Are you born again ? Then here you are...

[Eleanor]

Total depravity.

First thing that comes to my mind in Paul is Ro 8:7-8 (unregenerate "cannot please God"), and the unregenerate's "powerlessness" in sin as enemies of Christ in Ro 5:6, 8, 10, and then there is the complete inability of the unregenerate to understand the things of God, thinking they are foolishness in 1 Co 2:14.

Does that not paint a picture to you of total inability (to believe and please God) of the unregenerate?

Would something else be a better example?
Or am I missing something on this?

 

[brightfame52]

The Gospel was not preached in the OT. The Gospel is the mystery that Paul spoke of on several occasions, such as the following:

Rom_16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past,
It was justification by faith that was given to Abraham, not the Gospel. And by the way, faith comes before justification according to Paul's message concerning Abraham:

Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."

The Gospel was preached to Abraham Gal 3:8

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

 

[JIM]

The Gospel was preached to Abraham Gal 3:8

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

It was faith that was preached to Abraham before the gospel (was preached to anyone). That is reinforced in the Greek which used the word
προευαγγελίζομαι [proeuaggelizomai] meaning "to preach before the Gospel or to preach in advance of the Gospel". It is also reinforced by what follows, namely the entire discussion of verses 9-14 concerning that the righteous shall live by faith.

 

[JIM]

Or am I missing something on this?

I think you are missing a lot on that, but I don't think you will accept anything I have to say on the matter.

 

[Arial]

You should tattoo that on your arm and read it back every time you post anything pro-Calvinist.

That makes no sense and is getting close to being about the poster and not the post.

 

[Arial]

Given the even few days I have been at this forum, did you expect a pro-Calvinist view? I could say that to be biblical is to be anti Calvinist, but I won'.t

Calm down. I was stating that of course if you post something from an outside source it is going to ge something that supports you beliefs. It doesn't make it true.

And you did say it. And since you did, now you have two choices. Show how Calvinism is not biblical. Or show you are unable to do so by simply not doing it.

 

[JIM]

That makes no sense and is getting close to being about the poster and not the post.

Did not intend that to be the case.

 

[JIM]

Show how Calvinism is not biblical.

I have done that on several occasions, but of course it was not accepted.

Frankly that is why I have asked myself why I even bother with a forum such as this one, it being so heavily geared toward Calvinism. But then that was fairly obvious almost immediately.

 

[Arial]

Did not intend that to be the case.

Did I intend what to be what case?
I think we need to end this back and forth at least for today. Unless you are going to tell me and show me how Calvinism is anti-bible.

 

[Arial]

I have done that on several occasions, but of course it was not accepted.

Everything you said has been refuted by scriptures and you are unable to refute the refutation. And you won't listen to it either. But, enough.

 

[JIM]

Everything you said has been refuted by scriptures and you are unable to refute the refutation. And you won't listen to it either. But, enough.

You see that is the fundamental problem. It has not been refuted by scriptures; rather it is refuted by a "Calvinistic interpretation" of scripture. For example, the Calvinist's interpretation of the word "see" in John 3:3 is steeped in the doctrine of Calvinism and against nearly all other interpretations. And so then a confrontation against that interpretation is not simply a confrontation about the meaning of a word in the place where it is used, but rather a confrontation against nearly the whole of the Calvinist doctrine. That is the case of so many key Calvinist words and phrases. But, to be fair, that is true of some non-Calvinist Jargon also.

But as you said, enough.

 

[Eleanor]

I think you are missing a lot on that, but I don't think you will accept anything I have to say on the matter.

Okay, maybe we aren't on the same page regarding "depravity."

Keeping in mind that depravity
is spiritual,
refers to the unregenerate without the Holy Spirit,
does not mean they are morally depraved or don't love their children,
means they cannot please God because they will not submit to him in all things,
means they prefer their own will and way over God's will and way,
means they do not glorify him and give thanks to him,
means they think the things of God are foolishness.

That being the Biblical meaning of depravity, would you agree the unregenerate are "depraved?"

 

[JIM]

means they prefer their own will and way over God's will and way,

That obviously means that both Adam and Eve were depraved. Is that where you stand?

That being the Biblical meaning of depravity, would you agree the unregenerate are "depraved?"

I don't have a problem with "depraved." It is the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity, among other things, that gets in the way of biblical truth.

 

[Arial]

rather it is refuted by a "Calvinistic interpretation" of scripture.

Which isn't wrong just because you do not agree with it.

For example, the Calvinist's interpretation of the word "see" in John 3:3 is steeped in the doctrine of Calvinism and against nearly all other interpretations.

As far as I know they interpret "see" as see. How do you think they interpret it?

And so then a confrontation against that interpretation is not simply a confrontation about the meaning of a word in the place where it is used, but rather a confrontation against nearly the whole of the Calvinist doctrine.

That is quite a statement! I have a problem with it though. Reformed theology doesn't make up meanings to words. And you are making an indictment without giving any specific charges. Therefore you convict without presenting evidence and without an opportunity of the charged to defend their position. What is a person supposed to do with that?

 

[Eleanor]

That obviously means that both Adam and Eve were depraved. Is that where you stand?

Good question.

Well, Adam and Eve had the power to submit to God in all things.
Unregenerate man does not have that power, which is why he cannot please God, while Adam and Eve could please God.
It's the not being able to please God that makes the unregenerate depraved in the spiritual sense.

I don't have a problem with "depraved." It is the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity, among other things, that gets in the way of biblical truth.

What Biblical truth would you have in mind which mine above gets in the way of?

 

[JIM]

Which isn't wrong just because you do not agree with it.

Not does it make right.

As far as I know they interpret "see" as see. How do you think they interpret it?

Reformed theology interprets it essentially as total depravity with no ability to see, hear, understand, believe or respond.

That is quite a statement! I have a problem with it though. Reformed theology doesn't make up meanings to words. And you are making an indictment without giving any specific charges. Therefore you convict without presenting evidence and without an opportunity of the charged to defend their position. What is a person supposed to do with that?

Of course they do, as does everyone else. The meanings of words such as grace, faith, called, election, foreknowledge, predestination, sovereignty, regeneration, to name just a few all take on reformed theological meanings that differ to one extent or another from that of the non-Reformed.

 

[JIM]

Good question.

Well, Adam and Eve had the power to submit to God in all things.
Unregenerate man does not have that power, which is why he cannot please God, while Adam and Eve could please God.
It's the not being able to please God that makes the unregenerate depraved in the spiritual sense.

What Biblical truth would you have in mind which mine above gets in the way of?

Grace, faith, salvation.

 

[brightfame52]

It was faith that was preached to Abraham before the gospel (was preached to anyone). That is reinforced in the Greek which used the word
προευαγγελίζομαι [proeuaggelizomai] meaning "to preach before the Gospel or to preach in advance of the Gospel". It is also reinforced by what follows, namely the entire discussion of verses 9-14 concerning that the righteous shall live by faith.

It was the Gospel which was preached to Abraham Gal 3:8

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Also the Gospel Paul preached was according to the OT scriptures 1 Cor 15:3-4
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Isaiah was scripture Isa 53:5-6,10-11
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Paul preached and believed the Same Gospel of Christ as Isaiah did.

 

[JIM]

The words, "according to the Scriptures" does not mean that anyone before Jesus' death on the cross understood anything about what that death would provide. I see no indication that Abraham knew anything at all about the sacrifice of the Son of God for the sins of the world. Even the twelve who were with Jesus during his ministry here on earth did not understand until Pentecost when they were filled with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Arial]

Reformed theology interprets it essentially as total depravity with no ability to see, hear, understand, believe or respond.

That isn't changing the meaning of the word "see" or any other word.

Of course they do, as does everyone else. The meanings of words such as grace, faith, called, election, foreknowledge, predestination, sovereignty, regeneration, to name just a few all take on reformed theological meanings that differ to one extent or another from that of the non-Reformed.

It is not the meaning of words that is being changed, but how they are applied or what they are applied to, or differing usages of a word but not the meaning. But the statement you make presumes that your way is the right way without presenting a case to support it.

Discussions would be much more profitable if points were made, fleshed out with substance, and focused, rather than the whole assertion being "My beliefs are the correct interpretations and yours are the wrong interpretation." And never get beyond that.