Is man born totally depraved or can they become depraved over time?

How about telling us what you now believe rather than endless posts about what your against.

 

If you can't handle being called out, then maybe you shouldn't post.

I log in every now and again. And when I logged in tonight all your posts some challenge or another against Calvinism.

If that is how you want to be known on the BB that is your business. Take my reply to as a friendly obsevation...or not. Doesn't matter to me.

 

Do I come accross as a man who can't handle the heat? :laugh:

All right sonny boy, let's help you get on the right track. When you start a thread with "Calvinists believe" try to put something in there that actually carries some weight...not the internet discussions your having, not your little debates with weirdo calvinists, but something of real substance.

You have made yourself the opponent of Calvinism. You have in this thread set yourself against the doctrine of Total Depravity.

Now...here is what you should be trying to refute:

That is from the 1689 Confession, but you will find it identical in substance to the Westminster. These are standards for Calvinist doctrine.

 

I am creating a widely accepted standard. You say your against Calvinism. Let's make sure you are.

Are you against this teaching:

From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.
( Romans 8:7; Colossians 1:21; James 1:14, 15; Matthew 15:19 )


In other words, are you saying that people are not wholly inclined to all evil? Are you teaching that somewhere in man is something unaffected by the fall of Adam...some part of man that was unaffected?

If so, what part?

Let add, I am not ignoring your whole post. I have read it and re-read it. I am taking it one step at a time. Your OP question is "Is man totally depraved?" Which I am taking to be the subject of your thread, the doctrine of total depravity. I am stating, for my part, and as a standard, the Calvinist position on the subject...using a widely accepted creed of most Calvinists. There is not a Calvinist I know that would not affirm the above statement.

 

Alright, heading to bed. I will pick this up tomorrow God willing.

 

I disagree with this. Unsaved man is not utterly disabled from doing good. I have posted the scriptures concerning Cain numerous times.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Read for yourself. Did God say Cain could give an acceptable sacrifice and that God would accept it?

Do you agree that is what God is saying to Cain here, or do you disagree? If you disagree, then please explain.

It this is true, then the doctrinal statement you provided is in error from the scriptures.

 

Man is totally depraved. He is dead in trespasses and sins. Romans 1-3 teaches how completely he is in sin and its' effect.

I believe man's actions can become more totally depraved over time. There are clearly well intentioned and good acting people who are not saved. They are stilll dead in sin. They still have a sin nature. But they can become more depraved in their actions.

I think this is what Romans 1 is talking about. God gives them over to the end result of their sin. Mankind does not get any better over time. He gets worse. How he lives out that sinful nature gets worse and worse.

(by the way, I am not a Calvinist)

 

Is man born totally depraved or can they become depraved over time?

The simple answer is "yes". Depravity has an adverse affect on one's salvific state, and one's righteousness. A man is born salvifically depraved. In a man's life, his actions contribute to his righteous depravity.

The whole answer is a lot more complex than that, but that's the "calvinism for dummies" answer.

 

The Bible teaches original sin and total depravity. It also teaches that man will not come to God unless the Spirit draws him. And that the Holy Spirit's work is mysterious in that He goes where He chooses to go. But it also teaches that man can choose to believe or not believe.

I try as best as I can to be faithful to what I believe the Bible teaches, so I don't really have a theological system that is easily catalogued and pigeon holed. Most of our systems of theology attempt to limit God's work in salvation to what we can understand and write down logically. I am entirely comfortable with my position being seemingly illogical when it comes to God's work in salvation.

 

Again, as someone claiming to have been a calvinist for 10 years, we would expect you to understand and be able to articulate (since you make yourself the opponent of calvinism) what effectual calling/irresistable grace is. Back to the basics for you:

 

I thought you were astute enough to connect the dots.

You are confusing and confounding two biblical teachings, the means by which God effectually calls His elect, and effectual calling. Please actually read the doctrinal statement.