Total Depravity is a phrase conjured up by Calvinism and Reformed Theology that is used to describe a condition not found in Scripture. I can go through each of those verses and passages posted there and show that none of them actually establishes the bogus concept of total depravity, but it wouldn't convince the die-hard Calvinist.
The irony here is that is precisely what the Reformed Theology is all about. It certainly presents God as an ogre who creates a world of human beings, the majority of whom, according to Reformed Theology, are predestined to eternal condemnation for nothing more that God's good pleasure and enjoyment.
Exactly!...Amen!
First you would have to know what the doctrine of TD is actually, and not according to your opinion of it. Also, every opposing concept would be based on the presupposition of your resistance to TD, taken into the scriptures. Something that can be done by anyone, be it one who denies the deity of Christ, denies the crucifixion, virgin birth, trustworthiness of Scripture, or anything else. But doing so will not change what God is saying in those Scriptures.
Oddly enough, what you are accusing me of can be reversed to be applied to you and your opinion that scripture even alludes to TD at all.
That is speaking of the prophet not the hearer or the reader.
Once again you present the proposition that God is incapable of communicating effectively to the unregenerate, which is a weakness in God, not in the unregenerate.
Here again you lay the fault at the feet of God, not the speaker. Your assumption here is that the Holy Spirit cannot influence anyone not regenerated. { edit}
It is to be expected that it would be by the opposition toTD. What that suggests though is that truth is relative and cannot be known. That also leaves God and His sovereignty out of the equation. It leaves out all of redemption is of God and for God, and inserts something into the Bible that does not exist is the Bible. That being, that in order for Christ's victory on the cross to be effectual requires something from the one being redeemed. Which would cause grace to cease to be grace. IOW it would infer that some grace is needed, and Jesus dying on the cross is necessary, but that is as far as grace goes. We would not actually be saved by grace. In some cases, the objection is not to TD, but asserts that grace goes a bit farther and is necessary, and gives to all without exception "free will" to decide whether the cross was effectual for them or not, or whether or not they wanted what the cross provides. And of course in order to do either of those things, one has to understand the crucifixion and resurrection and ascension, and in understanding it, also believe it, and then reject it. Which butts right up against "Believe and you will be saved."
It is being written to the hearer and by extension, the reader. And it is not referring to the foretelling of the OT prophets alone, but by the forthtelling of the content of that letter and all the epistles and all of the NT. The apostles appointed task---which in large part is directly connected to the types and shadows and prophecy of the OT revealed in the reality of the coming of what they prophesied----Christ. It is in fact establishing the NT writings as just a much a part of God's word as the OT.
That is not what she is communicating at all. It is saying that only those God has regenerated are able to hear and understand. He is communicating with the unregenerate every time the sun comes up or storm clouds gather, or rain waters the earth, or drouth pervades a land. They just don't get the message.(Rom 1)
The assumption is yours. The passage says nothing about the Spirit influencing the unregenerate. It is speaking of having understanding or not having understanding and where that understanding comes from.
What a thing is, is, according to some philosophers, involves not only what it does (of which we only know what we see), but what it is for and where it comes from, or what it is made of. We might infer what it is for, from what we see it doing, but that is assessed just about as well by us as a puppy would understand what is going on in a brain surgery theater. What it is made of we have gone way, back, or so we imagine, but are still as ignorant as when we began, not understanding what we see, and seeing very little. All we know is what we can see, and we are blind.
It suggests no such thing. It does suggest that truth is faith based. That becomes the result of God's not providing absolute proof of even His existence which would by and large eliminate faith as any basis for anyone honoring, following and obeying Him. But faith is key. God could just as easily have mandated all allegiance to him had that been His objective. Unfortunately, mandated allegiance is what the Reformed Theology presents as the gospel. And even worse, that theology presents mandated allegiance for only a preselected few with the rest preselected for eternal condemnation. All of that having nothing whatsoever to do with the personages of those involved and not only that but also having absolutely nothing to do with even the creation of this universe.
The Bible is the only divine revelation that anyone past the human authors of that Bible has access to.
Precisely right! They prefer the theology of the serpent, you'll be like gods! And you will not surely die!
I am sorry, but that is simply not true. Maybe you are in the state of that puppy looking on in a brain surgery theater, but the surgeon in that brain surgery theater is not. You may be blind, but that surgeon is not. He is not all-seeing, but he is not blind.
Do you mean they understand from the serpents perspective?
