The Flawed Reasoning Of Total Depravity

[SovereignGrace]

Except that in this passage, circumcision comes after repentance.

They return to the Lord, and THEN the Lord will circumcise their hearts. That's in this passage anyway.

Much love!

Remember, they were already in the covenant with Him. It’s like the child of God who goes off into sin. They eventually return to Him in repentance if they are truly saved.

 

[marks]

Remember, they were already in the covenant with Him. It’s like the child of God who goes off into sin. They eventually return to Him in repentance if they are truly saved.

I'm just commenting on the order of things in the passage. Dave brought it up, not me. I just happen to notice when I read the surrounding verses that it actually supports the same order of things.

The were in covenant relationship with God, but they were not all saved. Many who signed on to that covenant perished.

Being in the Mosaic Covenant with God is not like being God's spirit child.

Much love!
Mark

 

[SovereignGrace]

You are still arguing a Straw Man.

I am not saying I loved God before I was saved. I'm saying I believed the Bible to be true, that Jesus rose from the dead, and He is my rightful master. Loving came much later.

I'm not saying people love God, and then God saves them. I'm saying people receive God, and then God saves them. To you receiving Jesus is a work for which I think I'm supposed to be rewarded. For me receiving Jesus is surrender, the cessation of work.

You are claiming that I say we love first, I'm saying that God loves first, and we decide whether or not to yield to Him, to receive Him.

You've re-worded my assertion into something it's not, and then argued against that thing.

But for a real debate or discussion, you would need to address the actual thing I wrote.

Much love!
Mark

My apology for misunderstanding your post(s). That’s why I keep responding to your posts so I can better understand you.

However, you said ”and we decide whether or not to yield to Him, to receive Him.” That’s not what John 1:13 says.

He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.[John 1:11-13]

Verse 13 qualifies those who believe in His name, who receive Him, those He gave the right to become the children of God. Those who were born of Him, He gave them the right to become the children of God.

The new birth precedes anything they do. No new birth means no receiving Him, no right to become a child of God.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I'm just commenting on the order of things in the passage. Dave brought it up, not me. I just happen to notice when I read the surrounding verses that it actually supports the same order of things.

The were in covenant relationship with God, but they were not all saved. Many who signed on to that covenant perished.

Being in the Mosaic Covenant with God is not like being God's spirit child.

Much love!
Mark

I agree with you not everyone in the Mosaic covenant was saved.

However, everyone He did circumcise in their hearts were saved.

 

[Nancy]

That's not what I said.

I said He "ends up with" those who want to love Him, not that everyone automatically has a great love for God upon their salvation.


Much love!

We learn to love Him more and more; as we get to know Him on a deeper level. His characteristics, His ways that are oh so much higher than ours.
In Him,
nancy

 

[Dave L]

And is that what you think?

Deut. 30:1-6
1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee,

2 And shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul;
3 That then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee.
4 If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee:
5 And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.
6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Interestingly, this passage you've chosen that God will circumcise their hearts that they may live is preceeded by the people returning to God.

Much love!
Mark

They cannot turn to God in a saving way apart from faith which is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. You confuse the national repentance of the wicked with with salvation and they were two different things altogether.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

OK, no one seems to want to touch this one.

IF total depravity prevents any from choosing to receive Jesus and be reborn . . . If that is true, then what place has suffering?

It becomes yet more meaningless torment for the afflicted.

In the case of the person who will be born again, God declared that their lives have been predestined to be saved. So why make them suffer? If the salvation is a foregone conclusion, then why not simply tap their shoulders, and they are saved? And if the storyline is all written by God, why is it written with suffering? God can do anything He wants, and that's what He wants?

So God makes people to torture in this age, and in the ages to come. He made them that way, to do those things, and to suffer torment forever.

This is of course not what I believe.

I believe that suffering in us is to convince us of certain realities. That we need to be convinced. That God will go to amazing lengths to convince us of His love and faithfulness, or to do whatever needs to be done.

Let's dive foolishly into the hypothetical.

A man who, left to his own devices, would have been so self-absorbed, so successful, a self-made man, independant, no interest or will towards God.

But the same man, subjected to suffering, never achieves that life path, instead, becomes damaged, needy, unsuccessful, and ripe for salvation. And it is the time of his trouble, but he shall be saved through it, to borrow from Jeremiah.

Suffering has a reason, and that is to purge sin and perfect obedience. But that only applies if we are also making choices. Otherwise, the suffering is abritrary in an arbitrary life.

It could happen any way at all, if God chooses everything, and He's then chosen to make it hurt - bad - and for some, forever. And why? He could simply make those He wanted to live with Him, living with Him.

Of course I don't try to explain why God does what He does. But this is the God this doctrine paints, a God who delights in pain and suffering and death as the perfect performing of the full measure of His will.

A God who wants His creation to suffer, needlessly, in this life, and in death, and for eternity to come.

That is not the God of the Bible, who came into the world to free us from suffering and death.

I may suffer in the flesh, but because God has used all of these in my life to bring me to Himself, it's not without reason.

Much love!
mark

Your posts suggest God is not holy and just.
Your posts attempt to blame God for man's sin.
Your posts error because you attempt to replace scripture with your carnal thoughts
Those who like your posts do the same thing.

 

[marks]

My apology for misunderstanding your post(s). That’s why I keep responding to your posts so I can better understand you.

However, you said ”and we decide whether or not to yield to Him, to receive Him.” That’s not what John 1:13 says.

He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.[John 1:11-13]

Verse 13 qualifies those who believe in His name, who receive Him, those He gave the right to become the children of God. Those who were born of Him, He gave them the right to become the children of God.

The new birth precedes anything they do. No new birth means no receiving Him, no right to become a child of God.

These who receive Jesus are given the right to be born again, born of God.

Not . . .

Those who are born of God receive Jesus.

Giving the right to be born children of God comes before being born children of God.

I appreciate your desire to understand my pov, and I believe I understand yours, how you come to see it, and the arguments you offer sound very compelling at times.

I believe that I put words more according to thier context, and more according to their literal meanings. You may feel the same about me.

I think a greater difference in how you and I look at this question is, by who's nature do we understand these passages?

We can both point to Scriptures all day long that appear to support what we believe, as many have for a long long time. We both seem convinced by what we read. And while some (not you) may want to say I passionately hate God, I don't see that in you.

So let's say . . . we're both smart . . . we're both being honest in our approach to God and the Bible . . . we're both well studied . . . we're both reading the same Bible . . . differently . . . why?

I can't say why.

But I can give an observation.

Your pov centers on the nature of man - depraved, rejected, condemned, dead.

My pov centers on the nature of God - Creating, loving, forgiving, life-giving.

Much love!
Mark

 

[Dave L]

These who receive Jesus are given the right to be born again, born of God.

Not . . .

Those who are born of God receive Jesus.

Giving the right to be born children of God comes before being born children of God.

I appreciate your desire to understand my pov, and I believe I understand yours, how you come to see it, and the arguments you offer sound very compelling at times.

I believe that I put words more according to thier context, and more according to their literal meanings. You may feel the same about me.

I think a greater difference in how you and I look at this question is, by who's nature do we understand these passages?

We can both point to Scriptures all day long that appear to support what we believe, as many have for a long long time. We both seem convinced by what we read. And while some (not you) may want to say I passionately hate God, I don't see that in you.

So let's say . . . we're both smart . . . we're both being honest in our approach to God and the Bible . . . we're both well studied . . . we're both reading the same Bible . . . differently . . . why?

I can't say why.

But I can give an observation.

Your pov centers on the nature of man - depraved, rejected, condemned, dead.

My pov centers on the nature of God - Creating, loving, forgiving, life-giving.

Much love!
Mark

You've twisted this passage.

“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13)

 

[Nancy]

These who receive Jesus are given the right to be born again, born of God.

Not . . .

Those who are born of God receive Jesus.

Giving the right to be born children of God comes before being born children of God.

I appreciate your desire to understand my pov, and I believe I understand yours, how you come to see it, and the arguments you offer sound very compelling at times.

I believe that I put words more according to thier context, and more according to their literal meanings. You may feel the same about me.

I think a greater difference in how you and I look at this question is, by who's nature do we understand these passages?

We can both point to Scriptures all day long that appear to support what we believe, as many have for a long long time. We both seem convinced by what we read. And while some (not you) may want to say I passionately hate God, I don't see that in you.

So let's say . . . we're both smart . . . we're both being honest in our approach to God and the Bible . . . we're both well studied . . . we're both reading the same Bible . . . differently . . . why?

I can't say why.

But I can give an observation.

Your pov centers on the nature of man - depraved, rejected, condemned, dead.

My pov centers on the nature of God - Creating, loving, forgiving, life-giving.

Much love!
Mark

Very well and gracefully put Mark.

 

[Nancy]

You've twisted this passage.

“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13)

What about the previous verse
"12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:..."

 

[Dave L]

Very well and gracefully put Mark.

You have it exactly backwards. “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13)

 

[Dave L]

What about the previous verse
"12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:..."

They received him because they were those "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13)

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Try this on for size...I read this in my studying today...

Then King Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the forced labor, and all Israel stoned him to death. And King Rehoboam made haste to mount his chariot to flee to Jerusalem.[1 Kings 12:18]

By using their (il)logic, even newborn babes, those sucking on their mother’s breast, stoned Adoram. It says all Israel, and all means all, and that’s all that all means, so even suckling babes threw stones at Adoram.

Want to hear something more weird? I read the very same thing today.

 

[Nancy]

They received him because they were those "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13)

I think you need to read the verses in order...receiving first seems to be in order here, Imho.

 

[Dave L]

I think you need to read the verses in order...receiving first seems to be in order here, Imho.

Here's what it says; “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12–13)

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Your posts suggest God is not holy and just.
Your posts attempt to blame God for man's sin.
Your posts error because you attempt to replace scripture with your carnal thoughts
Those who like your posts do the same thing.

Yes and amen.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Here's what it says; “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12–13)

They have an aversion to giving God all the glory and a myopic propensity to see what they think they did. Always them, rarely any praise to God alone, if ever.

They will deny this by a statement, but their posts tell a different story. They've already painted their own portrait of their own gospel.

Scripture is clear the flesh can do nothing in eternal salvation, John 6:63; 1 Corinthians 1:26-31.

 

[marks]

You've twisted this passage.

“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13)

How? Specifically please.

Much love!

 

[Dave L]

How? Specifically please.

Much love!

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12–13)