On the omniscience of God

[Clete]

Not the issue, but rather 'what is the scope of Total Depravity? AMR believed rather in "Total Inability." Would you think him no longer Calvinist for the qualification?

I don't care anything about AMR. I doubt he was even saved.

In answer to your question though - it would depend on what the distinction means. Is there any difference that isn't purely semantic?

We generally gravitate toward doctrines that espouse how we see and understand scriptures. Take for instance if I were an Open Theist: I would absolutely qualify "I'm not an Open Theist on many points."

Which only goes to demonstrate that you don't know what the term means. The future is either settled or it isn't. God foreknows everything or He does not. If the later then you are an open theist, regardless of what else you believe.

The whole point of discussion is to consider another man's points and test them against scripture.

How would that test be performed?

While I don't believe God is Open, I am open to consideration and endeavor to be more biblical and more like Him.

The degree to which you believe God not to be free, is the degree to which you are incapable of contradicting yourself when discussing God and principles like righteousness and justice apply to Him. If Open Theism is false, there is no such thing as right and wrong.

I'm not as knee-jerk but actually do appreciate discussion with you because you make sure you never swallow a gnat, as best as you are able.

I do try to be consistent.

Not a Calvinist website (Dallas Theological Seminary Dispensationalism).

Ezekiel is about judgment for repentance. In every sense their need was intervention (at least partial inability as they needed a prophet else).

The question is how would that not contradict the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity or any other form of the doctrine for that matter?

A couple of thoughts on Total Depravity:

1) Complete inability to save one's self
2) Complete whole of humanity unable to follow the LAW
3) Complete (total) separation from God for all under the curse.
4) Failure on even one point is 'total' James 2:10 Romans 3:10,11
5) The LAW was a teacher instructing in the need for all, for forgiveness. There is no one whom the Lord Jesus Christ did not die for.

This is not the doctrine of Total Depravity, Lon.

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book II, Chapter 3), Calvin emphasizes the following points which comprise what is called today the doctrine of Total Depravity....

• Comprehensive Corruption: Every aspect of human nature—mind, will, and emotions—is affected by sin. This does not mean humans are as evil as they could be, but that sin taints all parts of their being.
• Inability to Seek God: Without God’s intervention, humans lack the desire or ability to seek God or do truly good works.
• Dependence on Grace: Salvation and any inclination toward righteousness come solely through God’s sovereign grace (i.e. causeless, arbitrary, predestination).

Because Ezekiel 18 is a whole chapter, you may have to get into details if I yet again haven't sufficiently answered your question to satisfaction. I'm endeavoring to give the question adequate response and ty. Prayers this serves as profitable -Lon

If the whole chapter is too much then take those verses that sum up what the whole chapter is about....

Ezekiel 18:23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?​

​

Ezekiel 18:30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”​

​

There is no way that Total Depravity survives those four verses, never mind the other 28 verse that make up the chapter.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Your statement is two pronged. Here you say He damns Babies in the womb.

No, WHITE is the one who is making a claim that implies this.

Are they Born?

Born and unborn babies are sent to hell, on White's claims, because White believes that just as God elects some adults to etermal life and passes over other adults, damning them to hell, so too He does with babies, electing some for eternal life, and passing over others, damning them to hell.

Do they grow up or does it matter?

According to White, God deals with infants and babies in the womb the same as He does with adults.

For it they die in the womb or as a young child, the Bible teaches us that they are of the elect.

No, that's false. And "elect" has nothing to do with being saved.

The Bible calls them "innocent." It says nothing about [children in general] being elect prior to a given age.

Yet, it also teaches as in Jacob and Esau, that Esau was not of the elect for God chose Jacob. Yes, Esau grew up and was not a child when He died.

WRONG.

Even in the Genesis passage, it specifically states that those two boys represented two NATIONS. Paul does not refer to them as individuals, but to the nations that they respresent.

And again, "elect" has nothing to do with being saved.

God chose Jacob to be the father of God's nation, but it doesn't mean He hated Esau. Rather, "love and hate" is a Hebrew idiom that means "to love and to love more," as in, you love something or someone so much, its as if you hated the other. Jesus used this idiom when He said "hate your father and mother and follow Me." If taken woodenly literally, He would be contradicting His commandment to "honor your father and mother," and that's clearly not the case.

There's more nuance to it to be brought out, but that should suffice for now.

It is an easy way out of a rock and hard place for man to say he knows how God chooses whom He chooses. We do not know how or why He chooses his elect.

THE BIBLE LITERALLY TELLS US!

He chooses (elects) one person or nation FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL OTHERS.

It's NEVER to spite the others!

He elected Abraham to be the father of many nations, He elected Jacob to be the father of His chosen people, and He chose Israel (the nation) to be the nation that brings blessings to the entire world!

He chose the tribe of Levi to be His priesthood forever. He chose Eli's sons, to serve Him forever (And guess what! They ALL WENT TO HELL!)

Chosen does not mean what you think it means!

Chosen: It’s not Just A Reservoir in Korea! | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Acts 22:14-15; 1 Peter 2:9-10

Again, did the Baby die.

White claims that some babies, whether they die, or if they are born and then die, or if they grow to childhood then die, or if they reach adulthood then die, go to hell.

Why?

For no other reason than "it pleases God."

If that's the kind of god you worship, then you do not worship the God of the Bible.

You worship a demon.

If they are chosen long before they are in the womb,

Babies are NOT CHOSEN IN THE WOMB FOR SALVATION OR DAMNATION!

then they would be made in the womb being an elect of GOD or NOT.

And if they're not an elect, according to your and White's view, then when they die, be that in the womb, or out of the womb, they go to hell.

God, according to your view, sends babies, who have done no wrong, to hell!

I believe GOD is all sovereign and has the right to do anything He wants.

God DOES NOT SEND INNOCENT PEOPLE TO HELL, NO MATTER HOW YOUNG!

We can get mad, rave, cuss and hate others who see a different view as in the view I stated above.

Quit with the passive aggressive remarks.

You're the one defending the position that God sends innocent babies to hell, are you not?

According to many, sending anyone regardless of what they have done on earth, is NOT LOVE!

Sending people to hell who deserve to go to hell is called justice.

Sending people to hell who do not deserve to go there is called injustice! It violates the very CHARACTER OF GOD!

God is JUST, therefore He does not send people to hell who do not deserve to go there!

Innocent people are in the eye of the beholder....

WRONG.

There is no such thing as different standards of justice. There is only one standard of justice, and that's God's standard.

Someone is guilty of violating God's standard the moment they do so.

If someone has NEVER VIOLATED GOD"S LAW, then they are innocent BY DEFINITION! THEY DO NOT DESERVE TO GO TO HELL!

There's no "in the eye of the beholder" when it comes to justice. Whoever told you there is, was lying to you.

Was Esau innocent....in the womb yes and GOD stated so in the Bible

Dr. White believes otherwise, as was shown in the video which you clearly did not watch.

but Esa grew up to intermarry with the Ishmalites...

So what?

His tribe, the Edomites are prophesied to be totally wiped off the earth in the end days.

Book, chapter, verse, please.

God hates Islam yet, He has elected many from this false religion.

No idea what you're talking about...

Is this not a Loving GOD????

God is love.

He does not elect some infants for damnation and to die before they are born.

That is not loving.

This video addresses some of the points you've made so far.

 

[Lon]

I don't care anything about AMR. I doubt he was even saved.

In answer to your question though - it would depend on what the distinction means. Is there any difference that isn't purely semantic?


Which only goes to demonstrate that you don't know what the term means. The future is either settled or it isn't. God foreknows everything or He does not. If the later then you are an open theist, regardless of what else you believe.

Settled in this case being exhaustively foreknown. Such does not, by any logical cohesion, necessitate that what He knows isn't chosen, etc. The link simply cannot be made in any clad sense. It is at best, and intimation: If God knows, we have no freewill.

How would that test be performed?

Reading scripture constantly, consistently, discussing in group pertinent scripture, prayerful.

The degree to which you believe God not to be free, is the degree to which you are incapable of contradicting yourself when discussing God and principles like righteousness and justice apply to Him.

They don't apply, as in "application." Rather such is internal and proceeds from His being. A measuring stick for virtue of God? We rather believe it by faith "God is Good" God is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all."

If Open Theism is false, there is no such thing as right and wrong.

It isn't an application, it is His nature.

I do try to be consistent.

Yes.

The question is how would that not contradict the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity or any other form of the doctrine for that matter?


This is not the doctrine of Total Depravity, Lon.

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book II, Chapter 3), Calvin emphasizes the following points which comprise what is called today the doctrine of Total Depravity....

• Comprehensive Corruption: Every aspect of human nature—mind, will, and emotions—is affected by sin. This does not mean humans are as evil as they could be, but that sin taints all parts of their being.

I agree. It does.

• Inability to Seek God: Without God’s intervention, humans lack the desire or ability to seek God or do truly good works.

I agree, until I was saved, every 'good' motivation was for ultimately wrong reasons without Jesus involved.

• Dependence on Grace: Salvation and any inclination toward righteousness come solely through God’s sovereign grace (i.e. causeless, arbitrary, predestination).

"You did not choose me, I chose you, without me you can do nothing, It is God in you Who wills to do..."

If the whole chapter is too much then take those verses that sum up what the whole chapter is about....

Ezekiel 18:23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?​

Which was the Law.

​

Ezekiel 18:30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”​

​

There is no way that Total Depravity survives those four verses, never mind the other 28 verse that make up the chapter.

It does in any sense intervention is needed. Perhaps not 'totally' in your mind, but without God, 'these things are impossible.' It is only in God that 'all things are possible.' If we are 'totally unable' to save ourselves, "Inability" in such case is a depravity, in Total.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Settled in this case being exhaustively foreknown. Such does not, by any logical cohesion, necessitate that what He knows isn't chosen, etc. The link simply cannot be made in any clad sense. It is at best, and intimation: If God knows, we have no freewill.

Two questions:
Does God's knowledge encompass all future choices that are made?
If so, is God's knowledge completely inerrent? (without error)

If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then it does, necessarily, mean that the future is settled.

If the answer to the former is no, then God is not omniscient (in the classical sense of the term).

The only alternatives are that God's knowledge is errant, or that He is not Omniscient.

For if the answer to the former is yes, but the latter is no, His knowledge is errant.
And if the former is no, then God's knowledge does not encompass all things.

The Bible shows often that what God wanted to happen, knew what would happen, expected to happen, did not happen. Meaning He did not know the outcome, He did not know the future.

 

[Bladerunner]

There is no six point Calvinist, just as there is no six star general—even if it did exist it would only be a figurehead position since it overlaps with the roles and responsibilities and duties of other offices.

Before you go on, the first point is the Sovereignty of GOD over all things.

 

[Right Divider]

Before you go on, the first point is the Sovereignty of GOD over all things.

Sovereignty means authority and not control. Calvinism is a lie.

 

[Bladerunner]

I don't know who Spurgeon is. But I know the name from here. I have read almost nothing from people who write about scripture. Almost nothing is not zero. I'm glad you agree. He desires all men to be saved, but many reject him outright. Others want to save themselves. It was not predestined that they go to the lake of fire created for the devil and his angels.

The greatest sin in the world is: Non-Belief. All those who do not believe in the complete gospel of Jesus Christ run the risk of spending eternity in the Lake of Fire and Brimstone.

 

[Bladerunner]

God is just. Therefore, Calvinism is false.

An argument you cannot, and won't even try to overcome.

Mainly because in the Bible, His words are doctrines (teachings) of election. Predestination is only attached to the salvation of the person.

 

[Bladerunner]

No, WHITE is the one who is making a claim that implies this.



Born and unborn babies are sent to hell, on White's claims, because White believes that just as God elects some adults to eternal life and passes over other adults, damning them to hell, so too He does with babies, electing some for eternal life, and passing over others, damning them to hell.



According to White, God deals with infants and babies in the womb the same as He does with adults.

When God deals with Babies, they either die or become adults. according to the scriptures in many places, Babies and small children are innocent and have done nothing wrong....they, I believe are saved if they died during this time. Babies that become adults like Jacob and Esau, are judged as adults....even though God hated (did not help him) Esau, his judgement would have been made long before he was born and based upon his sins.

 

[Bladerunner]

Sovereignty means authority and not control. Calvinism is a lie.

God has the sovereignty (the authority and control) over all things. This is what I believe people will have to answer for at the last judgement. Everybody has to make this decision either Yes or No

 

[Clete]

Settled in this case being exhaustively foreknown.

Be as redundant in your speech as you like.

Such does not, by any logical cohesion, necessitate that what He knows isn't chosen, etc.

On the contrary. An action that is infallibly known in advance cannot be freely chosen. A fact that I've presented the proof of dozens of times over the years without a single refutation even being attempted.

The link simply cannot be made in any clad sense.

It can and it has. I have a difficult time believing that you don't remember it.

It is at best, and intimation: If God knows, we have no freewill.

No sir! It is a fact.

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Source

Reading scripture constantly, consistently, discussing in group pertinent scripture, prayerful.

No, Lon! That is literally a stupid answer. Sorry but that's the truth. David Koresh could make such a claim.

Prayer is profitable but all the prayer in the world will not make the irrational true, consistency is good so long as your consistently honest and diligently ruthless against falsehood. Consistent stupidity will never yield wisdom. Discussions with others is profitable but does not establish the truth as truth. Truth is not established by consensus.

The truth is established in one way and in one way only. SOUND REASON!

They don't apply, as in "application." Rather such is internal and proceeds from His being. A measuring stick for virtue of God? We rather believe it by faith "God is Good" God is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all."

You are changing the subject. You have made a very poor habit of over thinking things, Lon. It is either meaningful to say that God is moral or He is, in fact, immoral. You can't even suggest that He is amoral because He performs actions that are directly and undeniably moral in nature including, but not limited to, judging the actions of others and either punishing or rewarding those actions. If God is not moral then He is, in fact, unjust.

It isn't an application, it is His nature.

Meaningless gibberish.

God cannot be righteousness and act unrighteously. God cannot be the essence of justice and be an arbitrary tyrant that sends babies to Hell for no reason at all.

Yes.

I agree. It does.

I agree, until I was saved, every 'good' motivation was for ultimately wrong reasons without Jesus involved.

You're a fool, Lon.

You believe nonsense because some idiot taught it to you. None of this blasphemous drivel is in the bible.

"You did not choose me, I chose you, without me you can do nothing, It is God in you Who wills to do..."

Jesus said this to his twelve disciples, not to every man woman and child that would ever believe!

There is no such thing as a Calvinist proof-text that is not an example of the Calvinist reading the doctrine into the text.

Which was the Law.

What are you talking about? On what planet does that sentence belong inside this discussion?

It does in any sense intervention is needed. Perhaps not 'totally' in your mind, but without God, 'these things are impossible.'

What things are impossible?

It is only in God that 'all things are possible.'

Again, a totally disconnect irrelevancy that cannot possibly connect to any portion of this discussion.

If we are 'totally unable' to save ourselves, "Inability" in such case is a depravity, in Total.

Total depravity has nothing to do with our being unable to save ourselves. That IS NOT what the doctrine is about. You can twist the words to mean whatever nuanced nonsense you desire to believe but that won't mean that you believe the doctrine of Total Depravity any more than Mormons using the term "Jesus" makes them real Christians who worship the real Jesus. All you'll have accomplished is to muddy the water and give Calvinists a foothold that they have not earned.

 

[Clete]

Mainly because in the Bible, His words are doctrines (teachings) of election. Predestination is only attached to the salvation of the person.

Predestination, as taught by Calvinists, is a complete falsehood and is not taught in the bible at all. If it were true, it would mean that God is arbitrary - the opposite of just. Not only that but it would render Calvary unnecessary, not to mention weirdly sadistic.

The only things God has predestined are things pertaining to Himself and to groups of people. For example, God will defeat His enemies and in a rather specific way which God has predestined to happen (although not in the hyper detailed way the Calvinists believe) and He has determined the destiny of those who believe as well as the destiny of those who do not. Also, more specifically, the fate of Israel will be quite different than that of the Body of Christ (i.e. the former has an Earthly calling, the later a Heavenly calling) and there are those who have believed who are not in either of those two groups and who will have yet a different destiny. The specific individuals who will be in whichever group was NOT predestined nor is it even known by God and there isn't anything in the bible that even suggests otherwise. Your every attempt to show otherwise will prove, as always, to be you reading your doctrine into the text. The text itself, by itself, does NOT teach Calvinism because....

God is just!

Therefore, Calvinism is false!

 

[Lon]

Two questions:
Does God's knowledge encompass all future choices that are made?
If so, is God's knowledge completely inerrent? (without error)

Yes, but even if one knows all 'possible' outcomes it is still omnicompetence, even for an Open Theist. "All things knowable" is still 'everything.' There is nothing that 'can' exist without Him, no 'new' songs. No unexpected grapes. It doesn't add up rationally.

If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then it does, necessarily, mean that the future is settled.

Only if 'forced' to that conclusion. What if what is known is written, partly, by us? For instance? Just knowing it doesn't mean inescapable, it just means 'this is the way it happens. I've tried this before: I made a poor decision last week and am facing consequences. It is done, set in stone as it were. I still made the choice. If it is true enough as past, it can be true enough by inference for the future. It doesn't matter what is known, but that we made those choices.

If the answer to the former is no, then God is not omniscient (in the classical sense of the term).

Perhaps, if the Open Theist paradigms hold up under scrutiny. The first: Does knowing intimate being stuck? What I do tomorrow will affect the consequences of a poor decision yesterday. The knowledge of what I will do tomorrow about it is set in stone. Am I locked in? Yes, if I want to make the issue right again. Necessarily? The other choices are subpar. As we grow closer to Christ, it is our desire behave more and more in line with His Will (intimately known and held by Him Who is exactly that). There is no 'deny self, take up your cross' in respect to freewill, it is rather choosing His Will, thus we, who want to be more like Him, are infinitely more concerned with doing His Will that is fully known.

The only alternatives are that God's knowledge is errant, or that He is not Omniscient.

This is not demonstrative. Intuitive? It does but intimates a 'fear' that "I'm not free." Fearful things cannot inform well, our theology.

For if the answer to the former is yes, but the latter is no, His knowledge is errant.

Calvinists and Open Theists intimate this, but it doesn't follow. If I have an ant farm, by example, there are only so many grains of sand and only so many possibilities. I could literally diagram their every future move given the desire. They are still free to do it, I just know beforehand, very well what is possible. If God's knowledge of future is because He is beyond time restraints, then exponentially so: He see the end from the beginning. This is intimated by David asking God if Saul would catch him if he went one way, and 300 years before his birth, that Josiah would be born, by name and exactly what he'd do.

And if the former is no, then God's knowledge does not encompass all things.

The Bible shows often that what God wanted to happen, knew what would happen, expected to happen, did not happen. Meaning He did not know the outcome, He did not know the future.

I've seen what one thinks scripture says, for instance 'good grapes' as if God were surprised. Even this is short of the Open Proposition that "He knows all things knowable." I've grown food. Long before it comes to fruition I'm fully aware of what I'm going to get for fruit well before the day. People aren't grapes. Taking analogy as far as Openists take them is beyond the scope of intent. It is thus, one of the worst examples of liberty in proof-texting. It was a song from Isaiah. It was 'to' God, not us. We are not grapes, we are people. Analogy wasn't supposed to to be used for any kind of prooftexting. It is a song. It is analogy. We aren't wheat. The others not tares.

 

[Lon]

Be as redundant in your speech as you like.


On the contrary. An action that is infallibly known in advance cannot be freely chosen. A fact that I've presented the proof of dozens of times over the years without a single refutation even being attempted.

Only because of assertion?

It can and it has. I have a difficult time believing that you don't remember it.


No sir! It is a fact.

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Source


No, Lon! That is literally a stupid answer. Sorry but that's the truth. David Koresh could make such a claim.

I don't believe he could. He was master of his domain, not at all 'sharing' truth.

Prayer is profitable but all the prayer in the world will not make the irrational true, consistency is good so long as your consistently honest and diligently ruthless against falsehood. Consistent stupidity will never yield wisdom. Discussions with others is profitable but does not establish the truth as truth. Truth is not established by consensus.

God is more powerful yet. Rationally or God-forbid irrationally, God is the maker of all things possible.

The truth is established in one way and in one way only. SOUND REASON!

Only one possesses it in full. There are two good minds at work here, opposed, yet rational as best as we can be.

You are changing the subject. You have made a very poor habit of over thinking things, Lon. It is either meaningful to say that God is moral or He is, in fact, immoral. You can't even suggest that He is amoral because He performs actions that are directly and undeniably moral in nature including, but not limited to, judging the actions of others and either punishing or rewarding those actions. If God is not moral then He is, in fact, unjust.

True, we are creations, not Creator. Our measuring sticks are finite.

Meaningless gibberish.

Because you say so? Saying it doesn't make it so? (Just thought I'd try it)

God cannot be righteousness and act unrighteously. God cannot be the essence of justice and be an arbitrary tyrant that sends babies to Hell for no reason at all.

It is ever the question of man to ask God 'then why?' We go through terrible things and come back to Him and ask "Why God?" It isn't at all that He is unrighteous, it is that we don't know how to qualify it sufficiently.

You're a fool, Lon.

You won't listen, but these things shouldn't be said. I get the knee-jerk, but it simply isn't helpful, is seen as school-yard and immature etc.

You believe nonsense because some idiot taught it to you. None of this blasphemous drivel is in the bible.

Don't give me this, you are well aware of "all their righteousness is as filthy rags' etc. etc. One simply cannot pit scripture against scripture. It is not done.

Jesus said this to his twelve disciples, not to every man woman and child that would ever believe!

Despite the exclamation point, think: Only disciples 'can do nothing without Him?' ???

There is no such thing as a Calvinist proof-text that is not an example of the Calvinist reading the doctrine into the text.

With Open Theists it is 'sour grapes' that comes to mind as exactly the same.

What things are impossible?

Holiness without Christ. Righteousness isn't a full descriptor. Righteousness is about doing right. Depravity isn't about being evil as can be with nothing resembling a righteous act, rather that we cannot fix the sin condition, thus 'totally unable.'

Again, a totally disconnect irrelevancy that cannot possibly connect to any portion of this discussion.

At this venture don't believe wholly on page with Total Depravity in the sense that some Calvinists would mean. I simply agree with the premise of points you posted concerning depravity.

Total depravity has nothing to do with our being unable to save ourselves.

This isn't correct. Article one of Arminianism:

That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the gospel in John 3:36: ‘He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him,’ and according to other passages of Scripture also.

It might not need mean that 'good men choose Christ!' but that was the intent of the redress "Total Depravity."

That IS NOT what the doctrine is about. You can twist the words to mean whatever nuanced nonsense you desire to believe but that won't mean that you believe the doctrine of Total Depravity any more than Mormons using the term "Jesus" makes them real Christians who worship the real Jesus. All you'll have accomplished is to muddy the water and give Calvinists a foothold that they have not earned.

I'm telling you what Calvinists have told me. Granted we have had a good few double-pred Calvinists, but we do have to have at least a semblance of what the whole means and where they differ.

 

[Derf]

what is the scope of Total Depravity?

This is a rather humorous side discussion in a thread about the scope of omniscience, don't you think?

 

[Clete]

When God deals with Babies, they either die or become adults. according to the scriptures in many places, Babies and small children are innocent and have done nothing wrong....they, I believe are saved if they died during this time.

Notice the appeal to justice!

"Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

Babies that become adults like Jacob and Esau, are judged as adults....even though God hated (did not help him) Esau, his judgement would have been made long before he was born and based upon his sins.

You need to learn to read. The passage you are referring to is talking about two nations, not the two children. The text says so explicitly and the older child never served his younger brother.

Genesis 25:23 And the Lord said to her:
“Two nations are in your womb,
Two peoples shall be separated from your body;
One people shall be stronger than the other,
And the older shall serve the younger.”

 

[Clete]

Only because of assertion?

I don't believe he could. He was master of his domain, not at all 'sharing' truth.

I stopped reading at that point.

I will not have my time wasted by you ignoring nearly everything I say. We can continue when you respond to the arguments.

 

[JudgeRightly]

When God deals with Babies, they either die or become adults. according to the scriptures in many places, Babies and small children are innocent and have done nothing wrong....they, I believe are saved if they died during this time. Babies that become adults like Jacob and Esau, are judged as adults....even though God hated (did not help him) Esau, his judgement would have been made long before he was born and based upon his sins.

Again, this is NOT what the video was about.

The video was showing that Dr. White believes that God predestines some babies for hell, and others for eternal life with Him.

 

[JudgeRightly]

God has the sovereignty (the authority and control) over all things.

Again, Sovereign does not mean "in control."

It means "in authority over."

A king is sovereign over his people. He does not control them, nor does he have to in order to be sovereign.

This is what I believe people will have to answer for at the last judgement. Everybody has to make this decision either Yes or No

No, God is not going to send someone to hell for believing that God isn't in meticulous control over everything.

 

[Right Divider]

God has the sovereignty (the authority and control) over all things.

Repeating your FALSE definition does not help your FALSE claim.

This is what I believe people will have to answer for at the last judgement. Everybody has to make this decision either Yes or No

If God controls everything, then only He can be justly responsible for the outcome.