Romans 1 disproves total depravity, inability

Christian

Well-known member
The really sad thing is, I almost think you actually believe this.

And if I went to the work of digging up old posts, you'd probably still believe it.

Besides that my post would get deleted merely for showing up what C's have been doing, like a hundred times before.

But let's make a fantasy world were all the Arminians are terrible monsters persecuting the poor innocent Calvinists some more.
Matt 5:11
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me
 

HealTheLand

Active member
But to be more specific the doctrines of grace- who has the truth arminians or calvinists or could it really be somewhere in the middle ?

or could there be another possibility- both groups are wrong ?

For example man is surely depraved but I don't think totally as in no ability- total inability. I think Jesus made that clear to the unregenerate in the gospels talking about their faith that made them well and healed them. Also children at a young age can obey their parents without the spirit in them. Train up a child in the ways of the Lord principle at work.

but how do we know they don't have the spirit in them? or that they don't have some and then lose it over time. children, being much different than adults often ... adults naturally want to protect them -- keep them 'children', let them be children -- for as long as possible. also we are told to train up a child in the way that he should go and he will not depart from it. if all we have to do is train a child in good behavior and thinking, and then he will not depart, this would in one sense, or could mean for some that -- they are raised Christian (or of spiritual thinking) and are -- already -- of spiritual thinking -- as a child. children being more innocent in nature and more able to learn and grow (not stuck in pre-formed thinking) ... would / could stay innocent, or more innocent -- all their lives -- if trained to be (by either God ... or man -- many are called, few are chosen ??).
 

HealTheLand

Active member
God is Truth; and he doesn't change lest we be destroyed. This is what's wrong with change. If 'WE' change, we change the Truth; and it is destroyed...

we should not really, of necessity compare our hold / or understanding of truth -- with God's ... exactly (or at all - entirely - maybe)?

maybe you didn't mean to say it this way?, but this could bring out a really really good point , if we think about it ... so awesomely said. (y)
 

HealTheLand

Active member
He acted exactly the same, just for the other side... we can pull up old quotes to prove it, and show how Calvinists actually encouraged the exact same behavior when it was for Calvinism.

a psychological thing then? projections and rooting for one's side ... difficult to avoid, but can begin to be observed if one does believe in working - on One's - Self -- Love of God, Love of Neighbor ...

as One's Self. a concept which has so much to it that could be talked about probably -- which might get left out of many dry theological discussions.
 

Christian

Well-known member
Calvinism is truth.
We know this for many reasons:

1) When Christians finally had the Bible and studied it, this is the doctrine the Bible taught;
2) Calvinists can (and do) defend their theology from Scripture;
3) Arminiains have to resort to
.... a) rationalization;
.... b) assumption;
.... c) personal attack;
.... d) appeal to silence;
.... e) appeal to "argumentum ad populum".
I can make the same exact assumptions/arguments as you below. :)

Arminianism is truth.
We know this for many reasons:

1) When Christians finally had the Bible and studied it, this is the doctrine the Bible taught;
2) Arminians can (and do) defend their theology from Scripture;
3) Calvinists have to resort to
.... a) rationalization;
.... b) assumption;
.... c) personal attack;
.... d) appeal to silence;
.... e) appeal to "argumentum ad populum".


hope this helps !!!
 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
I can make the same exact assumptions/arguments as you below. :)

Arminianism is truth.
We know this for many reasons:

1) When Christians finally had the Bible and studied it, this is the doctrine the Bible taught;
2) Arminians can (and do) defend their theology from Scripture;
3) Calvinists have to resort to
.... a) rationalization;
.... b) assumption;
.... c) personal attack;
.... d) appeal to silence;
.... e) appeal to "argumentum ad populum".


hope this helps !!!
1) I have read and studied the Bible and have actually converted to Reformed theology.

2)Calvinist can and do defend their theology from scripture.

3) Arminians/ Provisionist resort to the same.
 

Rockson

Well-known member
The really sad thing is, I almost think you actually believe this.

And if I went to the work of digging up old posts, you'd probably still believe it.

Besides that my post would get deleted merely for showing up what C's have been doing, like a hundred times before.
LOL! LOL!

So if this be the case what you're talking about is like a handicap system used in golf.

That's defined as--->Still, perhaps the most important benefit of handicap systems is that they try to level the grounds for golfers with different skill levels. So you can compete against better players but still have a chance to win thanks to the handicapping system, weaker players are sometimes able to reduce strokes from their scores on certain holes.

Perhaps I'm biased but I do believe the Calvinists arguments ARE weaker. Are they being given a handicap? Well I'd surely hope not as I like to believe everyone is credible. We can try to hope they are. :)
 

Christian

Well-known member
LOL! LOL!

So if this be the case what you're talking about is like a handicap system used in golf.

That's defined as--->Still, perhaps the most important benefit of handicap systems is that they try to level the grounds for golfers with different skill levels. So you can compete against better players but still have a chance to win thanks to the handicapping system, weaker players are sometimes able to reduce strokes from their scores on certain holes.

Perhaps I'm biased but I do believe the Calvinists arguments ARE weaker. Are they being given a handicap? Well I'd surely hope not as I like to believe everyone is credible. We can try to hope they are. :)
Great analogy as I’m an avid golfer 🏌️‍♀️ :)
 

Christian

Well-known member
What are you saying Reverend? Are you saying Paul the Apostle should never have changed once the church's persecutor to being one of it's best blessings?
How many times in the gospels did we see Jesus over and over again correct the disciples understanding :)

Not until they were born again and submitted to Christ completely did they understand His teachings .
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
What are you saying Reverend? Are you saying Paul the Apostle should never have changed once the church's persecutor to being one of it's best blessings?
No. I'm saying that if we change, but the Truth does not change; we change the Truth Subjectively, not Objectively...

Saul of Tarsus was wrong; correct?
 
Last edited:

Christian

Well-known member
No. I'm saying that if we change, but the Truth does not change; we change the Truth Subjectively, not Objectively...

Saul of Tarsus was wrong; correct?
So is it subjective truth with Arminian and Calvinist theology since Calvinists convert to Arminianism and Arminians convert to Calvinism ?
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
So is it subjective truth with Arminian and Calvinist theology since Calvinists convert to Arminianism and Arminians convert to Calvinism ?
No; God is Truth, and his Word is Truth...

My original point was that dizerner could be right on Penal Substitutionary Atonement, but disagree with us whenever it came to certain points of Calvinism. I should have been more clear and said that we can change the Truth, but only Subjectively. The Truth is carved in stone...

We can disagree with PSA and ask if it is Biblical or not, but my point was that people can agree on Truth and come to it Logically; while still disagreeing on other points. I should have said that I thought he was thinking very well regarding PSA, but was thinking differently whenever it comes to disagreeing with Calvinism. I think he was thinking Fundamentally regarding PSA, but I don't think he was thinking Fundamentally about Calvinism; the Truth of God has not changed, but his thinking changed...

For instance, the Grace of God always prevenes the Faith of Man. Often I hear at CARM it argued as if the faith a Man prevenes the Grace of God. When people are pressed on this, they will back off for a little while; but start again when they think you are not looking...
 
Last edited:

Christian

Well-known member
No; God is Truth, and his Word is Truth...

My original point was that dizerner could be right on Penal Substitutionary Atonement, but disagree with us whenever it came to certain points of Calvinism. I should have been more clear and said that we can change the Truth, but only Subjectively. The Truth is carved in stone...

We can disagree with PSA and ask if it is Biblical or not, but my point was that people can agree on Truth and come to it Logically; while still disagreeing on other points. I should have said that I thought he was thinking very well regarding PSA, but is thinking differently whenever it comes to disagreeing with Calvinism. I think he was thinking Fundamentally regarding PSA, but I don't think he was thinking Fundamentally about Calvinism; the Truth of God has not changed, but his thinking changed...

For instance, the Grace of God always prevenes the Faith of Man. Often hear at CARM it argued as if the faith a Man prevenes the Grace of God. When people are pressed on this, they will back off for a little while; but start again when they think you are not looking...
Thanks for clarifying but I think your above comments and observations would prove both of your views are subjective . And I agree truth is objective . And PSA did not exist until the reformation period when it was established as a doctrine .
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Thanks for clarifying but I think your above comments and observations would prove both of your views are subjective . And I agree truth is objective . And PSA did not exist until the reformation period when it was established as a doctrine .
As usual, it can be put to the test...

For instance, we can start with agreeing that God is Truth and his Word is Truth. This is Objective Truth, right?
 

Christian

Well-known member
As usual, it can be put to the test...

For instance, we can start with agreeing that God is Truth and his Word is Truth. This is Objective Truth, right?
100% true . Theology is subjective which is why there are so many different branches , denominations and seminaries that are based upon their subjective theologies .

The sooner both sides can admit this is true the more fruitful/ edifying the discussions will become .

Until that happens we will see nothing but the usual divisions , divisiveness etc …
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
100% true . Theology is subjective which is why there are so many different branches , denominations and seminaries that are based upon their subjective theologies .
Fair enough...

I would just leave by saying the Doctrine of the Hypostasic Union is the Objective Truth; so Theology is Objective Truth too...

All revealed Truth can be proven; if you want to do it...

If I were the man you are meeting with, to prove Calvinism wrong; it would be fun. We would talk about Objectivity and Subjectivity. We would find that the other side, is also my side; so I wouldn't need to change...
 
Last edited:

Christian

Well-known member
Fair enough...

I would just leave by saying the Doctrine of the Hypostasic Union is the Objective Truth; so Theology is Objective Truth too...

All revealed Truth can be proven; if you want to do it...
So Arminianism can be proven as truth , would you agree ?

And yes the Plural God is absolutely true as is the 2 natures in Christ . The same with the bodily Resurrection/ Ascension and 2nd coming of Christ , the basics of the gospel and salvation by grace through faith . Theses are absolute truths ( there are others ) both sides hold in common as well along with all evangelicals and Christendom .
 

HealTheLand

Active member
Fair enough...

I would just leave by saying the Doctrine of the Hypostasic Union is the Objective Truth; so Theology is Objective Truth too...

All revealed Truth can be proven; if you want to do it...

If I were the man you are meeting with, to prove Calvinism wrong; it would be fun. We would talk about Objectivity and Subjectivity. We would find that the other side, is also my side; so I wouldn't need to change...

but eventually you might arrive at a level of understanding or way of that begins to make it difficult more and more to hold on to the name. not wanting to mislead or cause any to falter or become depressed with life, ect., ect. due to the name ... which isn't -- Christ.

in Christ is the hope. but other things -- of man, brought about by, thought up by -- in ways, will not always bring hope or healing to all others (even the name _ _ _ _ _ / ian /, for some, and so they will follow God / Spirit in / from another / different Religion, or no religion really, but still seek / or be interested / follow spirit / Spirit).
 
Last edited:

Christian

Well-known member
Fair enough...

I would just leave by saying the Doctrine of the Hypostasic Union is the Objective Truth; so Theology is Objective Truth too...

All revealed Truth can be proven; if you want to do it...

If I were the man you are meeting with, to prove Calvinism wrong; it would be fun. We would talk about Objectivity and Subjectivity. We would find that the other side, is also my side; so I wouldn't need to change...
We are not meeting to prove Calvinism right or wrong but discipleship and counting the cost .

We will be discussing Gods attributes though pre and post creation :)
 
Top