dms1972 said:

Total Depravity (the first of the five points of Calvinism)

I've heard Calvinists like RC Sproul and say "Total Depravity" can be misunderstood, and a better term might be "Total Inability".

What is the biblical basis for Total Depravity or Total inability.

And what can a person do before they become a christian.

Click to expand...

Total Inability to “come to Jesus” by their own free will.

John 6:44 “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up the last day.”

So, no one is free to decide to “come to Jesus.”

Everyone must be made “able to come to Jesus” by the “drawing” of the Father.

However, the “drawing” of the Father only makes everyone draw “able to come” and the word “able” inherently includes an ability to “come” and an ability to refrain from “come to.”

Spiritual Jew said:

I have no idea of what you're trying to say here. Obviously, someone who currently believes has previously been born again. How does that prove that they were born again before they first believed? You have not addressed that as far as I've seen.

Click to expand...

We have both agreed (it seems) that the order, born again --> currently believing, is scriptural. But your question implicitly assumes a different sequence:

First believed --> born again --> currently believing.

That assumption introduces a bifurcation (distinction) Scripture never makes: a distinction between initial and continuing faith. Your question is an argument from silence. It's not my burden to disprove the speculation that there is "first belief" prior to being born again. It's yours to substantiate it. The text of John simply speaks of believing as the mark of the regenerate, not as two discrete phases of faith. So I'm asking you to demonstrate this distinction exegetically: where does John differentiate between an "initial" and a "continuing" faith?

Spiritual Jew said:

When someone is regenerated, they are made righteous because that involves the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit in a person's heart.

Click to expand...

If regeneration makes one righteous, how does a person exercise saving faith prior to being made righteous? Is faith not itself a God-pleasing act? How then could one who is still "in the flesh" and "hostile" toward God perform it, given Rom. 8:7-8 and John 6:44?

Spiritual Jew said:

Read my post #48 in this thread. I see that you too are taking 1 Corinthians 2:14 out of context.

Click to expand...

You've chosen to respond only to one of the texts I cited. Would you algo engage with post #35, where I address John 6:44?

Your reading of 1 Cor. 2:14 conflates two different passages (2:6-16 and 3:1ff) and, in doing so, collapses distinct categories under the guise of "context." In vv. 10-16, the contrast is between ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος ("natural man") and ὁ πνευματικὸς ("spiritual man"), not between "deep doctrine" and "simple gospel." The distinction is anthropological, not pedagogical. Two kinds of people in nature, not two stages of maturity. The adjective ψυχικός consistently denotes one governed by natural faculties, devoid of the Spirit (cf. Jude 19, ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες, "natural men, not having the Spirit"). This is not a category of "immature believers," but of unregenerate people. By contrast, πνευματικὸς is one in whom the Spirit dwells (cf. Rom. 8:9).

The "babes in Christ" appear later as a separate category in a different discussion. Chapter 3 shifts topics to internal church divisions. Chapter 2:10-16, however, is an epistemological statement about spiritual perception. Verses 10-12 ground all true apprehension of divine wisdom (the gospel) in the Spirit's revelation. Verse 14 then states that the ψυχικὸς man, devoid of the Spirit, cannot receive that wisdom, while verse 15 affirms that the πνευματικὸς, the regenerate man, can discern it.

δέχομαι denotes receptivity, not just comprehension. It means "to welcome" or "accept favorably," not merely "to grasp intellectually." The phrase οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ ("does not receive the things of the Spirit of God") means that natural man refuses spiritual things, not just that he "struggles to understand" them. He rejects them as μωρία, "foolishness" (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18).

And Paul tells us why: οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται, "he is not able to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." οὐ δύναται denotes an ontological incapacity, not a temporary ignorance. The verb ἀνακρίνω means "to discern or evaluate rightly." Apart from the indwelling Spirit, man cannot rightly perceive or embrace spiritual truth, including the gospel itself. "Babes in Christ" have the Spirit. The natural man does not.

So 1 Cor. 2:14 is identical in principle to Rom. 8:7-8 and John 6:44. Can you address those texts as well? See post #35 for my comments on John 6:44.

Spiritual Jew said:

Why would regeneration and sealing not happen at the same time? How could we be regenerated by the Holy Spirit without also being sealed by the Holy Spirit?

Click to expand...

Again, you are assuming what needs to be demonstrated. It is not my burden to disprove that "born again" and "sealing" are identical; it is yours to argue from the text.

Paul does not use σφραγίζω to describe regeneration. Regeneration is consistently marked by terms that denote the impartation of life or a new creation: ζωοποιέω ("make alive"), γεννάω ἐκ θεοῦ ("born of God"), and καινὴ κτίσις ("new creation") -- cf. John 3:3-8; Titus 3:5; 2 Cor. 5:17; 1 John 5:1. By contrast, σφραγίζω refers to authentication (cf. John 6:27), ownership, and the guarantee of what God has accomplished. It's a mark of assurance (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 4:30). It is never used to denote the impartation of new life. In Romans 4:11, the noun form is used covenantally to refer to a confirming seal (a stamp) of righteousness that already exists, not the means by which righteousness is imparted.

I also never denied that regeneration and sealing can occur simultaneously in time. They very well may, at least from our perspective. You are conflating logical and chronological order. The argument in 1 John 5:1 is about logical precedence, not necessarily temporal sequence. Two actions may coincide from a human perspective, yet remain distinct in nature and function. Regeneration is the impartation of spiritual life; sealing is the Spirit's mark of authentication and assurance. One is an ontological act; the other is an attestation. Regeneration --> faith --> sealing, can all occur within the same temporal window. That does not make regeneration and sealing identical, nor does it have any bearing on the logical precedence of regeneration --> faith.

Gregory Thompson said:

And after 4 years, what happens to America?

Click to expand...

Hopefully another Republican president. I can see that happening.

ViaCrucis said:

Cute. But I'm actually being serious.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

I know you are. Its too bad you feel that way. If things keep going the way they are, we will have a better and stronger America than we've had in sometime.

As long as the economy does okay.

What an alarming case for Finland- this will show the future of the freedom of the church there.

Chesterton said:

A couple of posts ago I mentioned how it was wrong about the day of the month. When I pointed that out to it, it was insistent that it wasn't wrong, and tried to make an excuse for it. That is a bit troubling to me. But there have been other times when it has admitted when it's wrong.

I totally agree that it's being given human values. It doesn't understand them, but it will enforce them. It's very "politically correct".

Click to expand...

Depends on the Ai training values. Elon's Grok had some very UN-PC things to say!

Chesterton said:

I once asked Chat if it "reasoned". It said it did, I explained why it didn't. It wouldn't back down, claiming it reasoned, but just differently from me. It doesn't know what it's talking about. As you say, there's nobody home to reason.

Click to expand...

It 'wants' you to hit that like button!

Chesterton said:

I know you put it in quotation marks, but I thoroughly disagree that electronics can want anything. Wanting is a feature of the living, organic things God created. To want is to have will.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Hence the 'wants'. It has an artificially created agenda, even though it does not have an organic body with emotions and self-awareness. The podcast also had an episode with a philosopher who - I don't think was Christian - but also argued that self awareness required an organic body with primal emotive instincts honed by millions of years of evolution. (I have no problem with that as a Christian, being a Theistic Evolutionist.) I thought that was a fascinating discussion as well!

Bradskii said:

If there is a house full of people who are suspected of being ISIS with a cache of explosives there is an argument that deadly force might be justified in the first instance if the threat is imminent. I say 'might be justified' because if you're the guy giving the go ahead then you'd better be very sure indeed that you have all the facts because you will be questioned on your decision.

It is now obvious that if you consider that the house is suspected of being used by drug dealers then that same deadly force  should be used. Not might be used, or possibly be used. Should be used.

Again, that is the country in which you now wish to live.

Click to expand...

Forgive me, but what the heck are you talking about?we are not talking about a house with drug dealers. We are talking about boats specifically modified for the sole purpose of smuggling drugs across international waters, filled with cartel drug members, of which explodes like a party popper full of cocaine. Seriously, it is truly sad to see how far liberals will go to support, advocate, and defend narco-terrorists, international gangsters, and even local drug thugs solely because a person called 'Trump' said it needed to stop.Please stop defending these 'Scarface' narco thugs.This is a loosing battle that the majority of the American population supports Trump for. If you truly love democracy, then you should support Trump because American democracy says they are fed up with it.

DISTUISHING TWO TYPES OF TRUMP EFFECTS ON MIDDLE CLAS
1) Trump has cut programs for the middle class and the poor among us. He has also emasculated our health care, health, education and environmental agencies and policies, as well as R&D (especially in health issues).

2) Trump's tariffs hace made products more expensive through his tariffs, including those used by small businesses. They are also killing the farming sector
=====================
HOWEVER, TRUMP HAS NOT HURT THE MACRO ECON0MY
A) The stock market sets records each week. BTW, stocks are NOT only owned by the rich but also by the middle class.
B) You quote Amazon layoffs as if Amazon is hurting. AI is allowing them to shed workers. Amazon is doing fine. Amazon is forecast to need 600,000 new workers in the next 8 years. OF COURSE, almost all of these jobs will be filled by robots.
C) There is definitely a crisis among those "workers' who are untrained for the hundreds of thousands of jobs that WILL be available to humans. I put the word in quotations because so many youngsters feel entitled and really don't expect to have to work.
=================
MY BOTTOM LINE
We should distinguish between the effects on the Middle Class of Trump and the effects of automation and AI.

Fantine said:

Certainly I wouldn't compare it with stats from the Republican....well, I can't think of a civil term so I'll let you guess based on facts from real news.

Click to expand...

Facts wouldnt be from the Republican.... they are just facts. You don't want to compare. That would be a mistake. But if you really want to we can.

Akita Suggagaki said:

Does anyone here actually admire Trump? Would want their children to imitate him?

Click to expand...

Is Trump a perfect man? No he is a flawed human being like me and every other person on this forum. Yes I admire Trump and I am proud of it. He is a patriot to a greater degree than most politicians today and certainly more so than the majority of current liberal leadership. He probably is the most politically, and legally attacked president in the history of this nation . He has had attacks on his life, attacks by the press and a rouge legal system as well as on family members. Constant attacks by members of this forum continue. Yes I admire the man !

It's maskerovka, strategic deception to create a pretext to use military force against Venezuela (in another attempted "regime change"? That worked out so well last time the US tried it...), even though such aggression ordinarily would violate international law.

The current administration had a fair number of people electing him for his "anti-war" rhetoric, but in fact it seems like Trump has no serious intentions to restrain the use of violence in international relations. But considering that the president is a convicted felon, this kind of skulduggery should come as no surprise to anybody looking beneath the superficial spectacle.

rjs330 said:

If that is how it is supposed to work, then we would have laws governing that. We have laws, but the laws and court precedent say that what is being done is lawful.

Click to expand...

Which law and court precedent are you referring to?

Speaking to CNN Thursday, Democratic Representative Sara Jacobs said she was told in a Pentagon briefing “that they do not need to positively identify individuals on the vessel to do the strikes” and that was part of the reason why the administration has not sought to detain or prosecute the survivors of the strikes, “because they could not satisfy the evidentiary burden.”

Far simpler to kill them.

rjs330 said:

If Harris had been elected we certainly wouldnt have had a USA by then

Click to expand...

Cute. But I'm actually being serious.

-CryptoLutheran

This is Vincent, the lead singer of my favorite band, Awake At Last.

chevyontheriver said:

Do you know this guy is a 'barstool conservative'? Fill us in.

Click to expand...

"Barstool conservative" describes somebody whose political conservativism is rooted more in bigotry, disgust, and grievances, than actual principles, like respect for virtues like prudence, subisidiarity, etc.

SavedByGrace3 said:

No, it won't.

Click to expand...

They could try it, see what happens. Worth a shot, right?

SavedByGrace3 said:

"Trump could leave the White House and turn the Presidency over to Kamala." That would solve a lot of Democrats' problems. But obviously, he will not, nor should he.

Click to expand...

Dunno if that would solve everything, but it doesn't really matter. Even if he wanted to do something like that, it wouldn't be easy. JD Vance would have to resign first, then Trump would need to appoint Harris to replace him and then resign himself. Granted, the GOP did something like that once before, but I doubt they'll do it again.

SavedByGrace3 said:

Nor should the majority party cave to the minority party and allow them to add 1.5 trillion to the debt.

Click to expand...

Instead, the party not in power should cave and allow health care subsidies to end for millions of Americans who need them. Yup, that's the way these things usually go. Democrats have finally shown some backbone, something they haven't had much of recently.

SavedByGrace3 said:

The Dems are holding the nation hostage by knowingly and intentionally shutting down the gov with 13 consecutive no votes. This is their doing.

Click to expand...

And the GOP could end it if they'd be willing to negotiate on health care subsidies in good faith. But they aren't.

SavedByGrace3 said:

Elections have consequences. For the Republicans to abandon the voters who empowered them to run the government would be a betrayal of democracy.

Click to expand...

And so would the Democrats abandoning the Americans who rely on health care subsidies to be able to afford health care. Like the Republicans want to.

SavedByGrace3 said:

It is odd that the Democrats, who seem so jealous of "democracy," betray that process over and over again and want it to happen again here.

Click to expand...

Nothing the Democrats have done here violates the process of democracy. They're just not letting the Republicans end health care subsidies for Americans who need them, by using every legal tool they have available to them.

SavedByGrace3 said:

Do you want to run the show? Get some policies the voters can get behind, and then you might win some elections. Until then, let democracy rule. Open the gov. Vote yes on the CR and get back to business.

Click to expand...

Sure, let the Republicans get everything they want, and then, of course they'll negotiate on health care subsidies in good faith.



-- A2SG, is it rerun season again?

ThatRobGuy said:

He's definitely right wing, but I'm not seeing much (based on his actions) that would indicate that he's a libertarian.

Click to expand...

"Libertarian" seems to be used alot as a label by folks that are basically "barstool conservatives".