. Ability was had in the Garden but lost. Also You don't grasp the concept of ability not being a necessary component of command. Your ability to keep a command has no bearing on your responsibility to keep it. The responsibility comes from the authority of the Law giver.

 

He doesn't grasp it because it is non-sense, if you will pardon the expression.

You can not have a person responsible who is not also able or have the ability to do the very thing you have made them responsible for.

By the same token, one is not culpable unless they have the ability to do or act accordingly.

By the very laws of justice that God set forth, it is unjust.
Ergo, God would not do so either, being that He is a Just and Righeous God.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

The expression above is the clearest I've seen on this board of a TOTAL misunderstanding of the gospel. WE CANNOT do a single thing in and of ourselves to make amends with God. It is IMPOSSIBLE. We are DOOMED.

That is precisely why the gospel is the "good news." Jesus Christ came to do what was/is/and ever shall be impossible for humankind, i.e., to do a single thing to extract ourselves from our doomed and damned state.

We are indeed culpable for our sin, for as the Bible says SO clearly, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." But, we have NO ability whatsoever within us to remedy that culpability, save that God so loved the world that He sent His only Son to redeem those who are lost without hope.

ANY other expression is not of God, for it could potentially eliminate the need for God, as a righteous man might potentially be able to live in such a manner as to satisfy God's requirements and no man has, or can, or will, save the ONE perfect man, Christ Jesus who came to give the rest of us life.

The whole of the Bible is given over to this basic doctrine. "There are none righteous, not one..." "All your righteousnesses are as filthy rags..." "They are all gone astray, all together are filthy, there are none who do good, no not one..." "You are dead in your sins..." "We cannot stand before You because of our trespasses..."

Paul wrote this:

2Cr 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

And this:

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

The fundamental and fatal flaw in doctrine and belief that WE somehow can come to Christ based on something within us is alien to the Scriptures. It is God who comes to us, always and only, and praise Him, effectually to those whom He elects.

All else is a false gospel and a false doctrine based on a false reading of Scripture.

 

This is just TO funny :laugh:
Nothing you give in the above negates my statement nor my points, with the exception of us being culpable but not having ablility.

Funny how you can quote scripture (which I agree with) that there are none righteous.. but fail to mention what passages of scripture that say that man is has no ability to believe God.

Additionally, no one has said man can come to God/Christ based on something within us. As if it can be offered, traded, or bartered with God for salvation. Faith is not a work and therefore can not be offered, traded, or bartered. It is not that it is good, or that it has any eternal value in and of itself.
Great reaching.. but still missing the mark on this one.

 

I don't find a mis-representation of the gospel to be a laughing matter, and you certainly have mis-represented it.

How is it that those dead in their sin have the "ability" to have faith in God? That goes back to the source of faith, doesn't it? Is faith something that WE generate, even before salvation, or is faith a gift of God as expressed in the Scriptures. Even Arminian theology says that God's grace is necessary before there can be faith, and that any move toward God stems from God first.

What do you think God is saying when the writers penned, "There is none righteous, not one...?" How can one have faith unless he is "righteous?" We cannot even know that there IS a God unless or until He reveals Himself to us. How can we have faith in what (or whom) we cannot even know? We can have a concept of God based on the general revelation, but to know the True God of the Bible requires His action first, which eliminates even the concept of a faith-first doctrine.

Finally, it was the concept of culpability and ability, that not driven by Scripture, but rather by emotion, that led to Arminian theology in the first place. Men who rejected the fact that God did the choosing decided to formulate an alternative doctrine that made a way for man to do his own choosing. That is a fatally-flawed doctrine, for only God is the ultimate and righteous Judge who chooses who will inherit eternity.

 

But you just said its purpose was to "drive us to Christ," who is the life giver. I know you mean that is the effect it has on the elect, but my point is that the law is given a stated purpose...as a tutor to point us to our need for Christ, yet Calvinists use the law as an example of something in which God commands that we cannot accomplish, thus it must be just of Him. You then seek to apply that point as proof that the gospel's appeal to faith is likewise unable to be accomplished, which does not follow given the purpose of the law. That argument was not addressed.

That begs the question for debate, because clearly it also can "drive men to Christ."

Look at what Paul says:

Rom. 7:9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

Question: How is that possible if he was born dead as Total Depravity presumes?

10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.

So, clearly he wasn't born "dead," but instead died after sin had taken root, meaning he began to recognize his need.

12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

See, the Law accomplishes the purpose of helping men recognized their sin and their need for a savior.

That doesn't even address the point of my argument. Of course Christ has the power, but its through the means of regeneration that man, in your system, has the ability to believe. This needless correction of an obvious point is the red herring to avoid the point of the argument.

Instead of accusing me of dishonestly why not simply answer the argument? I wrote: "you don't need to law to tutor, you don't need envy to provoke, you don't need signs and wonders to convince men"

So tell us what do these means (law, envy, signs) accomplish?

I didn't label you as hyper because I realize that the gospel serves the purpose in your system of informing and calling the elect who are regenerated, but what purpose to these other means accomplish since regeneration is what makes the man's will change?

Where? Give specifics or keep your accusations to yourself. Blanket attacks help no one.

So, if someone disagrees with you and presses you to respond to what we know have been historical points of debate for generations they must be "dishonest?" Really? Is this necessary?

 

Anyone here who disagrees with this statement please step forward.

I don't know of ANYONE who believes we can do a single thing "in and of ourselves," to be saved; so I think it is quite clear that it is you who are doing the misrepresenting here. This is further manifested in your next statement:

The very fact that you think Allan, I or any self respecting Christian (Arminian or otherwise) would disagree with this statement reveals your lack of understanding regarding our actual points of contention. It is just so absurd that someone can read what we have written and think this is something worthy to rebut.

 

How is it that they, being "dead" in the "non-responsive corpse" way you presume, can be repulsed by and refuse God?

Just as you have never seen a corpse reach out to accept a gift, I've never seen one resist the gift and make excuses either. You can't have it both ways.

"Dead" clearly means "estranged," "enemies," "in need of reconciliation," in the way a father might say to a rebellious son, "you are dead to me." Which, according to James 1 and Romans 7 is a condition which comes AFTER sin and rebellion takes root and "then comes death," not necessarily a condition from birth, but more like that which happens to those who "grow calloused" and "hardened" to the truth.

So then why do you accuse us of believing otherwise and argue with us as if we don't believe this?

According to the works of the law there is no one who measures up. No one, save Christ, has ever fully kept the law. But read on in Romans because "now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify."

It wasn't KNOWN before, but now it is. No one is righteous according to the law, but at the same time, "Abraham (and others) believed and it was credit to him as righteousness." So, while Abraham was NOT righteous according to the law, he was righteous according to faith/grace. Understand?

 

Psalm 19:1-4

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world

Romans 1:20

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

I think we most certainly know that there is a God, even without a personal relationship with him, obviously, we can see what He has made and what He does and we can still CHOOSE to reject Him.

 

I see you are finally getting it... Well done!

 

The Psalm is speaking of the general revelation. I mentioned that above.

Romans 1 is building to a point in Paul's argument where he finally concludes with "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..."

He then goes on to express how, through Christ alone, we are reconciled.

Note that in the Scriptures, "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."


If we are not dead before Christ, we are certainly "dead" through the process of becoming Christ's, but we are indeed "dead" (spiritually) in our sin, just as the Word says.

 

Good, so the next time you or another Calvinist refers to being "dead" as proof text for your views on Total Depravity Or the next time one of you refer to "no one being righteous" as proof that men can't respond in faith to the gospel, I'll refer them to your affirmation of this post.

Thanks:thumbs:

 

GL, you said

We cannot even know that there IS a God unless or until He reveals Himself to us.

I say scripture indicates all men can know that there IS a God.

You made your statement (at least I interpreted as such) that unless man receives some special illumination, something like your reformed position of "regeneration" prior to salvation, man cannot even KNOW this. I disagree.

I don't understand your point here about Paul leading to "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (No disagreement here, except I dont understand YOUR point)

Yes, I am everyone, prior to "getting saved" was dead to God, separated, estranged, there is no need to rehash any debate on "total depravity" as I think that is where you are coming from.