Romans 1 disproves total depravity, inability

Alexander the adequate

Well-known member
That's right, we fail at it; but as a Fundamentalist, I would say we also succeed at it. For instance, we succeed with the Doctrine of the Trinity because of itself; All Scripture culminates and delivers us a perfect Doctrine. I'm sure you agree there are some unassailable Doctrines; not because you and I say so, but because All Scripture is Good for Doctrine. It's the Bible's System, not Man's system...

So there is room for my point about Revelation 22:17 to be accurate. Your Systematic says there are no restrictions on the invitation, but mine does; this can be put to the test. The Verse itself puts parameters on who is being Called...
In the verse there are two "requirements" though I don't think the intention of the verse is to make limits but to express the expanse of God's generosity.
The two requirements are "who is thirsty" and "who wishes"
It would be sound to say that all humans are thirsty, even if they do not know it. because all are lacking God.
I know Calvinists take "who wishes" and turn that into "those whom God has inspired to want Him" but the standard understanding of that phrase in English is that if you want it, come and get it. Aka universal offer.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I simply believe what both verses say both verses have the same message of God offering forgiveness and grace to whosoever will believe and place their faith in the finished work of Jesus. No, the whosoever means all have been invited,but not all will believe, place their faith in Jesus, repent, and follow Him.The whosoever have been invited that does not mean they will believe or act on the invitation.
Yes, the General Call is Universal. We're about to get to the point we'll be repeating our Arguments; and I don't do that. It's why I'll stop from time-to-time like I did earlier. Every Calvinist believes in the General Call to the Willing and to the Unwilling; and they believe in the Effectual Call of the Spirit and the Bride in unison to the Willing only...

So I'll break for a while...
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
In the verse there are two "requirements" though I don't think the intention of the verse is to make limits but to express the expanse of God's generosity.
The two requirements are "who is thirsty" and "who wishes"
It would be sound to say that all humans are thirsty, even if they do not know it. because all are lacking God.
I know Calvinists take "who wishes" and turn that into "those whom God has inspired to want Him" but the standard understanding of that phrase in English is that if you want it, come and get it. Aka universal offer.
Yes, the General Call is Universal...

But thanks for acknowledging the requirements or as I would say the Parameters listed in the Verse...
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
In the verse there are two "requirements" though I don't think the intention of the verse is to make limits but to express the expanse of God's generosity.

You would say that, being an Arminian.

The two requirements are "who is thirsty" and "who wishes"

Where does the Bible label them as "requirements"?
That seems to be an ASSUMPTION on your part.
And it would contradict Scripture, as it denies all the "not by works" passages.

It would be sound to say that all humans are thirsty, even if they do not know it. because all are lacking God.

No, it would not.
Otherwise, why say, "let him who is thirsty, come", instead of simply, "let EVERYONE come"?
You are trying to change Scripture because it doesn't teach what you believe.

I know Calvinists take "who wishes" and turn that into "those whom God has inspired to want Him"

Taking ALL of Scripture into account (instead of IGNORING it, as you do) compels us to take it that way.

but the standard understanding of that phrase in English is that if you want it, come and get it. Aka universal offer.

And as usual, you have no Scripture to support your false claim.
 

Alexander the adequate

Well-known member
You would say that, being an Arminian.



Where does the Bible label them as "requirements"?
That seems to be an ASSUMPTION on your part.
And it would contradict Scripture, as it denies all the "not by works" passages.



No, it would not.
Otherwise, why say, "let him who is thirsty, come", instead of simply, "let EVERYONE come"?
You are trying to change Scripture because it doesn't teach what you believe.



Taking ALL of Scripture into account (instead of IGNORING it, as you do) compels us to take it that way.



And as usual, you have no Scripture to support your false claim.
"requirement" was ReverendRV's word, i repeated it, but of course you had nothing to say when he used the word
 

Exeter

Active member
So again, you believe in universal salvation?
That is the only possible interpretation given the above
Spare me ad hom fallacy and strawman argument. I don't indulge them.

The shed blood of Christ is sufficient to redeem all sinners should all sinners be willing to trust Christ as their Saviour.

The shed blood of Christ is efficient to redeem only those sinners willing to trust Christ as their Saviour.

Basic Biblical Theology.
 
G

guest1

Guest
Biblical Theology refutes that assumption in so many ways:

Faith in the shed blood of Christ is the conduit through which God's grace is made available to the sinner.

1Ti 2:1-6
1 First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be offered for everyone—
2 for kings and all those in authority—so that we may lead tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and dignity.
3 This is good and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all—the testimony that was given at just the right time.

1 Cor 12:1-3

1 Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed.
2 You know that when you were pagans, you were influenced and led astray to mute idols.
3 Therefore I inform you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

1Jn 4:1-3
1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God. For many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and which is already in the world at this time.

And a whole lot more . . .
Amen refuting the opposition is easy brother !!!
 
G

guest1

Guest
Yes, the General Call is Universal. We're about to get to the point we'll be repeating our Arguments; and I don't do that. It's why I'll stop from time-to-time like I did earlier. Every Calvinist believes in the General Call to the Willing and to the Unwilling; and they believe in the Effectual Call of the Spirit and the Bride in unison to the Willing only...

So I'll break for a while...
It’s not a real call though in Calvinist since that would deny the I in tulip . Those whom God calls come irresistibly . It’s more Calvinism double talk .

next
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
It’s not a real call though in Calvinist since that would deny the I in tulip . Those whom God calls come irresistibly . It’s more Calvinism double talk .

next
Why is it Double Talk? Jesus is 'Man and God' is not Double Talk, but a Jew will tell you it is. You and I can break it down; there is a General Call that equally goes to the Willing and the Unwilling, right? You agreeing with this is not Calvinism, correct? Perhaps we could say it's a Baptist belief; thus maybe it's Special Pleading to limit it to Calvinism. Also, isn't it true that Professor Flowers believes the only Grace we need is the Spirit and the Gospel? So don't you believe in the Effectual Call of the Spirit and the Bride in unison to the Willing only? If not, don't you agree with the Effectual Call of Christ to the Murderous Saul of Tarsus on the Road to Damascus?

If I joined your Forum, would you call my former Post "Double Talk" there; or do you only call it Double Talk here? If you behave differently there, why do you behave differently here? If you behave the same everywhere you Post, I don't think I want to join your Forum...

Surely we would have fun in your Sunday School Class in front of your Peers...
 
G

guest1

Guest
Why is it Double Talk? Jesus is 'Man and God' is not Double Talk, but a Jew will tell you it is. You and I can break it down; there is a General Call that equally goes to the Willing and the Unwilling, right? You agreeing with this is not Calvinism, correct? Perhaps we could say it's a Baptist belief; thus maybe it's Special Pleading to limit it to Calvinism. Also, isn't it true that Professor Flowers believes the only Grace we need is the Spirit and the Gospel? So don't you believe in the Effectual Call of the Spirit and the Bride in unison to the Willing only? If not, don't you agree with the Effectual Call of Christ to the Murderous Saul of Tarsus on the Road to Damascus?

If I joined your Forum, would you call my former Post "Double Talk" there; or do you only call it Double Talk here? If you behave differently there, why do you behave differently here? If you behave the same everywhere you Post, I don't think I want to join your Forum...

Surely we would have fun in your Sunday School Class in front of your Peers...
Completely deflected from the issue of the I in tulip .
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Top