A discussion on TOTAL DEPRAVITY

[journeyman]

Would you quote the verse where Adam confesses his sin?

(I can only remember the part where Adam hides, then God compels Adam to come out of hiding so God can question him, and Adam blames Eve and God for making him sin … “that woman you gave me”.)

Adam said,
The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. Gen.3:12

That's simply the truth, or what actually happened, without imagining "Adam blames Eve and God."

From the NT, Gen.3 is clear about how Adam and Eve represent Christ and the church. By reason of what God says will be the result of their sin (pain through child birth, sweat tilling the cursed ground), Calvanism falls apart.

 

[journeyman]

journey
Thats right, those who believe in Christ give evidence they are Justified by Christ and so not condemned since Christ died for them and took away their condemnation. But people who never believe, who remain unbelievers give evidence they are condemned because Christ never died for them and took away their condemnation.

Also unbelievers who Christ did die for, are not condemned, even though they are unbelievers, because Christs death took away their condemnation for unbelief as well as for all of their sins condemnation.

Somewhere along the line, theologians took what our Father said to the serpent and inserted Adam in his place,

And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: Gen.3:14

This isn't true of mankind.

 

[atpollard]

Adam said,
The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. Gen.3:12

That's simply the truth, or what actually happened, without imagining "Adam blames Eve and God."

• “He was guilty of unkindness to his wife and of blasphemy against his maker, in seeking to escape from confessing the sin which he had committed. It is an ill sign with men when they cannot be brought frankly to acknowledge their wrong-doing.” - Charles Spurgeon
• "Adam lays all the blame upon his wife. "She gave me of the tree, and pressed me to eat of it, which I did, only to oblige her"-a frivolous excuse. He ought to have taught her, not to have been taught by her; and it was no hard matter to determine which of the two he must be ruled by, his God or his wife. Learn, hence, never to be brought to sin by that which will not bring us off in the judgment; let not that bear us up in the commission which will not bear us out in the trial; let us therefore never be overcome by importunity to act against our consciences, nor ever displease God, to please the best friend we have in the world. But this is not the worst of it. He not only lays the blame upon his wife, but expresses it so as tacitly to reflect on God himself: "It is the woman whom thou gavest me, and gavest to be with me as my companion, my guide, and my acquaintance; she gave me of the tree, else I had not eaten of it." Thus he insinuates that God was accessory to his sin: he gave him the woman, and she gave him the fruit; so that he seemed to have it at but one remove from God's own hand. Note, There is a strange proneness in those that are tempted to say that they are tempted of God, as if our abusing God's gifts would excuse our violation of God's laws. God gives us riches, honours, and relations, that we may serve him cheerfully in the enjoyment of them; but, if we take occasion from them to sin against him, instead of blaming Providence for putting us into such a condition, we must blame ourselves for perverting the gracious designs of Providence therein. " - Matthew Henry
• "He blames God [CALVIN]. As the woman had been given him for his companion and help, he had eaten of the tree from love to her; and perceiving she was ruined, was determined not to survive her [M'KNIGHT]." - Robert Jamieson
• "The second consequence of the fall is the disturbed relation with God, which is presented in the highly symbolical form fitting for early ages, and as true and impressive for the twentieth century as for them. Sin broke familiar communion with God, turned Him into a 'fear and a dread,' and sent the guilty pair into ambush. Is not that deeply and perpetually true? The sun seen through mists becomes a lurid ball of scowling fire. The impulse is to hide from God, or to get rid of thoughts of Him. And when He is felt to be near, it is as a questioner, bringing sin to mind. The shuffling excuses, which venture even to throw the blame of sin on God ('the woman whom Thou gavest me'), or which try to palliate it as a mistake ('the serpent beguiled me'), have to come at last, however reluctantly, to confess that 'I'did the sin. Each has to say, 'I did eat.' So shall we all have to do. We may throw the blame on circumstances, weakness of judgment, and the like, while here, but at God's bar we shall have to say, 'Mea culpa, mea culpa.' " - Andrew MacLaren
• "Significantly, if there is any blame, it is on Adam, not Eve. Not only does Adam unjustly accuse Eve, but also he refused to accept proper responsibility for his part in her sin. By saying the woman whom You gave to be with me, Adam essentially blamed God for the sin saying, 'You gave me the woman, and she is the problem.' Adam wasn’t content to blame Eve; he had to blame God also." - David Guzik

I do not seek to change your mind, merely to demonstrate that I am not the first to read Genesis 3:12 and think that Adam is attempting to place the blame on God (rather than merely stating 'the simple truth' as you claim Adam was doing.)

Shalom ( ... means "peace and well being"),
On Adam's intent, we shall simply agree ... to disagree.

 

[journeyman]

• “He was guilty of unkindness to his wife and of blasphemy against his maker, in seeking to escape from confessing the sin which he had committed. It is an ill sign with men when they cannot be brought frankly to acknowledge their wrong-doing.” - Charles Spurgeon
• "Adam lays all the blame upon his wife. "She gave me of the tree, and pressed me to eat of it, which I did, only to oblige her"-a frivolous excuse. He ought to have taught her, not to have been taught by her; and it was no hard matter to determine which of the two he must be ruled by, his God or his wife. Learn, hence, never to be brought to sin by that which will not bring us off in the judgment; let not that bear us up in the commission which will not bear us out in the trial; let us therefore never be overcome by importunity to act against our consciences, nor ever displease God, to please the best friend we have in the world. But this is not the worst of it. He not only lays the blame upon his wife, but expresses it so as tacitly to reflect on God himself: "It is the woman whom thou gavest me, and gavest to be with me as my companion, my guide, and my acquaintance; she gave me of the tree, else I had not eaten of it." Thus he insinuates that God was accessory to his sin: he gave him the woman, and she gave him the fruit; so that he seemed to have it at but one remove from God's own hand. Note, There is a strange proneness in those that are tempted to say that they are tempted of God, as if our abusing God's gifts would excuse our violation of God's laws. God gives us riches, honours, and relations, that we may serve him cheerfully in the enjoyment of them; but, if we take occasion from them to sin against him, instead of blaming Providence for putting us into such a condition, we must blame ourselves for perverting the gracious designs of Providence therein. " - Matthew Henry
• "He blames God [CALVIN]. As the woman had been given him for his companion and help, he had eaten of the tree from love to her; and perceiving she was ruined, was determined not to survive her [M'KNIGHT]." - Robert Jamieson
• "The second consequence of the fall is the disturbed relation with God, which is presented in the highly symbolical form fitting for early ages, and as true and impressive for the twentieth century as for them. Sin broke familiar communion with God, turned Him into a 'fear and a dread,' and sent the guilty pair into ambush. Is not that deeply and perpetually true? The sun seen through mists becomes a lurid ball of scowling fire. The impulse is to hide from God, or to get rid of thoughts of Him. And when He is felt to be near, it is as a questioner, bringing sin to mind. The shuffling excuses, which venture even to throw the blame of sin on God ('the woman whom Thou gavest me'), or which try to palliate it as a mistake ('the serpent beguiled me'), have to come at last, however reluctantly, to confess that 'I'did the sin. Each has to say, 'I did eat.' So shall we all have to do. We may throw the blame on circumstances, weakness of judgment, and the like, while here, but at God's bar we shall have to say, 'Mea culpa, mea culpa.' " - Andrew MacLaren
• "Significantly, if there is any blame, it is on Adam, not Eve. Not only does Adam unjustly accuse Eve, but also he refused to accept proper responsibility for his part in her sin. By saying the woman whom You gave to be with me, Adam essentially blamed God for the sin saying, 'You gave me the woman, and she is the problem.' Adam wasn’t content to blame Eve; he had to blame God also." - David Guzik

I do not seek to change your mind, merely to demonstrate that I am not the first to read Genesis 3:12 and think that Adam is attempting to place the blame on God (rather than merely stating 'the simple truth' as you claim Adam was doing.)

Shalom ( ... means "peace and well being"),
On Adam's intent, we shall simply agree ... to disagree.

God bless you also. Yes we will disagree on this matter and many others, as I'm positive Protestants have obscured the gospel Jesus taught.

 

[Iconoclast]

Our Savior told us to turn and become like little children, because all little children believe. So total depravity is wrong from the start.

You are wrong once again. The little children Jesus spoke of were believers Total depravity is the biblical teaching.

 

[Iconoclast]

atpollard said:

1. • We have a FREE WILL and a FALLEN NATURE. Therefore, we are free to do anything that we want ... and our fallen nature makes us WANT to sin. As John 3:19-20 put it ... "people loved the darkness" and "everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light". Thus it is not God that prevents Men from approaching. It is Men that freely refuse to approach God.
   • God COULD have allowed men to forever hide from SALVATION and then ALL MEN would be damned ... not by an act of God, but by the FREE WILL and FALLEN NATURE of Men. Like those in Romans 1:18-22, "their senseless hearts were darkened" and God could have left them there (given them over as he did those in Romans 1). BUT GOD ... as Ephesians 2:4-5 says "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our wrongdoings, made us alive". So God chose to DRAW some (as a fisherman draws fish in a net) into salvation. "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast." [Ephesians 2:8-9]

So you see that I agree with the WHAT of your understanding, but disagree on the implied HOW and WHY. ;)


Since I agree with prevenient grace, I'd say that would explain how I believe persons come to God.
I don't believe God wants anyone to love Him by HIS will, but by the person's truly free will. Love that is not free, is not real love. The NT and the OT states that we are to approach God, seek Him and love Him.
Matthew 6:33
Hebrews 11:6
1 Chronicles 16:11
Proverbs 8:17
and so many more...

All men should be damned....but if some are going to be chosen for salvation, a just God would let us know HOW to become saved and give us all the same chance for salvation.

So, of course it's the HOW we disagree with.

I think there are other posts of yours....

You just want to invent your own gospel. God is just. Not all men know how to be saved.

 

[Iconoclast]

Reformed theology teaches that God predestines those that are saved and those that are not saved.
Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 21, paragraph 5

This is repeated in the WCF.

What is secret is HOW or WHY God chooses each individual person.
It teaches that we don't know why, but that it's for God's own pleasure.
This would fall under Unconditional Election.

Instead Jesus came here to teach us how to be members of the Kingdom of God here on earth,
and also what we must do to be chosen/elected for eternal salvation. There are no secrets.

Here are some of Jesus' own teachings, and some not, on how to be chosen by God:

John 5:24
24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
John 5:27-29
27and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.
28“Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
John 3:19, 21
19“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
20“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
21“But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
John 6:44-45
. 44“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
45“It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
And God wishes that all be saved:
1 Timothy 2:4
4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

So God let's us know HOW He chooses:
Belief in God
Belief in His Son
Doing good deeds.
Be taught of God,
Learn from the Father.
Dwell with the Son.

John 15:5-6
5“I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

In this post W advocates salvation by works, and that we do things in order to be elected. This is false unfortunately. It is backwards.

 

[Iconoclast]

Wow. Christiandom after the reformation DID return to papist theology.
Only the reformed are left believing in determinism...all the others have rejected it and returned to pre-reformation beliefs.

This is delusional, but you can say whatever you want of course,

 

[Iconoclast]

G1670
ἕλκω
helkō; a prim. vb.; to drag: - drag (1), dragged (2), draw (1), draws (1), drew (2), haul (1).

She wants to oppose, not understand.

 

[Iconoclast]

The word DRAW does not mean there is always an effect.

A man may wish to DRAW a woman to him that he likes.
Does this mean there will soon be a romantic relationship?

Start in verse 37 and see that all drawn by the Father come to Jesus, He loses none of them...that looks like a 100% effect

 

[Iconoclast]

I can say, without hesitation, that the reformed believe God is not just.

I've gone through the Institutes and the WCF and there is NO JUSTICE in the God they represent.

I want to just take the time for a couple of posts with you.

Answer this:
What is justice?

You are committing a 9th commandment violation every time you post these falsehoods

 

[Iconoclast]

Let's see:
I'll repeat it:

IN REFORMED THEOLGY GOD IS MADE TO BE UNJUST.

And, in case you didn't notice throughout our discussions,
I POST the actual words in either the institutes or the WCF.

I DO NOT add words to what is written.

I DO make comments about what is written.
Two different methods of addressing a verse.

Now, the reformed ADD to what is written.
Fastfredy0 does this all the time.
For instance, for
John 3:16 he'll post
For whosoever [all those that] believe...

THAT IS ADDING WORDS TO VERSES.
That IS NOT COMMENTARY.

Jn3:15,16 says everyone believing...

 

[Iconoclast]

No. This is not what is being discussed.
We're discussing a different God here.
The God of calvinism is NOT the same God all other Christian denominations worship.
This cannot be denied.

What evangelism?
Why would you care to evangelize when it's GOD that will be doing the choosing?
What does He need YOU for?

Our understanding is not deficient because this is one of the reasons Jesus had to come to us.
God tried different ways of making us understand Him in the OT.
Jesus is the ultimate and last revelation.
God did this so we COULD understand Him.
Imagine God coming to earth.
It's like one of us becoming an ant so we could warn them not to go over the edge.
Calvinism believe Jesus came here....FOR WHAT?
God has predestinated everything, even the ants going over the edge, so what's the use of sending Jesus?

Reformed theology really has to be thought out.
It could sound so nice. But it isn't.

See post 200 before you go.

Another attack the biblical God post due to a major lack of understanding.
Then suggest a caricature and ask people to defend it.

 

[Iconoclast]

Quote the part of the WCF or Institutes that teaches “God sends people to hell for no reason.”
I know that the Baptist Faith and Message and Heidelberg Confession say no such thing and I never read anything like that in my Bible, so I don’t believe that.

I had not read through this thread until now. This is horrible in that it is a non stop strawman fest.

 

[Iconoclast]

The gospel is the good news.
There is no good news in what reformed theology teaches.

I have often asked WHAT IS THE GOOD NEWS in the reformed gospel
but I have yet to receive an answer.

Because there is no answer.

The good news is that man is in a fallen state but has the opportunity to be saved and be one with God if he accepts the good news that Jesus died for every man on earth that is willing to believe and obey.

Perhaps someone on the thread would like to reply NOW to my question...
I doubt it.

It is not given to everyone to understand the truth. These baseless attacks are totally defective. Free and others have offered you help, but you show yourself to be a truth suppressor.

 

[Iconoclast]

I listed 5 verses that show God's grace can be resisted.

Big deal...we can show 50 verses that can show grace being resisted.
Religious people resist all the time.

If it can be resisted then the I in TULIP is incorrect.

the irresistible grace which is an inward call is never ultimately resisted. That is why it is known as effectual grace. No one who claims to study this topic for 10 years fails to grasp this.

 

[Iconoclast]

That's a pretty BIG sticking point Free.

Total Depravity - the inability to seek God - this is not biblical.
No Free Will - this is not biblical.
Perseverance of the Saints (OSAS) - this is not biblical
Limited Atonement - this is not biblical. Even some reformed theologians can't swallow this one.
Unconditional Election - this is not biblical. Our election is CONDITIONAL.

I think there might be more...

Your posts are non biblical

 

[Iconoclast]

Explain yourself to God. The mass is idol worship. They turn wine and bread into God and worship and you participate.

Transubstantiation: In many Christian churches, the doctrine holding that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, although their appearances remain the same.




1) You claimed R.C.Sprout believed in double predestination. I said prove it, you would not. I've read R.C. I know this is not true.
2) You claimed John MacArthur said God is the author of sin. I was so sure that was not true that I found a place on the internet where MacArthur said the opposite. I asked her for a reference ... radio silence
3) You claimed John Piper said God is the author of sin. I was so sure that was not true that I found a place on the internet where Piper said the opposite. I asked her for a reference ... radio silence
4) You said you get her info about Reformed Theology from the WCF and John Calvin and always gives quotes. You never gives quotes to my recollection. I specifically asked for them.... you won't give them yet you say you give them.
5) You said Reformed Theology teaches God is UNJUST, UNLOVING and UNMERCIFUL. Like almost NO Christian of earth believes that. You say you give quotes from the WCF and Calvin's Institutes, but when asked for a quote to support you won't do it showing you claim to give quotes is false
6) More recently I said you said the Muslims could go to heaven with no knowledge of Christ. You said I misrepresented you and then, I assume, went to to an ambassador and complained which resulted in my reprimand. I subsequently searched all the relevant posts and posted them thus vindicating myself by showing you were .... hmmm, what's an appropriate word.

Then, I suppose to cover your tracks you post:


Let's just say your credibility can't get much lower as demonstrated above. But, I will give you another chance. Give me a quote (you say you do that though you don't which goes along with the theme of this post) .. .give me a quote (author, book, page, relevant text) from the WCF or Calvin's institute (not some Satinist NUT JOB that agrees with you) showing from either source which you yourself stated as authoritative of Reform Theology, that God is UNJUST ... or God is UNMERCIFUL ... or God is unloving.... yeah, I know I expect radio silence or "I don't have to explain myself to you" or "some NUT JOB anti-reform guy you listen too". This is an excellent opportunity, assuming your statements have been truthful, to put me in my place and demonstrate your integrity and show me to be a dishonorable accuser.

THIS^^^^^

 

[Iconoclast]

We're still waiting. Keep your word. Quote the Institutes and/or the WCF to explain the following statements you made:

1) You claimed R.C. Sproul believed in double predestination. I said prove it, you would not. I've read R.C. I know this is not true. Provide a quote.
2) You claimed John MacArthur said God is the author of sin. I was so sure that was not true that I found a place on the internet where MacArthur said the opposite. I asked her for a reference ... radio silence ...Provide a quote.
3) You claimed John Piper said God is the author of sin. I was so sure that was not true that I found a place on the internet where Piper said the opposite. I asked her for a reference ... radio silence ... Provide a quote.
4) You said you get her info about Reformed Theology from the WCF and John Calvin's Institutes and always gives quotes. You never gives quotes to my recollection. I specifically asked for them.... you won't give them yet you say you give them.
5) You said Reformed Theology teaches God is UNJUST, UNLOVING and UNMERCIFUL. Like almost NO Christian of earth believes that. You say you give quotes from the WCF and Calvin's Institutes, but when asked for a quote to support you won't do it showing you claim to give quotes is false

Still waiting for you to keep your word. Validate your statements.

Aside: Probability of being raptured greater than Wondering keeping her word and validating her statements.

This Again^^^^^^^ truth matters,

 

[Iconoclast]

Could somebody please explain to me what Arminius believed?
Thanks.

You studied for ten years, you should know