So what He took from Mary was evil? Nothing good there, so what did He take from her?

Quote:

---

Actually what is fascinating here is that in spite of me explicity denying this point over and over - probably ten times in this thread alone - you keep bringing it up. Please quote me, or drop it. The point being - on our own. What man is on his own? What man exists apart from God?

---

Hopefully this is you being ironical right? Because you've accused me of double predestination on this thread, when you darn well know I've argued against it in multiple threads and on these posts.

If you don't want people to constantly take things the way you don't necessarily mean, maybe realize you owe the same respect to others.

Quote:

---

Because He gives grace to men. We have the good within us given to us by God. We have free will given to us by God.

---

So then cooperation is only possible because of God? So "synergism" really boils down to God cooperating with Himself?

Quote:

---

There's that "on our own" phrase again... Either everyone has grace, or God only gives grace to some. I think you reject limited atonement, but I'm not sure. So who is on their own?

---

See my response to ramblin_ag

Quote:

---

You say that all are created to be good, but only some are good, and those are good only because of God.

What is the difference between the good and the bad? Does God choose to not make some good? How do you explain this, if you affirm the lack of free will, without suggesting that some are made for condemnation?

---

Where did I affirm a lack of free will outside of our salvation?

When asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus said the following:

Matthew 22:
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

How can anything we do be good if they aren't done in unison with these commandments?

Zobel said:

---

So what He took from Mary was evil? Nothing good there, so what did He take from her?

---

He took her sins away.

I really don't understand the vitriol. I haven't accused anyone of anything. I haven't been disrespectful. I've asked questions, in as far as I can tell what is a normal, polite way. If I'm misunderstanding, feel free to say what you disagree with and why. If my questions bother you, tell me and I will stop asking them. If it's that onerous to have a discussion, no one is obligating you to continue. This isn't a fight - at least not on my end.

Quote:

---

So then cooperation is only possible because of God? So "synergism" really boils down to God cooperating with Himself?

---

*Everything* is possible only because of God, so I'm not sure we get much information from that chain of thought. God really made men free, in His image and likeness. This is a gift, and it originates in God - as does our very existence. Is what you said as true as saying that God interacting with humans is Him interacting with Himself? In a way...I suppose. But not in a way that gains us insight.

Quote:

---

Where did I affirm a lack of free will outside of our salvation?

---

I mean, you said people don't have any choice. Again, you said a tree (meaning a person, by way of metaphor) has no choice, and does as it was created to do. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your response, but this does not sound like free will to me. I've asked you to clarify a couple of times, and you haven't that I can see.

This is the third time I'll ask, and I suppose I won't ask again if you don't want me to. Again, not being combative, I am curious to what you think. I genuinely, sincerely want to know what you think about this. Since you objected to how I phrased the question before, I'll rephrase it in line with what you said earlier.

What is the difference between good and bad human beings (trees)? If it is God, and God alone, that makes a good tree Good, does God choose to not make some good? How do you explain this, if you affirm the lack of choice, without suggesting that some are made for condemnation?

Quote:

---

He took her sins away.

---

Interesting! So this is a variant on the Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception then? Some kind of special case, that in order to have a body free of sin Mary herself was made sinless?

I think this makes more trouble than it solves, personally.

Mainly, I mean - if God can do that, why didn't He just do that for everyone? Was dying and resurrection not strictly necessary?

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

He took her sins away.

---

Interesting! So this is a variant on the Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception then? Some kind of special case, that in order to have a body free of sin Mary herself was made sinless?

I think this makes more trouble than it solves, personally.

Mainly, I mean - if God can do that, why didn't He just do that for everyone? Was dying and resurrection not strictly necessary?

---

No, it doesn't. She was born in to sin like the rest of us. Her sins were forgiven at the cross, like the rest of us.

Zobel said:

---

I'm confused. At the cross was after He was incarnate. When He took flesh from her, she was in her sins you say. So nothing good in her, wholly corrupt. Back to the original question, then - if there was noting good from where did He take His humanity?

---

Great point and I had never thought of it that way.

To get back to the op, from my Bible reading, whenever Paul or whomever is asked what must one do to be saved, it always requires a human action. Believe, repent, be baptized, etc.

It seems to me that God's grace is offered freely but a decision and response must be made via free will.

Y'all carryon though as this is interesting and informative.

Pierow said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

He took her sins away.

---

Interesting! So this is a variant on the Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception then? Some kind of special case, that in order to have a body free of sin Mary herself was made sinless?

I think this makes more trouble than it solves, personally.

Mainly, I mean - if God can do that, why didn't He just do that for everyone? Was dying and resurrection not strictly necessary?

---

No, it doesn't. She was born in to sin like the rest of us. Her sins were forgiven at the cross, like the rest of us.

---

So forgive me, but I am confused. As a Calvinist, I assume by "us" you mean the elect? Thanks.

AgLiving06 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

So do we have free will to choose God on our own? No. If we've not heard the Word of God, we can't know what is good or evil.

---

Christ is the Word of God, and everyone has experienced him. The world was made with him and through him, so every part of existence knows and is known by him. All people, even people who haven't heard the Gospel, have some sense (if incomplete) of love, goodness, mercy, justice, and self-sacrifice. As Paul says, some without the Law act as though they are under the Law despite never having known the Law (the Law being Hebrew shorthand for right/wrong and good/evil), and therefore no one has any excuse on the day of judgement.

---

I don't think this works.

Sure, even non-christians can use philosophy to deduce that there was a creator. I believe that Aristotle did this (or maybe it was Plato). You might even claim in some capacity that this creator must have been good given all that we have. You might also claim he's evil because of all the death and problems in this world.

Which then leads to your second part. As Paul says, we all have some sense of the Law. We can come to an understanding that there are universal moral laws.

However, the question is, from those point can we come to the realization that we need the Gospel on our own? By Gospel I mean the free gift of Salvation from God that comes through the death and resurrection of Jesus so that all who believe will not die, but live in Christ?

I don't think you'll be able to build a bridge from the first two points to the third without someone introducing the Word of God to them.

I also want to point out the same thing I pointed out to Zobel. When I say good, I don't mean good in the sense of driving the speed limit is simply good, but I mean to say that our motivation for why we drive the speed limit is correct. People can and do good things in a moral sense for all the wrong reasons.

For example, if I turn in a coworker for stealing from the company, it certainly looks like I'm doing good right? What if I did that because I wanted that persons job and wanted that person out of the way? What if I'm stealing too and was mad that person took all the good stuff. Simply having something look good externally doesn't mean internally a person isn't corrupt.

---

I agree with you on some of this? We all have an understanding of universal moral laws. It is certainly shaded by culture, and nowhere is it as explicit as in The Law, but it's definitely there. So where does this universal understanding come from? If God is the source of all goodness and the one who instructs us on morality, then on some level all people must be aware of God.

I diverge a bit on the rest of your thought. Every man knows he is not perfect. You could maybe argue narcissists and psychopaths, but narcissists act that way to cover deep insecurities and psychopaths know they are bad and just don't care. You don't need anyone to come along and teach you that.

Now what does it mean to "need" the Gospel? The point of the Gospel is not to save people. Christ, his crucifixion and his resurrection is what saves people. The Gospel is the message to people that they can be saved and have eternal life. That message gives hope. You only need to read Ecclesiastes or Nietzsche to see what happens without the hope of eternity. Everything becomes meaningless like dust in the wind. So the Gospel is a blessing to mankind as the Good News that there is a supreme God, He does love us, and He gives us the chance for eternal life.

Now even those ignorant of the Gospel can do good deeds with good intentions. That is hardly unique to Christianity. We are all made in the image of God after all. Like we said above, all men have some limited innate understanding of universal morality. Bringing the Gospel to these people doesn't suddenly give them a previously nonexistent ability to be good, it gives them hope and assurances that goodness is valuable and cherished by the absolute God. There is a popular saying that "No good deed goes unpunished". Can you imagine trying to be good your entire life with nothing to show for it, thinking you are going to die, your effort and sacrifice was pointless, and no one will remember you in a decade? Now someone brings you the Gospel and you learn that you have wanted to be good your whole life because you are trying to draw close to God? And learning that God loves you, wants you to sacrifice for goodness, and wants you to have eternal life? It's a complete 180 to take a good person, or at least a person who wants to be good, and give them hope and purpose.

I'd maybe say, the gospel is the message of the victory of Christ Jesus over all of His enemies: the demonic powers who enslaved people, sin, and death; and an announcement of His appearing to culminate that victory in the day of judgment. Its an announcement. The message brings both hope and fear. That's why when the message is preached the question is always some form of (paraphrasing) - crap, what do I need to do so that when He comes I'm on the right side of things?

(Not disagreeing with you, its a great post. Just expanding "gospel" as euangelia - the announcement of the victory of Christ)

I think we are more or less in agreement.

Quote:

---

I diverge a bit on the rest of your thought. Every man knows he is not perfect. You could maybe argue narcissists and psychopaths, but narcissists act that way to cover deep insecurities and psychopaths know they are bad and just don't care. You don't need anyone to come along and teach you that.

---

Isn't this where the problem lies though?

A person may realize he isn't perfect. He probably even has some standard that he's created to deem people "better" or "worse" than him. Does this standard matter though?

The standard that God gives is to perfectly carry out the Law and in this standard, there is no exception or "good enough." It's perfection or failure. That's why in a lot of ways, the law is unforgiving. It doesn't offer help or support, it just gives us a standard and says "meet it" even when it's not possible.

Quote:

---

Now what does it mean to "need" the Gospel? The point of the Gospel is not to save people. Christ, his crucifixion and his resurrection is what saves people. The Gospel is the message to people that they can be saved and have eternal life. That message gives hope. You only need to read Ecclesiastes or Nietzsche to see what happens without the hope of eternity. Everything becomes meaningless like dust in the wind. So the Gospel is a blessing to mankind as the Good News that there is a supreme God, He does love us, and He gives us the chance for eternal life.

---

Fair, I used the short hand of saved, but the offer of God is truly eternal life with Him.

But then you diverted back to the Law and proved my point. Without the Gospel, there's no hope, especially when you realize you cannot meet the standards of the Law.

Quote:

---

Can you imagine trying to be good your entire life with nothing to show for it, thinking you are going to die, your effort and sacrifice was pointless, and no one will remember you in a decade? Now someone brings you the Gospel and you learn that you have wanted to be good your whole life because you are trying to draw close to God? And learning that God loves you, wants you to sacrifice for goodness, and wants you to have eternal life? It's a complete 180 to take a good person, or at least a person who wants to be good, and give them hope and purpose.

---

That's the point I'm making. Until you hear the Gospel, the really is no hope. The Law never offers hope.

But I think it's even more. The person doesn't just want to be good, he finally understands what it truly means to be good. He can finally understand that nothing he's done was based on his own "goodness" but the goodness of God.

Quote:

---

I really don't understand the vitriol. I haven't accused anyone of anything. I haven't been disrespectful. I've asked questions, in as far as I can tell what is a normal, polite way. If I'm misunderstanding, feel free to say what you disagree with and why. If my questions bother you, tell me and I will stop asking them. If it's that onerous to have a discussion, no one is obligating you to continue. This isn't a fight - at least not on my end.

---

I guess the irony is lost on you. Oh well.

Quote:

---

*Everything* is possible only because of God, so I'm not sure we get much information from that chain of thought. God really made men free, in His image and likeness. This is a gift, and it originates in God - as does our very existence. Is what you said as true as saying that God interacting with humans is Him interacting with Himself? In a way...I suppose. But not in a way that gains us insight.

---

You didn't answer the question.

Quote:

---

I mean, you said people don't have any choice. Again, you said a tree (meaning a person, by way of metaphor) has no choice, and does as it was created to do. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your response, but this does not sound like free will to me. I've asked you to clarify a couple of times, and you haven't that I can see.

---

Yes...a fruit tree will create fruit...Do you disagree?

Or can a fruit tree create vegetables or cars or computers? I guess if you answer no, as I would, then sure we have a lack of free will under your definition?

But even then, you need to find a bridge that says the works of the tree lead to our salvation. I guess you could take the Pelagian bridge, but that's going to cause a few other issues.

The irony is absolutely lost on me. I have no idea what you're talking about - I'm sorry.

Quote:

---

You didn't answer the question.

---

What was the question? Is synergism God cooperating with Himself because free will comes from God? Yes, in the sense that all of creation comes from Him, is sourced in Him. But, the difference is that He created beings in His image and likeness, which means they are in some way like Him - to work with Him in His creation. This is man.

If we're going to talk about God cooperating with Himself, I think monergism suffers more greatly because there is no free will to cooperate with. There's just... things happening, with no variability or change or even personhood (is a deterministic creation a person?). It's akin to a kid playing with action figures in a sandbox.

Quote:

---

Yes...a fruit tree will create fruit...Do you disagree?

---

Now come on. It's your metaphor, I'm trying to use it. The question isn't whether a fruit tree will create fruit or cars, it is whether it will yield fruit or not, or yield good fruit or bad fruit. The bad branches or trees aren't thrown into the fire because they make vegetables, they're thrown into the fire because they don't yield anything or they don't yield good fruit (Matthew 3:10, 7:18-19, Luke 13:7, John 15:2-6).

I'll ask once more but really, at this point it seems you are just disinterested in considering the question.

What is the difference between good and bad human beings (the trees in your analogy)? If it is God, and God alone, that makes a good tree Good, does God choose to not make some good? How do you explain this, if you affirm the lack of choice, without suggesting that some are made for condemnation?

Quote:

---

What was the question? Is synergism God cooperating with Himself because free will comes from God? Yes, in the sense that all of creation comes from Him, is sourced in Him. But, the difference is that He created beings in His image and likeness, which means they are in some way like Him - to work with Him in His creation. This is man.

If we're going to talk about God cooperating with Himself, I think monergism suffers more greatly because there is no free will to cooperate with. There's just... things happening, with no variability or change or even personhood (is a deterministic creation a person?). It's akin to a kid playing with action figures in a sandbox.

---

You're still avoiding the question.

You're claiming the will can cooperate. Who's will? Man's? In order for it to cooperate, pre-regeneration/pre Holy Spirit, you must also claim that there is "good" in man apart from God. Since you've said no, previously, how is man capable of "taking the first step" on his own? You revert to claiming it's not man, but God but then you've removed man from the equation.

So what you're really saying is: God, through the use of man, is making the first step towards Himself. And this seems rather illogical.

However, the monergism approach to salvation (and salvation only), says that man "cannot make the first step" because it doesn't make sense (beyond not being found clearly in scripture). So God made the only step through the death and resurrection of Jesus. We have no goodness outside of God, but through sin, we can resist God.

I think this approach can actually be supported by Scripture.

I think there's some confusion here.

First - God takes the first step, in every time scale: creation, sustaining existence, providing grace, planning salvation, calling. I've said this maybe a dozen times in this thread. "Mongergism" vs "Synergism" is not about the first step - at least not how I have ever seen it. No one is saying that man works with God to begin salvation. This is overtly unscriptural, because salvation began with God before man existed. Synergism is that man cooperates with God to proceed in salvation, to continue in salvation, to persevere.

There doesn't need to be good in man apart from God, because whatever good exist comes from God by definition. But there is good in man, from God, because the divine likeness and image was marred, but not destroyed. Else we are back again to what Christ Jesus took from the Theotokos Mary. If the divine image, the nature of man was utterly lost, Christ Jesus is a new or a re-creation of Man that took no part of His humanity from Mary. Man's will remains free, and so when called - again, by God, before any good was done - man has the ability (given from God) to accept this call or to reject, in freedom.

At any rate you're back to salvation being wholly identified with the first step. But salvation is not the first step but the entire process which begins with the first step and culminates in growing to the full measure of the stature of Christ - and at every way, this happens by grace. As St John says, "it is the result neither of His love alone, nor yet of our virtue, but of both" and again "virtue would never have saved any one, had there not been love" and again "our being rendered virtuous, and believing, and coming near unto Him, even this again was the work of Him that called us Himself, and yet, notwithstanding, it is ours also." How can man not be a co-worker with God when, first of all the Scriptures say we are His co-workers (synergoi) and two when we are told to work out our own salvation? Katergazomai has "ergo" in it, to work, to bring about by labor, to accomplish.

I'm not avoiding any questions - I'm doing my best to answer your questions as I understand them. Please be patient with me, I'm doing my best.

Quote:

---

You're still avoiding the question.

---

You were talking about intentional irony, I believe? (And to be really clear - this is being facetious, kidding around, joking).

What is the difference between good and bad human beings (the trees in your analogy)? If it is God, and God alone, that makes a good tree Good, does God choose to not make some good? How do you explain this, if you affirm the lack of choice, without suggesting that some are made for condemnation?

Quote:

---

Now come on. It's your metaphor, I'm trying to use it. The question isn't whether a fruit tree will create fruit or cars, it is whether it will yield fruit or not, or yield good fruit or bad fruit. The bad branches or trees aren't thrown into the fire because they make vegetables, they're thrown into the fire because they don't yield anything or they don't yield good fruit (Matthew 3:10, 7:18-19, Luke 13:7, John 15:2-6).

---

What I responded to was you writing this:

"I mean, you said people don't have any choice. Again, you said a tree (meaning a person, by way of metaphor) has no choice, and does as it was created to do. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your response, but this does not sound like free will to me. I've asked you to clarify a couple of times, and you haven't that I can see."

My contention is that a fruit tree will create fruit and a person will do works. My question to you is do you consider this to be a lack of free will?

It is not a question of whether a work is categorized as good or bad as you tried to show with the verses you provided. It's more basic.

Quote:

---

What is the difference between good and bad human beings (the trees in your analogy)? If it is God, and God alone, that makes a good tree Good, does God choose to not make some good? How do you explain this, if you affirm the lack of choice, without suggesting that some are made for condemnation?

---

I'll try to be as clear as possible.

1. "What is the difference between good and bad human beings"
- Romans 3 says:

"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith."

That seems like a good distinction between good and bad people right?

2. "If it is God, and God alone, that makes a good tree Good, does God choose to not make some good?"
- romans 5 says:

"2 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned"

So yes, due to Original Sin (ya ya I know you'll say EO doesn't agree with that, but that's not an argument), through Adam, God has made all of us not good. We were conceived in sin, children of wrath, etc etc. Basically the entire western church from Rome to Lutherans to Calvinists will hold this position. This is really not significantly different than you saying that through Adam, all now die due to that sin.

The second part is then does God pick and choose who will be "made good" (for a lack of a better word). Calvinists say yes, Lutherans and Rome (and I) say no.

Lutherans hold to universal justification. That when John 3:16 says Jesus died for all, that's true. Not that we believe in universalism, but that we believe that all have the ability to receive eternal life through faith in Jesus. God will make himself known to all. Not in an irresistible grace kind of way like Calvinists, but that all will feel the call from God and some will resist it, instead choosing to stay in their sin.

Now I'm really confused.

So God, as far as His part goes, provides grace to everyone. Some choose to not accept this. Some choose to accept it. This is free will.

We agree completely. What is the problem?

Perhaps already posted, but I recommend one start here:

Romans 10:9 NASB
[9] that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

God bless you OP.

Catag94 said:

---

Perhaps already posted, but I recommend one start here:

Romans 10:9 NASB
[9] that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

God bless you OP.

---

Amen.

Zobel said:

---

I'm confused. At the cross was after He was incarnate. When He took flesh from her, she was in her sins you say. So nothing good in her, wholly corrupt. Back to the original question, then - if there was noting good from where did He take His humanity?

---

No, there was nothing good in her. There was nothing good in all of humanity at that time. That's WHY Christ came. Do you not understand any of this?

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

He took her sins away.

---

Interesting! So this is a variant on the Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception then? Some kind of special case, that in order to have a body free of sin Mary herself was made sinless?

I think this makes more trouble than it solves, personally.

Mainly, I mean - if God can do that, why didn't He just do that for everyone? Was dying and resurrection not strictly necessary?

---

No, it doesn't. She was born in to sin like the rest of us. Her sins were forgiven at the cross, like the rest of us.

---

So forgive me, but I am confused. As a Calvinist, I assume by "us" you mean the elect? Thanks.

---

Every human being on this planet is born into sin. Anyone born again, into Christ's finished work, is the elect, yes.

Pierow said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm confused. At the cross was after He was incarnate. When He took flesh from her, she was in her sins you say. So nothing good in her, wholly corrupt. Back to the original question, then - if there was noting good from where did He take His humanity?

---

No, there was nothing good in her. There was nothing good in all of humanity at that time. That's WHY Christ came. Do you not understand any of this?

---

With all due respect, the tone of "Do you not understand any of this" is imho, a little over the line. The entire Orthodox Church theology on Original Sin does not agree with yours.

And that is okay. Just please be respectful

And Zobel understands and knows a lot more than I could ever hope to know.

God bless.

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm confused. At the cross was after He was incarnate. When He took flesh from her, she was in her sins you say. So nothing good in her, wholly corrupt. Back to the original question, then - if there was noting good from where did He take His humanity?

---

No, there was nothing good in her. There was nothing good in all of humanity at that time. That's WHY Christ came. Do you not understand any of this?

---

With all due respect, the tone of "Do you not understand any of this" is imho, a little over the line. The entire Orthodox Church theology on Original Sin does not agree with yours.

And that is okay. Just please be respectful

And Zobel understands and knows a lot more than I could ever hope to know.

God bless.

---

He keeps asking the same question over and over, hence my question back to him. He's asked and it's been answered. I apologize for my frustration. This is not a difficult concept. Some people just want to make things difficult. Complex. But it's not.

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm confused. At the cross was after He was incarnate. When He took flesh from her, she was in her sins you say. So nothing good in her, wholly corrupt. Back to the original question, then - if there was noting good from where did He take His humanity?

---

No, there was nothing good in her. There was nothing good in all of humanity at that time. That's WHY Christ came. Do you not understand any of this?

---

With all due respect, the tone of "Do you not understand any of this" is imho, a little over the line. The entire Orthodox Church theology on Original Sin does not agree with yours.

And that is okay. Just please be respectful

And Zobel understands and knows a lot more than I could ever hope to know.

God bless.

---

He keeps asking the same question over and over, hence my question back to him. He's asked and it's been answered. I apologize for my frustration. This is not a difficult concept. Some people just want to make things difficult. Complex. But it's not.

---

Again, with all due respect disagree. The Orthodox Church does not believe in total depravity. And they can base their views on Scripture also. And Zobel is Orthodox.

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm confused. At the cross was after He was incarnate. When He took flesh from her, she was in her sins you say. So nothing good in her, wholly corrupt. Back to the original question, then - if there was noting good from where did He take His humanity?

---

No, there was nothing good in her. There was nothing good in all of humanity at that time. That's WHY Christ came. Do you not understand any of this?

---

With all due respect, the tone of "Do you not understand any of this" is imho, a little over the line. The entire Orthodox Church theology on Original Sin does not agree with yours.

And that is okay. Just please be respectful

And Zobel understands and knows a lot more than I could ever hope to know.

God bless.

---

He keeps asking the same question over and over, hence my question back to him. He's asked and it's been answered. I apologize for my frustration. This is not a difficult concept. Some people just want to make things difficult. Complex. But it's not.

---

Again, with all due respect disagree. The Orthodox Church does not believe in total depravity. And they can base their views on Scripture also. And Zobel is Orthodox.

---

Total depravity of man is a tenant that I believe in. Mankind proves that point daily. Scripture does too.

Jeremiah 17:9 ESV
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Psalm 51:5 ESV
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Ephesians 2:1-3 ESV
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

DEAD. Not sick, dead.

1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Genesis 6:5 ESV
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Romans 3:10-11 ESV
As it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.

Men have fought and died over these issues. To be a little bit disrespectful in making a point, is no vice. Especially when it is a salvation issue. A core belief. A necessity for sound doctrine.

I keep asking the same question because you haven't answered it. You say there was nothing good - so where did His humanity come from? Or was His humanity corrupted? -- I imagine you won't say that.

If there was nothing good in humanity, the human nature Christ took from Mary was wholly corrupted - therefore what does He have in common with us? He was not human, or if He was human, she was not human. If what you're saying is true, He has nothing in common with us. But that isn't what the scriptures say - "He had to be made like His brothers in every way". In every way, excepting only sin.


If it is 100% sin, this is meaningless. He was made like us in no way, because there is nothing left. Your statement - aside from its scriptural inaccuracy, is fraught with a Christological impossibility.

///

The basic assertion is that because none are righteous, everyone is completely and utterly sinful. That doesn't follow. It also isn't scriptural. Plenty of people are described as righteous - starting with Noah who was both righteous and blameless (Gen 6:9). The Lord several times says David walked before Him with a heart of integrity and uprightness and kept all His statutes and laws. Job is described as perfect and upright. The King Asa's heart was fully devoted to the Lord all his days. Several kings "did what was right in the eyes of the Lord."

St Joseph the betrothed is called righteous, as is St John the Baptist, his father Zacharias and his mother Elizabeth, St Simeon, and St Joseph Of Arimathea. Christ Jesus calls Abel and (a different) Zechariah righteous, as does St Paul in Hebrews, and St John says that Abel's works were righteous. St Peter describes Lot as righteous (2 Pet 2:8).

That none are righteous and blameless before the Lord with regard to sin does not mean that humanity is completely, wholly, entirely corrupted.

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm confused. At the cross was after He was incarnate. When He took flesh from her, she was in her sins you say. So nothing good in her, wholly corrupt. Back to the original question, then - if there was noting good from where did He take His humanity?

---

No, there was nothing good in her. There was nothing good in all of humanity at that time. That's WHY Christ came. Do you not understand any of this?

---

With all due respect, the tone of "Do you not understand any of this" is imho, a little over the line. The entire Orthodox Church theology on Original Sin does not agree with yours.

And that is okay. Just please be respectful

And Zobel understands and knows a lot more than I could ever hope to know.

God bless.

---

He keeps asking the same question over and over, hence my question back to him. He's asked and it's been answered. I apologize for my frustration. This is not a difficult concept. Some people just want to make things difficult. Complex. But it's not.

---

Again, with all due respect disagree. The Orthodox Church does not believe in total depravity. And they can base their views on Scripture also. And Zobel is Orthodox.

---

Total depravity of man is a tenant that I believe in. Mankind proves that point daily. Scripture does too.

Jeremiah 17:9 ESV
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Psalm 51:5 ESV
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Ephesians 2:1-3 ESV
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

DEAD. Not sick, dead.

1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Genesis 6:5 ESV
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Romans 3:10-11 ESV
As it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.

Men have fought and died over these issues. To be a little bit disrespectful in making a point, is no vice. Especially when it is a salvation issue. A core belief. A necessity for sound doctrine.

---

How is total depravity a salvation issue? Where in the Bible does anyone say you must believe in total depravity to be saved?

And where did Christ ever excuse being a little disrespectful?

Man, enough with the proof texting.

I mean, you start with Jeremiah 17:9. Just read the passage.

Quote:

---

Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind, who makes the flesh his strength and turns his heart from the Lord. He will be like a shrub in the desert; he will not see when prosperity comes. He will dwell in the parched places of the desert, in a salt land where no one lives.

But blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in Him. He is like a tree planted by the waters that sends out its roots toward the stream. It does not fear when the heat comes, and its leaves are always green. It does not worry in a year of drought, nor does it cease to produce fruit.

The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? I, the Lord, search the heart; I examine the mind to reward a man according to his way, by what his deeds deserve.

---

This isn't some random comment about how men are wholly depraved *at all*.

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm confused. At the cross was after He was incarnate. When He took flesh from her, she was in her sins you say. So nothing good in her, wholly corrupt. Back to the original question, then - if there was noting good from where did He take His humanity?

---

No, there was nothing good in her. There was nothing good in all of humanity at that time. That's WHY Christ came. Do you not understand any of this?

---

With all due respect, the tone of "Do you not understand any of this" is imho, a little over the line. The entire Orthodox Church theology on Original Sin does not agree with yours.

And that is okay. Just please be respectful

And Zobel understands and knows a lot more than I could ever hope to know.

God bless.

---

He keeps asking the same question over and over, hence my question back to him. He's asked and it's been answered. I apologize for my frustration. This is not a difficult concept. Some people just want to make things difficult. Complex. But it's not.

---

Again, with all due respect disagree. The Orthodox Church does not believe in total depravity. And they can base their views on Scripture also. And Zobel is Orthodox.

---

Total depravity of man is a tenant that I believe in. Mankind proves that point daily. Scripture does too.

Jeremiah 17:9 ESV
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Psalm 51:5 ESV
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Ephesians 2:1-3 ESV
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

DEAD. Not sick, dead.

1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Genesis 6:5 ESV
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Romans 3:10-11 ESV
As it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.

Men have fought and died over these issues. To be a little bit disrespectful in making a point, is no vice. Especially when it is a salvation issue. A core belief. A necessity for sound doctrine.

---

And do you believe it is Christ like to fight and kill over theology issues?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Men have fought and died over these issues. To be a little bit disrespectful in making a point, is no vice. Especially when it is a salvation issue. A core belief. A necessity for sound doctrine.

---

Sorry, but sometimes the irony of a Calvinist trying to correct people so they will change their views is just too much for me

---

That's perfectly fine. Works righteousness, and believing that there is any good in humanity is a little too much for me.

Zobel said:

---

I keep asking the same question because you haven't answered it. You say there was nothing good - so where did His humanity come from? Or was His humanity corrupted? -- I imagine you won't say that.

If there was nothing good in humanity, the human nature Christ took from Mary was wholly corrupted - therefore what does He have in common with us? He was not human, or if He was human, she was not human. If what you're saying is true, He has nothing in common with us. But that isn't what the scriptures say - "He had to be made like His brothers in every way". In every way, excepting only sin.


If it is 100% sin, this is meaningless. He was made like us in no way, because there is nothing left. Your statement - aside from its scriptural inaccuracy, is fraught with a Christological impossibility.

///

The basic assertion is that because none are righteous, everyone is completely and utterly sinful. That doesn't follow. It also isn't scriptural. Plenty of people are described as righteous - starting with Noah who was both righteous and blameless (Gen 6:9). The Lord several times says David walked before Him with a heart of integrity and uprightness and kept all His statutes and laws. Job is described as perfect and upright. The King Asa's heart was fully devoted to the Lord all his days. Several kings "did what was right in the eyes of the Lord."

St Joseph the betrothed is called righteous, as is St John the Baptist, his father Zacharias and his mother Elizabeth, St Simeon, and St Joseph Of Arimathea. Christ Jesus calls Abel and (a different) Zechariah righteous, as does St Paul in Hebrews, and St John says that Abel's works were righteous. St Peter describes Lot as righteous (2 Pet 2:8).

That none are righteous and blameless before the Lord with regard to sin does not mean that humanity is completely, wholly, entirely corrupted.

---

Any righteousness in the Bible is conveyed from God. It is bestowed on those who have belief, and faith. Christ was sinless, Mary was not. If you consider Mary sunless, where her parents sinless? How about their parents? Or their parents? How far back do you take this?

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pierow said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm confused. At the cross was after He was incarnate. When He took flesh from her, she was in her sins you say. So nothing good in her, wholly corrupt. Back to the original question, then - if there was noting good from where did He take His humanity?

---

No, there was nothing good in her. There was nothing good in all of humanity at that time. That's WHY Christ came. Do you not understand any of this?

---

With all due respect, the tone of "Do you not understand any of this" is imho, a little over the line. The entire Orthodox Church theology on Original Sin does not agree with yours.

And that is okay. Just please be respectful

And Zobel understands and knows a lot more than I could ever hope to know.

God bless.

---

He keeps asking the same question over and over, hence my question back to him. He's asked and it's been answered. I apologize for my frustration. This is not a difficult concept. Some people just want to make things difficult. Complex. But it's not.

---

Again, with all due respect disagree. The Orthodox Church does not believe in total depravity. And they can base their views on Scripture also. And Zobel is Orthodox.

---

Total depravity of man is a tenant that I believe in. Mankind proves that point daily. Scripture does too.

Jeremiah 17:9 ESV
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Psalm 51:5 ESV
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Ephesians 2:1-3 ESV
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

DEAD. Not sick, dead.

1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Genesis 6:5 ESV
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Romans 3:10-11 ESV
As it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.

Men have fought and died over these issues. To be a little bit disrespectful in making a point, is no vice. Especially when it is a salvation issue. A core belief. A necessity for sound doctrine.

---

How is total depravity a salvation issue? Where in the Bible does anyone say you must believe in total depravity to be saved?

And where did Christ ever excuse being a little disrespectful?

---

And Christ wasn't completely disgusted with the Pharisees? And he let them know that? Scribes, Pharisees, teachers of the law? He spat invective at them. He let them know he had no respect for them whatever. Blind guides have that effect.

Zobel said:

---

Man, enough with the proof texting.

I mean, you start with Jeremiah 17:9. Just read the passage.

Quote:

---

Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind, who makes the flesh his strength and turns his heart from the Lord. He will be like a shrub in the desert; he will not see when prosperity comes. He will dwell in the parched places of the desert, in a salt land where no one lives.

But blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in Him. He is like a tree planted by the waters that sends out its roots toward the stream. It does not fear when the heat comes, and its leaves are always green. It does not worry in a year of drought, nor does it cease to produce fruit.

The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? I, the Lord, search the heart; I examine the mind to reward a man according to his way, by what his deeds deserve.

---

This isn't some random comment about how men are wholly depraved *at all*.

---

It's very plain. The heart is deceptive, deceptively wicked. It doesn't clarify specific individuality. The heart is deceptive. That includes everyone.