Romans 1 disproves total depravity, inability

Yes, that's because All Scripture is Good for Doctrine. This means that let's say John 1:1 is good for the Doctrine of Matthew 1:18. If a Verse is Bad for the Doctrine of another Verse, the Doctrine is false and actually is Dogma instead. This is how Systematic Theology is supposed to work. You and I agree that Matt 1:18 and John 1:1 are Good for the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union; but Jews and Muslims don't. They have to say the Verses are invalid; I do not do that...

So when it comes to you and I disagreeing about Verses, something like that is going on; we're not allowing some Verses to be Good for Doctrine...
I don’t believe their are errors in God’s word just lack of spiritual maturity to see how scripture builds on and reinforces the truth of other scripture. The danger is forming doctrine by forcing scripture on other scripture when there is not enough spiritual maturity to understand that they are in harmony for the purpose God intended. Dismissing one part of the scripture to accept another portion of scripture leaves voids in understanding and growth I.e. quicksand, IMO. Isa 28:13 - But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept,precept upon precept; line-upon line, line upon line;here a little, and there a little;that they might go, and fall-backward, and be broken,and snared, and taken.
 
Yes, that's because All Scripture is Good for Doctrine. This means that let's say John 1:1 is good for the Doctrine of Matthew 1:18. If a Verse is Bad for the Doctrine of another Verse, the Doctrine is false and actually is Dogma instead. This is how Systematic Theology is supposed to work. You and I agree that Matt 1:18 and John 1:1 are Good for the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union; but Jews and Muslims don't. They have to say the Verses are invalid; I do not do that. Valid Verses mean Jesus is the GodMan...

So when it comes to you and I disagreeing about Verses, something like that is going on; we're not allowing some Verses to be Good for Doctrine...

yet.... the thing is....

different verses can be good for doctrine in different ways

depending on the level we are coming from ("we know in part")

+ how many pieces / parts of truth we

know yet ("but grow in grace and in knowledge")

don't miss the word grow in the above verse ....

also miss not the common sense (and what the Bible

mentions about knowledge -- "in part") -- that we don't

know like God /Jesus -- i.e. -- everything -- or with full

light / illumination.... that does / will / can come with

following God / Spirit in our lives day by week by year
 
I don’t believe their are errors in God’s word just lack of spiritual maturity to see how scripture builds on and reinforces the truth of other scripture. The danger is forming doctrine by forcing scripture on other scripture when there is not enough spiritual maturity to understand that they are in harmony for the purpose God intended. Dismissing one part of the scripture to accept another portion of scripture leaves voids in understanding and growth I.e. quicksand, IMO. Isa 28:13 - But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept,precept upon precept; line-upon line, line upon line;here a little, and there a little;that they might go, and fall-backward, and be broken,and snared, and taken.
Would you agree that you do not allow any other Verse to influence the Doctrine of Job's Righteousness? This in no way is a Systematic Theology. But no need to argue it...
 
Racking them up . . .

Joh 1:7 He came as a witness to testify about the Light, so that through him everyone might believe.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

It says "all [men]", not "every single individual".
You are only ASSUMING it means "every single individual".
Do you truly not understand the difference between what it ACTUALLY says, and how you ASSUME the meaning?

Joh 1:9 The true Light who gives light to every man was coming into the world.

This is about "giving light", not "saving".
Clearly you aren't sincerely interested in understanding Scripture, but only in "proof-texting" to support your false theology.

Btw, I would argue that even THIS does not mean "every single individual", as not everyone saw Christ, so not "every single individual" was given the "light".

Oops!

Eph 3:8-9 Though I am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, (9) and to illuminate for everyone the stewardship of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

Not only was this written to believers (not "every single individual"), but it doesn't SAY "every single individual". You are simply ASSUMING this meaning.

1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be offered for everyone

1Ti 2:3-4 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.

1Ti 2:5-6 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.

This is one single passage.
Again, this does NOT say, "every single individual".
There's no reason to ASSUME your meaning, rather than interpreting it to mean all CLASSES of people (eg. "kings, those in authority", which you conveniently DELETED from v. 2).

1Ti 4:10 To this end we labor and strive, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of everyone, and especially of those who believe.

So everyone is saved?
Sorry, but the context betrays your misinterpretation.
Since God is not he Saviour of the unsaved (by definition), "everyone" CANNOT mean "every single individual".

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to everyone.

So again, you believe in universal salvation?
That is the only possible interpretation given the above.
My advice to you is to get a better Bible:

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

"APPEARED" to "all men" (all classes of people), not "bringing salvation to all men".

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance.

Again, you are IGNORING the context. Why are you CONSTANTLY doing that?

2Pet. 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

This is NOT a "universal" passage. It is referring to a SPECIFIC group, "beloved" and "us-ward", not "every single individual" (and again, it does NOT say "every single individual".

God is not willing for any of "us-ward" or "beloved" to perish, and THEREFORE we won't. This is an AMAZING passage teaching preservation of the saints.

In point of fact, it is YOU who doesn't believe this verse. If God is not willing for anyone to perish, then no one would perish. If anyone perishes, then that means God was PERFECTLY willing for that to happen. The only way around this is if you deny God's omnipotence. Do you deny God's omnipotence?
 
Yes, that's because All Scripture is Good for Doctrine. This means that let's say John 1:1 is good for the Doctrine of Matthew 1:18. If a Verse is Bad for the Doctrine of another Verse, the Doctrine is false and actually is Dogma instead. This is how Systematic Theology is supposed to work. You and I agree that Matt 1:18 and John 1:1 are Good for the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union; but Jews and Muslims don't. They have to say the Verses are invalid; I do not do that. Valid Verses mean Jesus is the GodMan...

So when it comes to you and I disagreeing about Verses, something like that is going on; we're not allowing some Verses to be Good for Doctrine...
I think you are referring to our individual failures to derive perfect doctrine from Scripture
 
I don’t believe their are errors in God’s word just lack of spiritual maturity to see how scripture builds on and reinforces the truth of other scripture. The danger is forming doctrine by forcing scripture on other scripture when there is not enough spiritual maturity to understand that they are in harmony for the purpose God intended. Dismissing one part of the scripture to accept another portion of scripture leaves voids in understanding and growth I.e. quicksand, IMO. Isa 28:13 - But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept,precept upon precept; line-upon line, line upon line;here a little, and there a little;that they might go, and fall-backward, and be broken,and snared, and taken.
I think along the same lines, but what we often see is that people buy into doctrines, then go about shoehorning verses into the shoes of their doctrine.
 
It is impossible to "look at the word for what it exactly says", without interpretation.



Wrong again.
Systematic theology is about relating all the verses to each other.
You argue just for the sake of arguing with little or no understanding of the posts you respond to. That makes it difficult to have an intellectual conversation with you.
 
I think you are referring to our individual failures to derive perfect doctrine from Scripture
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...
 
Last edited:
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 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...

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...
What parameters are there in whosoever will ?
 
Nope, if the invitation was only for the willing why would Jesus mention in John 3 those that rejected the invitation ?
That's fine, but when you use John 3 here, that's a Systematic Theology; right? Did you notice what you just did while you were doing it? I'm all for doing what you just did Brother ;) I would just ask you to admit that you import a Universal Invitation to Rev 22:17, instead of exporting a Universal Invitation from Rev 22:17...

Okay?

Then we can start trying to prove our points instead of assuming them...

@His clay
 
Last edited:
That's fine, but when you use John 3 here, that's a Systematic Theology; right? Did you notice what you just did while you were doing it? I'm all for doing what you just did Brother ;) I would just ask you to admit that you import a Universal Invitation to Rev 22:17, instead of exporting a Universal Invitation from Rev 22;17...

Okay?

Then we can start trying to prove our points instead of assuming them...
The verse says:
Unchecked Copy Box
Rev 22:17 - And the Spiritand the bride say, Come. Andlet him that heareth say,Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Both John 3:16 and Revelation 22:17 have the same message. I didn’t have to import anything from one to the other. I didn’t assume anything I just believe what they say.
 
The verse says:
Unchecked Copy Box
Rev 22:17 - And the Spiritand the bride say, Come. Andlet him that heareth say,Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Both John 3:16 and Revelation 22:17 have the same message. I didn’t have to import anything from one to the other. I didn’t assume anything I just believe what they say.
Amen...

Since you whole-heartedly agree with both, don't you then have a Systematic which says the Whosoever are the Willing? And the Thirsty?

@His clay
 
Amen...

Since you whole-heartedly agree with both, don't you then have a Systematic which says the Whosoever are the Willing? And the Thirsty?

@His clay
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.
 
Back
Top