Featured T - Total Depravity

DUUUUUUHHHHHH........

Of course they're not!...I'm citing Calvinists...I wouldn't BE a Calvinist. Point is, you deny that quotes like this EXIST! How delusional are you??? Of COURSE I copy and pasted them!!! I didn't INVENT THEM! Lemme explain what they were in response to:

So............I provided about ten quotes straight from various horse's mouths which prove you inarguably wrong.........if you persist in this.....I'll find even more. I didn't invent them, I didn't write them, I didn't initially COMPILE them...I didn't HAVE to, because anyone worth his salt can research these obvious points for themselves. Fact is...I just quoted NUMEROUS Calvinists PLAINLY stating that God is the "author" of sin....How did you miss Gordon Clark's point??? Sproul Jr's?...They meant what they said Icon, they really did.

 

I sincerely doubt he is hung up on it at all, Icon has shown himself to be thick skinned in the past. But it is a way to distract and avoid confessing that many noted and famous Calvinists have indeed said that God creates and causes evil.

It is pretty useless to debate most Calvinists. They know that many of their theologians openly say God ordains sin, and then directly contradict themselves and say God is not the author of sin. You don't have to be a genius to recognize an obvious contradiction. So, they simply explain it away as a "mystery". This is what we used to call a "cop-out". A better expression would be "pure BS".

You cannot reason with unreasonable people.

 

That's precisely right....he's obfuscating:


ob·fus·cate
verb (used with object), ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing.
1.
to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2.
to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
3.
to darken.


Synonyms
1. muddle, perplex. 2. cloud.

 

Wow. Talk about a diversion.

 

Calvinism has had 400 years to come up with very clever arguments. If you say that the logical conclusions of Calvinism is that it makes God the author of sin, they will answer "We don't say that", which is true. Now, they know as well as we do that the logical conclusions of Calvinism is that it makes God the author of sin, at least the truly intelligent ones who can think do. And some have been honest enough to admit these logical conclusions. The Calvinist is embarrassed by this and calls these fellows "hyper", such as A. W. Pink or Vincent Cheung.

But it is true, they don't say this, they don't say God is the author of sin, even if they inwardly know their doctrine makes God the author of sin. And that is their clever argument. It does not address the issue, as you say, it is an obfuscation, a distraction, a muddying of the issue...

Only the simple are fooled, or the dishonest. It must be one or the other, and often both.

 

pt 2

Augustine then adds, “Faith, therefore, from its beginning to its perfection is the gift of God. And that this gift is bestowed on some and not on others, who will deny but he who would fight against the most manifest testimonies of the Scripture? But why faith is not given to all ought not to concern the believer, who knows that all men by the sin of one came into most just condemnation.

But why God delivers one from this condemnation and not another belongs to His inscrutable judgments, and His ways are past finding out.’ And if it be investigated and inquired how it is that each receiver of faith is deemed of God worthy to receive such a gift, there are not wanting those who will say, It is by their human will. But we say that it is by grace, or Divine predestination.”




Augustine then adds this short sentence: “These are the mighty works of the Lord, shining with perfection in every instance of His will; and so perfect in wisdom, that when the angelic and human nature had sinned– that is, had done not what God willed, but what each nature itself willed–it came to pass that by this same will of the creature, God, though in one sense unwilling, yet accomplished what He willed, righteously and with the height of all wisdom, overruling the evils done, to the damnation of those whom He had justly predestinated to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom He had mercifully predestinated to grace. Wherefore, as far as these natures themselves were concerned, they did what they did contrary to the will of God; but, as far as the omnipotence of God is concerned, they acted according to His will; nor could they have acted contrary to it. Hence, by their very acting contrary to the will of God, the will of God concerning them was done. So mighty, therefore, are the works of God, so gloriously and exquisitely perfect in every instance of His will, that by a marvellous and ineffable plan of operation peculiar to Himself, as the ‘all-wise God,’ that cannot be done, without His will, which is even contrary to His will; because it could not be done without His permitting it to be done, which permission is evidently not contrary to His will, but according to, His will.” I have gladly extracted these few things out of many like them in the writings of Augustine, that my readers may clearly see with what a very modest face it is that Pighius represents him as differing from me and makes use of him to support his own errors. I shall, indeed, hereafter occasionally refer to the testimonies of this same holy man in the course of this discussion.
Now, to explain this text as applying to the purpose of man is (as Augustine argues) absurd in the extreme. Indeed, the context itself banishes every scruple, as if to render the intrusion of an interpreter wholly unnecessary. For the apostle immediately adds, “Whom He did predestinate (or definitely appoint), them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified.” Here it is evident that the apostle is speaking of a certain number whom God destined for Himself as a peculiar property and treasure. For although God calls very many–by many means, and especially by the external ministry of men–yet He justifies, and at last glorifies, no one but him whom He had ordained unto eternal life. The calling of God, therefore, is a certain special calling, which so seals and ratifies His eternal election, as to manifest openly what was before hidden in God concerning each one so called.

I know well what are the cavilling of many here. They say that when Paul affirms that those were predestinated whom God foreknew, he means that each one was chosen in respect of his future faith when he should believe. But I do not concede to these that which they falsely imagine, that we are to understand that God foresaw something in them which would move Him to confer upon them His favour and grace. For it is evident that the elect of God were foreknown when, and because, they were freely chosen. Hence, the same apostle elsewhere teaches that God knoweth them that are His, because, that is, He has them marked as it were, and holds them as numbered on His roll.

The fiction of Pighius is puerile and absurd, when he interprets grace to be God’s goodness in inviting all men to salvation, though all were lost in Adam. For Paul most clearly separates the foreknown from those on whom God deigned not to look in mercy. And the same is expressed, without any obscurity, in the memorable words of Christ: “All that the Father giveth Me shall come unto Me; and him that cometh unto Me, I will in no wise cast out.” Here we have three things, briefly indeed, but most perspicuously expressed. First, that all who come unto Christ were before given unto Him by the Father; secondly, that those who were thus given unto Him were delivered, as it were, from the hand of the Father into the hand of the Son, that they may be truly His; thirdly, that Christ is the sure keeper of all those whom the Father delivered over to His faithful custody and care, for the very end that He might not suffer one of them to perish. Now if a question be raised as to the beginning of faith, Christ here gives the answer, when He says that those who believe, therefore they were given unto Him by the Father.

Christ, however, testifies that the meaning of His words is very different from this. For He adds immediately afterwards, “There are some among you who believe not. Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto Me except it were given unto him of My Father.” You see here that Christ excludes those that “believe not” from the number of them who are “drawn.” Now Christ would have uttered all this in vain, and out of place, if faith were not an especial gift of God. But that is the clearest of all which He conclusively adds in continuation of His discourse. After having cited the prophecy of Isaiah, “All thy children shall be taught of the Lord;” He subjoins, by way of interpretation, “Every one therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father cometh unto Me.” Herein He shews that the prophecy of Isaiah is then fulfilled when God, by His Spirit, speaks to His children and disciples within, in order that He may deliver them into the hands and possession of Christ. Isaiah defines this to be the manner in which God renews and increases His Church, by teaching His children from above: “And they shall be all taught of God.” The prophet, therefore, is recording a peculiar favour of God, of which none are deemed worthy but His own children. Christ also here declares, by this His doctrine, that those are effectually drawn to Him whose minds and hearts God “compels.”

These writings are quite clear....the bulk of the article is dealing with the electing love of God. To suggest as you men do that God is the author of sin is vile

reading the whole thing ...or more than one sentence gives a clearer presentation.....this can be done for each quote....

When the people are not here to answer for themselves ...to read what the wrote in willful ignorance is not honest.

 

What convictions you have! It's a pity that you have posted more than 11,000 entries in vain if you actually feel that way.

Perhaps it is useless for you to debate them because you can't win man.

 

If only one person is converted from this error, then it was worth it.

Perhaps it will be you. :thumbsup:

 

ITL.....talk about you did not even read the full article to contrast the evil design of team jihad members.....I know before i even select out some paragraphs....98% of you will not read to learn the truth.
I am more concerned about those God will allow to read and learn
' The quotes show the design and clear teaching of the article...read the whole article and show how any of these portions show what the anti-cals sites indicate....If you cannot do so...your little quote is quite pointless and shallow:thumbsup:

 

This simple and naive statement is easily disproved by the fact that virtually all these men are confessional men and each of the confessions are clear that God is not the author of sin ...whatsoever:wavey::wavey:

 

What a joke, when has non-Cal or Armininian theology ever been accused of making God the author of sin? NEVER. Even Calvinists do not accuse non-Cals or Arminians of this.

How many times has Reformed/Calvinist theology been accused of making God the author of sin? THOUSANDS of times. And the sad part is, that is not an exaggeration.

Calvinists themselves have admitted that Calvinists make God the author of sin.

Even Calvinists accuse other Calvinists of making God the author of sin!

 

Oh, I know they "say" God is not the author of sin, but that does not negate the logical conclusions of Calvinism.

I don't expect you to get it.

 

Icon just PROVED my point.

 

Winman,
You cannot even read Sprouls article with any degree of comprehension?????

He is clearly speaking of;
Originally Posted by R.C. Sproul
“The distortion of double predestination looks like this...

If you cannot read this article correctly...you will not understand any of these other men any time soon....lol

 

because you are unable to understand it...does not make all calvinists guilty.
It is your lack of comprehension...not a matter of semantic games..and trying to pick out a sentence out of a whole writing and twist it...You do not want truth as i said...enjoy your error then and take it to the last day and let's see what happens.

 

I know exactly what he was saying, he is saying that certain "hyper" Calvinists make God the author of sin. He is saying he personally does not hold this view.

Hyper Calvinists are simply consistent Calvinists who take Calvinism where it logically leads. I don't expect you to understand that. Early hyper-Calvinists were often called "consistent" Calvinists.

Moderate Calvinists are inconsistent.

The point I was making is that non-Cals and Arminians have NEVER been accused of making God the author of sin, even by their enemies, whereas Calvinists themselves have accused other Calvinists of making God the author of sin THOUSANDS of times.

It's your doctrine, own it with pride. :thumbsup:

 

Winman

No Calvinist..."accuses non cals or arminians of having much in the way of theology either:laugh::thumbsup::laugh:

And each time it was as Sprouls article was speaking about...the person...like you did not read it correctly...problem solved