Evidence for God from Science

I assure you Narnia, my emotional state is fine. Jac summerized exactly why we shouldn't invoke such terms. So, perhaps I should say, regarding pelagianism, get over it.

To put it shortly, my argument is basically that either man is totally depraved (and total depravity entails other things as well, including "probably" the other 4 points of TULIP) or else he simply has a tendency, an inclination, to sin. Or you could put it a little stronger and say a proclivity. Does anyone disagree with this?

If you are presenting depravity as TD (which likely entails the other 5 points) or something else. Then I will go with the something else. If we looked at man's depravity as a hole that man was unable to escape on his own, we'd all agree. The 5PC would argue that their hole is deeper. But seriously,......

Narnia, you keep saying, "Either man is totally depraved or he is not." Jlay makes an important point when he says, "If you are presenting depravity as TD (which likely entails the other 5 points) . . ." Note that he will go with the "something else" if you are presenting depravity in terms of TD, which in turn likely entails the other five points of the TULIP. All that is to say, can you tell me (us, whatever) precisely what you mean by the term "Total Depravity"? Again, dispensing with the labels that often do more to confuse than clarify, can you just tell me exactly what that label means to you?

This is the problem that comes up with "rejecting labels". I mean Total Depravity by and large in the traditional, Calvinistic, 5-point sense. If I mean something different I'll either say so or else its in a way that's insignificant with no bearing on the discussion. The problem isn't using labels, the problem is equivocation and using terms that traditionally mean one thing when you don't intend for it to have that meaning at all. That doesn't mean that I want to fit you into theological boxes that don't fit your beliefs, but the onus is on you to state your position if you want to imply that you "believe in total depravity but not in the way Calvinists believe in it, or Arminians, or any other theological box". Apologies if nobody is implying that and I just can't tell, the reason I can't tell is because its been repeatedly mentioned that these terms aren't being used in the same way that I mean them. Now that's confusing. If I were more suspicious (in reality I'm not but I think this should be brought up because its common enough) I could say that this would be a very nice little burden-shifting tactic to always say "There's a third option!" while conveniently dismissing terms used that would make your position more clear.

I'll restate my argument as clearly and as concisely as possible.

1. Man is either totally depraved or he is not.

By totally depraved I mean "Totally Depraved", in the Calvinistic sense. This is just the law of non-contradiction. Totally depraved meaning dead in sin, unable and unwilling to accomplish pure good or to seek God. Evil.

2. If man is not totally depraved, he can choose not to sin.

If man isn't dead he's alive. He has freedom to make choices and will make any choice he wants. This is meant to encompass every position other than the Calvinistic Total Depravity.

3. If man can choose not to sin, it is possible that he could choose to never sin.

"Never choose to sin" might be a better way of putting it but I won't edit it now. By this I mean only that it is logically possible for a person to make the "good choice" every time he wants by his own volition. Think of it in terms of probability. Let's say each day there's a 99.9% chance that Person A will sin. That means that there's a .1% a person may not choose to sin. Its less likely, but possible, that a person may not sin for a week. Or a month. Or a year. Or his entire life. Now this would get beyond the point of "statistical impossibility", but its not logically impossible

4. If a man could choose to never sin, that man would not need Christ.

If a man was sinless than he wouldn't need Christ to pay for his sins. Pretty straightforward.

Now the first four points logically follow. The last points only casts doubt on certain positions and I don't think they're very well constructed. Not that I think its valueless but it isn't airtight.

5. All men have (and will) fallen short of the glory of God and needs Christ.

I don't think this needs any more explanation.

6. Therefore man could NOT choose to never sin.

This is assuming that you don't hold to a view similar to pelagianism or semi-pelagianism on this particular issue.

7. Therefore, man is totally depraved.


The argument is really trying to drive you into a dichotomy, several really. Perhaps a better starting point would be the nature of sin, original sin imputed from Adam... I'm glad Jac touched on that because that's the sort of thing I was driving at. Is evil something we DO or is it something we ARE? If it is something we ARE, are we only evil because we sin? Maybe that would be a better way to put it. The argument is an attempt to show that if you believe that sin is not only an action but a part of your being, I think you are driven very strongly in the direction of Calvinistic Total Depravity. The other position that I didn't try to disprove (yet anyway) is that sin is an action and only an action, something we do. That we are without sin when we are born. That sin nature only means that we tend to sin. And so on. Jlay is obviously sick of hearing this, but a position like semi-pelagianism as I understand it. That isn't mean as a scare tactic to show that this position must obviously be wrong, its trying to look at the options given and sort them so I can come to an understanding what others here believe.

Any more clarification needed? Just to be clear I'm still enjoying the discussion and I'm not getting frustrated.

By totally depraved I mean "Totally Depraved", in the Calvinistic sense. This is just the law of non-contradiction. Totally depraved meaning dead in sin, unable and unwilling to accomplish pure good or to seek God. Evil.

Here's where I have an issue with total depravity, as defined above. All men have a conscience. The conscience tells one that what they're about to do is wrong. One chooses to listen to his conscience, and not murder the man who stole his goat. God also created mankind as a spiritual creature. God put a spiritual desire in man. A desire to know spiritual things. A desire to know God. While these things are from God, they are given to all people, not just Christians. So, IMO, the depravity of man, isn't as total as Calvinism makes it out to be.
And, if T-total depravity is not accurate, then u-l-i-p, can't follow. And 5 point Calvinism, as a whole system, fails.

Here's a couple of quotes from an article by Piper-

Of course totally depraved men can be very religious and very philanthropic. They can pray and give alms and fast, as Jesus said (Matthew 6:1-18). But their very religion is rebellion against the rights of their Creator, if it does not come from a childlike heart of trust in the free grace of God.

It is a myth that man in his natural state is genuinely seeking God. Men do seek God. But they do not seek him for who he is. They seek him in a pinch as one who might preserve them from death or enhance their worldly enjoyments. Apart from conversion, no one comes to the light of God.

And also-

Thus man does many things which he can only do because he is created in the image of God and which in the service of God could be praised. But in the service of man's self-justifying rebellion, these very things are sinful.

Here's a quote from wikipedia that was interesting, at least... possibly not totally in line with Piper's comments-

This idea can be illustrated by a glass of wine with a few drops of deadly poison in it: Although not all the liquid is poison, all the liquid is poisoned. In the same way, while not all of human nature is depraved, all human nature is totally affected by depravity.

Now this aspect could lead to a whole different discussion as well...

Narnia,

Again, just to be direct, I absolutely reject the Calvinist doctrine of TD. It makes too many assumptions about the nature of faith and the nature of grace that I just disagree with. You might as well ask me if I've stopped beating my wife yet.

As to your argument specifically:

• 1. Man is either totally depraved or he is not.
  2. If man is not totally depraved, he can choose not to sin.
  3. If man can choose not to sin, it is possible that he could choose to never sin.
  4. If a man could choose to never sin, that man would not need Christ.
  5. All men have (and will) fallen short of the glory of God and needs Christ.
  6. Therefore man could NOT choose to never sin.
  7. Therefore, man is totally depraved.

I have several problems with this.

First, (2) is problematic. If you look carefully, you'll notice that you are starting arguing (from absurdity, I assume) a consequence of TD being false. The implied argument is this:

a) If ~TD, man can choose ~sin.
b) ~(man can choose ~sin)
c) :. ~(~TD) = TD

Of course, (b) here is really what you are trying to demonstrate through the rest of the argument, but leave that aside for a moment. The problem is that you have not demonstrated, but rather assumed, this premise:

a') If TD, ~(man can choose ~sin)

In other words, you may be right that if TD is false, I can choose to not sin. But it may also be that if TD is true, I can still choose to not sin. If that premise is true, then the rest of your argument fails (assuming the absurdity you reach is really absurd). So you have more work to do in that you must prove that on TD, I cannot choose not to sin. But that's a rather extreme position, because it is clear that the non-elect, and the unsaved in general (e.g., the elect not yet saved, temporally speaking), at times choose not to sin. The only way to maintain the argument, I submit, would be to argue that every single non-sinful act we do, we do only because God enabled it. But that just seems absurd--that the unsaved person chooses not to murder his boss because God so enabled him, etc. That, in my mind, makes a mockery of the whole notion that we ought to resist temptation!

Anyway, to continue on . . .

I think (3) is true, but again, I think TD proponents are going to have the same "problem." In fact, I think TDs have their own problem here with regard to believers. Presumably, you would say that believers can choose not to sin (perhaps by the indwelling of the HS). Therefore, by your argument, believers can choose never to sin. It is, of course, evident, both experimentally and biblically, that none of us do that (see 1 John 1:8-10). So what is the difference in the unsaved who chooses to sin and the saved who chooses to sin and the unsaved who chooses not to sin and the saved who chooses not to sin? There are other implications for this, but I'll mention them later, as they really have to do with the internal consistency of your argument later.

(4) is the really serious problem, though, because it just doesn't follow. Why would we not "need Christ" if we chose never to sin? Part of not sinning is not calling God a liar, so it is logically impossible to fail to believe that Jesus is the Christ and not sin; indeed, to fail to believe the Gospel is to sin, since it makes God a liar. What you would have to actually say here is NOT that a man does not need Christ, but rather than if any person ever chose never to sin, then Christ would not have had to come. And that would actually be true. But the fact is, the moment ANYONE in history sins, if Christ wants to save him, then by God's decree, Christ must come. And, Christ coming, the one choosing never to sin must believe in Christ (lest he sin).

In fact, I think this is actually really the case. Are you aware that up to 20% of all children die of miscarriage? If we accept that life begins at conception--and I certainly do--then it is evident that these children never sinned. For what, then, would they be condemned to Hell? And for which of their sins did Christ die? They had no sin for Christ to die for. It is theoretically possible that Jesus could have never come and God could have just raised all of us from the dead and condemned every person who ever sinned to Hell. That would, however, leave over 20% of the population that never sinned. What would he condemn them for? On my view, there would be no reason for Him to do so. So God could still save untold millions of people without sending Christ. But because He loved those of us who did sin (which includes me and you), everyone else must accept the truth of the Gospel to be saved. So, again, I just see it as false to say that if a person never chooses to sin, then they do not need Christ. The proper theological statement would be that if a person never chooses to sin, then Christ can save at least that person without having come to earth. But since Christ did come to earth to save sinners, the premise fails, since the theoretical person who chooses not to sin needs Christ exactly insofar as He needs to believe Christ to not sin.

(5) is odd in your argument, because it shifts the mood. In 1-4, you are dealing with hypotheticals. Frankly, I just don't see how it fits. It seems that what you really wanted to do here was to deny the consequent of (4), and say, "But all men do need Christ, because all men sinned." And then trace the reductio back up. So it ought to be rendered as follows:

• 4. If a man could choose to never sin, that man would not need Christ.
  5'. But it is not the case that a man would not need Christ (that is, all men need Christ)
  6. Therefore man could NOT choose to never sin.
  7. Therefore, man is totally depraved.

But phrased this way, it is evident the problem with (4) discussed above becomes clearer. It is not obvious that just because all men need Christ they therefore cannot choose not to sin (which is the necessary logical framing your argument: If P then Q; ~Q; :.~P).

This takes me to the problem of consistency I discussed above. As we look at (6), if believers can choose not to sin (which I presume you accept is true), then (6) is problematic, too. For 1 John 1:8-10 makes it clear that believers sin, just as Romans 3 makes it clear that all people do sin. Now, it seems you take the assertion that all men sin in Romans 3 to speak to our basic constitution (that is, to require TD). That is, you are reading it in a theological sense of, "Because TD is true, everyone necessarily sins and falls short . . ." But that leaves unexplained 1 John 1:8-10. For you can't say, "Because TD is true, all Christians necessarily sin," since I presume you agree that Christians do not NECESSARILY sin. Now, perhaps you do think that Christians necessarily sin, but I think that creates serious problems elsewhere (since the Bible says clearly that God always provides a way out of sin). But I assume that you take 1 John 1:8-10 to be stating a practical reality--that is, that it is just the case that we all choose to sin, even though we don't have, too. But if you can read 1 John 1:8-10 that way, then there seems to be no reason that you cannot read Romans 3:23 in the same way, and therefore, there seems to be no necessary theological requirement for TD.

So for all of these reasons, I think your argument fails. In fact, I think it demonstrates some very serious problems with TD and offers some very good reasons as to why I reject the doctrine entirely.

I'll put my "argument" (although for some reason I don't love calling it that) right up front again-

• 1. Man is either totally depraved or he is not.
  2. If man is not totally depraved, he can choose not to sin.
  3. If man can choose not to sin, it is possible that he could choose to never sin.
  4. If a man could choose to never sin, that man would not need Christ.
  5. All men have (and will) fallen short of the glory of God and needs Christ.
  6. Therefore man could NOT choose to never sin.
  7. Therefore, man is totally depraved.

Jac3510 wrote: Again, just to be direct, I absolutely reject the Calvinist doctrine of TD. It makes too many assumptions about the nature of faith and the nature of grace that I just disagree with.You might as well ask me if I've stopped beating my wife yet.

I don't follow this, I'm not asking a loaded question.

In other words, you may be right that if TD is false, I can choose to not sin. But it may also be that if TD is true, I can still choose to not sin. If that premise is true, then the rest of your argument fails (assuming the absurdity you reach is really absurd). So you have more work to do in that you must prove that on TD, I cannot choose not to sin. But that's a rather extreme position, because it is clear that the non-elect, and the unsaved in general (e.g., the elect not yet saved, temporally speaking), at times choose not to sin. The only way to maintain the argument, I submit, would be to argue that every single non-sinful act we do, we do only because God enabled it. But that just seems absurd--that the unsaved person chooses not to murder his boss because God so enabled him, etc. That, in my mind, makes a mockery of the whole notion that we ought to resist temptation!

Now we're getting somewhere. I think this is close to the nature of total depravity. But the scenario you set up is off. The reprobate does things that, were he saved, might be considered good, but are in fact tainted by sin. An unsaved person may not murder his boss, but that may only be because he doesn't want to get caught, or simply because he was raised that way. It might be "good" in one sense, but in a more serious sense everything he does is tainted by sin. And I alluded to this when I wrote about the nature of sin and how that seems to be close to the heart of the disagreement.

I think (3) is true, but again, I think TD proponents are going to have the same "problem."

No TD proponents are not for the reason I gave above. After salvation is an interesting scenario, but after that point I'd say it becomes the probabilistic scenario.

(4) is the really serious problem, though, because it just doesn't follow. Why would we not "need Christ" if we chose never to sin? Part of not sinning is not calling God a liar, so it is logically impossible to fail to believe that Jesus is the Christ and not sin; indeed, to fail to believe the Gospel is to sin, since it makes God a liar.

I thought someone would bring this up, maybe it would be better to say that Christ never would have had to have come. But I think its still accurate to say that, were a person sinless, then what would Christ's sacrifice pay for?

The proper theological statement would be that if a person never chooses to sin, then Christ can save at least that person without having come to earth. But since Christ did come to earth to save sinners, the premise fails, since the theoretical person who chooses not to sin needs Christ exactly insofar as He needs to believe Christ to not sin.

This is just a hypothetical scenario, I'm aware that rejecting Christ is a sin. Maybe it could apply to a person who never heard of Christ or a hypothetical world where Christ did not come. I think the point is obvious and to say that "well denying Christ is a sin" would be to miss that point.

(5) is odd in your argument, because it shifts the mood. In 1-4, you are dealing with hypotheticals. Frankly, I just don't see how it fits. It seems that what you really wanted to do here was to deny the consequent of (4), and say, "But all men do need Christ, because all men sinned." And then trace the reductio back up. So it ought to be rendered as follows:

• 4. If a man could choose to never sin, that man would not need Christ.
  5'. But it is not the case that a man would not need Christ (that is, all men need Christ)
  6. Therefore man could NOT choose to never sin.
  7. Therefore, man is totally depraved.

But phrased this way, it is evident the problem with (4) discussed above becomes clearer. It is not obvious that just because all men need Christ they therefore cannot choose not to sin (which is the necessary logical framing your argument: If P then Q; ~Q; :.~P).

This takes me to the problem of consistency I discussed above. As we look at (6), if believers can choose not to sin (which I presume you accept is true), then (6) is problematic, too. For 1 John 1:8-10 makes it clear that believers sin, just as Romans 3 makes it clear that all people do sin. Now, it seems you take the assertion that all men sin in Romans 3 to speak to our basic constitution (that is, to require TD). That is, you are reading it in a theological sense of, "Because TD is true, everyone necessarily sins and falls short . . ." But that leaves unexplained 1 John 1:8-10. For you can't say, "Because TD is true, all Christians necessarily sin," since I presume you agree that Christians do not NECESSARILY sin. Now, perhaps you do think that Christians necessarily sin, but I think that creates serious problems elsewhere (since the Bible says clearly that God always provides a way out of sin). But I assume that you take 1 John 1:8-10 to be stating a practical reality--that is, that it is just the case that we all choose to sin, even though we don't have, too. But if you can read 1 John 1:8-10 that way, then there seems to be no reason that you cannot read Romans 3:23 in the same way, and therefore, there seems to be no necessary theological requirement for TD.

So for all of these reasons, I think your argument fails. In fact, I think it demonstrates some very serious problems with TD and offers some very good reasons as to why I reject the doctrine entirely.

I wasn't happy with how the rest of my argument looked, your formulation might be better but I'll have to examine it further.

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough but I think there is a way out of the argument, as you say- that sinning is a practical reality and not a necessary reality. That's what I'm trying to do, force a certain conclusion (the conclusion you came to) in order to deny the argument. I'm trying to limit the possible logical positions here, if you already hold a certain position that you've thought through then the argument may be a waste of time.

I'll borrow some of the terms you've been using because they're helpful. I'm trying to show that if you believe that it is logically (or maybe intrinsically) necessary that the "sinner sins", then the "T" in TULIP is necessary. If it is only practically necessary that a person sins, then you don't need to accept TD. Of course that doesn't mean that a person can't give other arguments for or against TD, but that's the gist of it.

If a man is totally depraved, which means TOTALLY morally corrupt, how can he choose Christ?

PaulSacramento wrote:If a man is totally depraved, which means TOTALLY morally corrupt, how can he choose Christ?

Paul, according to 5pt Calvinism, HE CAN'T. That is why, according to 5pt Calvinism, man has to be saved, and indwelt with the Holy Spirit, BEFORE he can accept Christ. That leads to the U, in TULIP. Unconditional Election. Only those that God elects for salvation, will receive the indwelling Holy Spirit, so they are able to believe on Christ. And those that God hasn't elected, are passed over for salvation, and are elected to eternal damnation(double predestination.)

From:http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/

God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).

narnia4 wrote:I don't follow this, I'm not asking a loaded question.

I'm just pointing out that there are those of us for whom it is a loaded question. If I say, "TD is false" (which I do), that comes across as if I'm saying, "God does not need to enable man to believe; He can do so on His own," or worse yet, "Man is capable of saving himself," or again, "Man, though dead, can create the divine gift of faith," etc. I would reject all of those assertions. What I'm saying is that the TD debate (indeed, the entire Calvinist/Arminian debate) makes certain assumptions that I fundamentally disagree with.

Now we're getting somewhere. I think this is close to the nature of total depravity. But the scenario you set up is off. The reprobate does things that, were he saved, might be considered good, but are in fact tainted by sin. An unsaved person may not murder his boss, but that may only be because he doesn't want to get caught, or simply because he was raised that way. It might be "good" in one sense, but in a more serious sense everything he does is tainted by sin. And I alluded to this when I wrote about the nature of sin and how that seems to be close to the heart of the disagreement.

I just don't see how this helps the Calvinist, though. They seem to be suggesting that by totally depraved nature allows me to choose not to commit some sins but that it requires me to commit different kinds. For instance, we know that the reprobate are perfectly capable of keeping the moral law some of the time. So you have to add the qualification, "Well, they only keep it because of this or that reason, which is not sufficient to make it right." But that seems wrong for a couple of reasons to me. First, not murdering my brother seems correct whether I don't murder him because I love him or I don't murder him because I'm afraid of getting caught! One may be more commendable than another, but either way, I've still not done the wrong thing. Second, and more deeply, suppose the only reason I don't murder my brother is that I don't want to get caught. What am I really saying? There, I'm saying that I want to preserve my life. But is it not a good thing to preserve the life that God has blessed you with? Indeed, is that not the reason that destroying your body is such a sin in the first place? So I'm keeping the moral law insofar as I want to protect my life, which is a gift with which God has entrusted me. To further illustrate that second problem, suppose the only reason I am polite is because I have been raised that way and I don't want to make my parents look like bad parents. But is it not a good thing to want to so honor your parents?

So it seems to me that the TD account of sin in the person's life is insufficient on multiple levels. Either we are depraved and yet we can choose not to sin, or we are depraved and therefore we cannot; if the latter, we must be consistent and say that any good deed that we do (even things like not murdering our brother) for ANY reason, we only do so because God essentially overrode our nature. And that just strikes me as absurd, if not unbiblical.

I thought someone would bring this up, maybe it would be better to say that Christ never would have had to have come. But I think its still accurate to say that, were a person sinless, then what would Christ's sacrifice pay for?

In that particular person's case, none. But it doesn't follow from that that they therefore do not need Christ. Being born with a sin nature (even if they never actually sin), their body will still die. Therefore, they need Christ for the resurrection. And, again, given the fact that Christ has opted to save others, they are logically bound to trust Him rather than themselves--even in their sinless state--for their salvation, lest they sin and make Christ a liar by denying that He is the Christ, the Son of God!

I wasn't happy with how the rest of my argument looked, your formulation might be better but I'll have to examine it further.

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough but I think there is a way out of the argument, as you say- that sinning is a practical reality and not a necessary reality. That's what I'm trying to do, force a certain conclusion (the conclusion you came to) in order to deny the argument. I'm trying to limit the possible logical positions here, if you already hold a certain position that you've thought through then the argument may be a waste of time.

I'll borrow some of the terms you've been using because they're helpful. I'm trying to show that if you believe that it is logically (or maybe intrinsically) necessary that the "sinner sins", then the "T" in TULIP is necessary. If it is only practically necessary that a person sins, then you don't need to accept TD. Of course that doesn't mean that a person can't give other arguments for or against TD, but that's the gist of it.

I don't mean to imply that you do or do not accept the argument you've suggested or the TULIP or TD or anything else. I'm just dealing with the argument as it was presented.

I think the point we are getting to, though, and which we might agree on, is that if the unsaved necessarily sin--where that necessarily speaks of a consequence intrinsic to their nature--then the T is true. But I don't think the Bible teaches we necessarily sin (so stated). I think it teaches we actually sin, and that because of our nature. But there is nothing in our nature that requires it as there is, say, the requirement to think or make moral judgments generally.

Moreover, I think this gets at an even deeper issue of what it means to be human. Whether intentional or not, I think the T in the TULIP actually denies mankind their humanity. The moment you say, "the human nature is necessarily sinful (in the Calvinistic sense)," what you are saying is that sin is an essential property of the human nature. There's no way around that. That's what necessary means in this context--that thanks to the fall, human nature is such that it is now essentially sinful. But that means that anyone who can choose not to sin has a different sort of nature (namely, one to which sinfulness is accidental rather than essential). But in that case, both people cannot be said to be human! For if you change something's essential properties, you change what it is. Now, we know that Christ never sinned, so that means that either Christ is truly human and that we are not truly human (since Christ's nature is not essentially sinful whereas ours is), or it means that we are truly human but that Christ is not truly human. Both consequences seem, to me, absolutely absurd, for in either case, Christ is not as we are and therefore cannot be our mediator.

I realize I'm doing something here different than you intended--I'm providing an argument against TD. But I can't help it. When talking about this issue, I think we need to be consistent. If we are going to hold to the premise that TD is true and that TD entails that a person cannot choose not to sin, then we must explain why that is true: namely, because man is essentially sinful; which means that humanity is essentially sinful, and therefore a) anything non-sinful we do, we do because God overrides our humanity, and b) either we are not humans or Christ is not human (or, that Christ Himself was essentially sinful, contra Scripture).

I hope I've not taken this argument too far afield. This is your thread, and these are just my thoughts. If you want to take the thread in another direction, feel free to ignore all of this.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If a man is totally depraved, which means TOTALLY morally corrupt, how can he choose Christ?

Paul, according to 5pt Calvinism, HE CAN'T. That is why, according to 5pt Calvinism, man has to be saved, and indwelt with the Holy Spirit, BEFORE he can accept Christ. That leads to the U, in TULIP. Unconditional Election. Only those that God elects for salvation, will receive the indwelling Holy Spirit, so they are able to believe on Christ. And those that God hasn't elected, are passed over for salvation, and are elected to eternal damnation(double predestination.)

From:http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/

God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).

Ah that's right, I forgot about that part.
But if only those that are given the HS by God are saved, does that mean that those are STILL TD ?
I mean, if God gives them the HS AND they are as TD as everyone else, why are they chosen?

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If a man is totally depraved, which means TOTALLY morally corrupt, how can he choose Christ?

Paul, according to 5pt Calvinism, HE CAN'T. That is why, according to 5pt Calvinism, man has to be saved, and indwelt with the Holy Spirit, BEFORE he can accept Christ. That leads to the U, in TULIP. Unconditional Election. Only those that God elects for salvation, will receive the indwelling Holy Spirit, so they are able to believe on Christ. And those that God hasn't elected, are passed over for salvation, and are elected to eternal damnation(double predestination.)

From:http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/

God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).

Ah that's right, I forgot about that part.
But if only those that are given the HS by God are saved, does that mean that those are STILL TD ?
I mean, if God gives them the HS AND they are as TD as everyone else, why are they chosen?

According to 5pt Calvinism, they are chosen because

God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation

God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).

It amazes me how Calvin never had a problem with that interpretation, of course why would he, He seemed to think that he was one of the elect.

The dangers of "proof texting".

Paul, here's how to honestly explain salvation to a child or grandchild, if you're a Calvinist:

Little Johnny, God has predestined the minority of people to be saved and go to heaven forever, and He has predestined the majority of people to be eternally damned and burn in the fires of hell. We have no idea, little Johnny, if God has predestined you to be forever damned or forever saved. We love you, little Johnny, but we accept the fact that God might not love you, and that He may have plans to send you to hell for your future sins. If you do find yourself one day burning in hell because He hasn't elected to save you, just remember that we will always love you, even if God hates you. Take comfort knowing that we are not like God.

We will be in heaven forever only because we were unconditionally chosen for salvation before we were born. That would be the only reason that we won't be in hell with you if you find yourself there. It won't be because of anything we did. So also take comfort in knowing that. It may not seem fair, but who are we to judge God? So again, if you find yourself in hell, remember that we will always love you as we forever worship the God who loved us but who hated you, the God who sent His Son to die for us but not for you. Please, we ask, don't let it bother you---if you find yourself in hell---that we love the God who hated you and showed you no mercy. We must accept the fact that God is sovereign, and He does what He pleases.

From:http://www.heavensfamily.org/ss/e_teach ... -calvinist

Oivey !
So, how does a Calvinist know THEY are elected?