“It is nevertheless true that Paul was a relatively old man, not far from death when he wrote, “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I AM, (not I WAS) chief” (1 Tim. 1:15). I don’t think Paul was a “New Calvinist.””
So, Paul was saying he was still doggedly throwing people in prison…even women and children? Something changed. He changed. He was NOT doing what he used to do. In fact, after a short while, he went away for quite sometime before he started his missionary journey’s.
Of course we sin. But there is a big difference between “practicing” sin and living in a corrupt body with a corrupt mind, knowing it, and daily fighting the flesh. The totally depraved, practice sin as a lifestyle. Christians who are Born again, do not. I am not talking about sinless perfection! My very thoughts can be sinful but if I am continually acting on them, I have a bigger problem.
Hebrews 10 touches on this….if we willfully sin knowing the truth then there is no sacrifice. This is also what the book of 1 John is all about. What “anointing” is John talking about that true believers receive?
To try and say we remain totally depraved and have no input into our sanctification is ridiculous. Can I choose to sin after I am saved? Can I choose not to sin? Do I make the decision pray or not? To study or not?
BTW: “was” or “have been” are perfectly acceptable word choices for “eimi”.
Also, “protos” can have the meaning of order of importance, place, in time. It has been used as before, first and former.
Let us just say there is no indication that Paul was living out and producing the same rotten fruit as before he was saved to be the same chief sinner he was before. Paul was not saying he remained “totally depraved” until he was martyred. He was running the race!
“Bill, I agree with what you have said, but I don’t really hear these guys saying anything contrary to that.”
Randy, they are exactly saying we are still totally depraved. One reason why I bought this for so long is because I came out of the seeker world where there was no admitting anyone was totally depraved at all. I finally came to the conclusion that many people in that movement were not really saved because they thought walking an ailse and saying a prayer meant eternal life with Christ. There was no fruit of repentance. No change. Jesus was simply an accessory to their life.
That is the world I was in for many years.
I challenge you to listen to the NC guy’s sermons and talks and listen for anything about true sanctification and the function of the Holy Spirit in a believers life that spurs us on to victory over sin, gaining maturity in Christ. See, I was looking for solid teaching on the Holy Spirit when I came to the Reformed world because the Holy Spirit was also missing in the seeker world. All I found was “gospel marriage”, gospel adoption”, gospel smoking cessation, etc. (Some use the word “covenant”). They were all stuck at the Cross as if the resurrection never happened and Pentecost was a blur. (Actually Pentecost was the perfect proof text for huge churches where no one knows each other)
Let me say that I was weaned on the Holy Spirit teaching as a kid in the SBC and that we are in part responsible for our sanctification. He is our guide, our advocate, our counselor. I heard that over and over. If we pray for pure wisdom, He will give it to us if we do not doubt. Does teaching that we are still totally depraved bring doubt? I think it does.
The teaching on the function of the Holy Spirit in a believer’s life has been replaced with following the latest guru who acts as your Holy Spirit for you. Yes, I got off track lured into the church growth movement for which I repent. But the SBC changed, too. And not for the better.
One of the very best explanations of sanctification I have come across is in JC Ryle’s book,Holiness. Justification and sanctification are not the same thing but you cannot have one without the other.
So my question is this: Are these NC guru’s talking to real bonafide believers or not? If they are then why do they assume we are all still totally depraved and teach as such? The Holy Spirit convicts me of sin and I respond to that conviction.
“My point is that I don’t think Piper and others would either, unless it be on the Romans 7 thing.”
Sorry to be a blog hog but I have to comment on this thinking. If there is one thing that has driven me nuts over the last 6-7 years of being in the Reformed world it is this. For some strange reason, the guys who make their living communicating the Word, have to be constantly interpreted by bloggers. :o). I have seen it over and over. “You did not understand them”. “That is not what they were saying”, “You took their words out of context”, etc, etc.
These are people who make their living as public teachers of the Word. I would understand such thinking if it was only a few times but it is all the time. Whole blog posts around the meta are devoted to parsing their teachings and what they mean. I have seen threads of 1000plus comments on parsing Bruce Ware’s teaching, alone! In the meantime, Bruce Ware never goes public to say if it was what he meant or not. And the comments were on a blog of his colleague.
Can they not be clear? No, because they have changed definitions and use loaded language. And therein lies the problem with all of this.
Totally depraved for sure! Such teaching is a stretch of Romans 7. That passage is followed in Romans 8 with clear instruction that we are not to walk in the flesh but the Spirit. Christian liberty does not mean “I get to be wicked”, while Christ in you says “you can overcome”.
“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Timothy 4:3).
Hey I like what I’m reading, Lydia and Max. Informed people with experience. We’re hitting the problem spots very well.
Now I suspect Randy has some predisposition from his background that causes him to defend New Calvinists. They say it’s a predisposition that causes some people to defend Islam as a peace loving religion.
I am not defending them. All I am saying is that Paul isn’t giving us evidence. He claims they are saying things they clearly not saying. I want to see actual quotes. Because I teach New Covenant Theology, Paul has stated that I have to be a New Calvinist. That is just nuts. I taught NCT 20 years before anyone ever used the term NC. I am convinced that Paul has some twisted agenda that has messed up his mind. Not to mention that he denies truths that are clearly taught in Scripture. I have no affinity for NC. I do have an affinity for truth. It is time Paul started getting acquainted with it.
You wrote, “To try and say we remain totally depraved and have no input into our sanctification is ridiculous. Can I choose to sin after I am saved? Can I choose not to sin? Do I make the decision pray or not? To study or not?”
I fully agree. Of course, you make the decision to pray, study etc.
I don’t believe Christians are totally depraved. I just want someone to show me where someone has said believers are totally depraved. I just want to see or hear one statement. I don’t think that is too much to ask.
Paul told me he is no longer a sinner, he is now a new creature. That just doesn’t track with 1 Jn. 1.
I do not argue that believers have not undergone a radical change. What I have argued is that we never outgrow our need for the saving and forgiving grace of God purchased for us on Calvary. If God is JUST to forgive our sins as believers, on what basis is he just if not on the basis of Christ’s redeeming work. Paul doesn’t need the gospel anymore. He has already been justified. Funny, that the Apostle went on boasting in the cross.
More later. I just don’t want to waste too much time since my comments are not being posted.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
“It is nevertheless true that Paul was a relatively old man, not far from death when he wrote, “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I AM, (not I WAS) chief” (1 Tim. 1:15). I don’t think Paul was a “New Calvinist.””
So, Paul was saying he was still doggedly throwing people in prison…even women and children? Something changed. He changed. He was NOT doing what he used to do. In fact, after a short while, he went away for quite sometime before he started his missionary journey’s.
Of course we sin. But there is a big difference between “practicing” sin and living in a corrupt body with a corrupt mind, knowing it, and daily fighting the flesh. The totally depraved, practice sin as a lifestyle. Christians who are Born again, do not. I am not talking about sinless perfection! My very thoughts can be sinful but if I am continually acting on them, I have a bigger problem.
Hebrews 10 touches on this….if we willfully sin knowing the truth then there is no sacrifice. This is also what the book of 1 John is all about. What “anointing” is John talking about that true believers receive?
To try and say we remain totally depraved and have no input into our sanctification is ridiculous. Can I choose to sin after I am saved? Can I choose not to sin? Do I make the decision pray or not? To study or not?
BTW: “was” or “have been” are perfectly acceptable word choices for “eimi”.
Also, “protos” can have the meaning of order of importance, place, in time. It has been used as before, first and former.
Let us just say there is no indication that Paul was living out and producing the same rotten fruit as before he was saved to be the same chief sinner he was before. Paul was not saying he remained “totally depraved” until he was martyred. He was running the race!
“Bill, I agree with what you have said, but I don’t really hear these guys saying anything contrary to that.”
Randy, they are exactly saying we are still totally depraved. One reason why I bought this for so long is because I came out of the seeker world where there was no admitting anyone was totally depraved at all. I finally came to the conclusion that many people in that movement were not really saved because they thought walking an ailse and saying a prayer meant eternal life with Christ. There was no fruit of repentance. No change. Jesus was simply an accessory to their life.
That is the world I was in for many years.
I challenge you to listen to the NC guy’s sermons and talks and listen for anything about true sanctification and the function of the Holy Spirit in a believers life that spurs us on to victory over sin, gaining maturity in Christ. See, I was looking for solid teaching on the Holy Spirit when I came to the Reformed world because the Holy Spirit was also missing in the seeker world. All I found was “gospel marriage”, gospel adoption”, gospel smoking cessation, etc. (Some use the word “covenant”). They were all stuck at the Cross as if the resurrection never happened and Pentecost was a blur. (Actually Pentecost was the perfect proof text for huge churches where no one knows each other)
Let me say that I was weaned on the Holy Spirit teaching as a kid in the SBC and that we are in part responsible for our sanctification. He is our guide, our advocate, our counselor. I heard that over and over. If we pray for pure wisdom, He will give it to us if we do not doubt. Does teaching that we are still totally depraved bring doubt? I think it does.
The teaching on the function of the Holy Spirit in a believer’s life has been replaced with following the latest guru who acts as your Holy Spirit for you. Yes, I got off track lured into the church growth movement for which I repent. But the SBC changed, too. And not for the better.
One of the very best explanations of sanctification I have come across is in JC Ryle’s book,Holiness. Justification and sanctification are not the same thing but you cannot have one without the other.
So my question is this: Are these NC guru’s talking to real bonafide believers or not? If they are then why do they assume we are all still totally depraved and teach as such? The Holy Spirit convicts me of sin and I respond to that conviction.
LikeLike
“My point is that I don’t think Piper and others would either, unless it be on the Romans 7 thing.”
Sorry to be a blog hog but I have to comment on this thinking. If there is one thing that has driven me nuts over the last 6-7 years of being in the Reformed world it is this. For some strange reason, the guys who make their living communicating the Word, have to be constantly interpreted by bloggers. :o). I have seen it over and over. “You did not understand them”. “That is not what they were saying”, “You took their words out of context”, etc, etc.
These are people who make their living as public teachers of the Word. I would understand such thinking if it was only a few times but it is all the time. Whole blog posts around the meta are devoted to parsing their teachings and what they mean. I have seen threads of 1000plus comments on parsing Bruce Ware’s teaching, alone! In the meantime, Bruce Ware never goes public to say if it was what he meant or not. And the comments were on a blog of his colleague.
Can they not be clear? No, because they have changed definitions and use loaded language. And therein lies the problem with all of this.
LikeLike
Lydia
EXACTLY!!!!!!
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Totally depraved for sure! Such teaching is a stretch of Romans 7. That passage is followed in Romans 8 with clear instruction that we are not to walk in the flesh but the Spirit. Christian liberty does not mean “I get to be wicked”, while Christ in you says “you can overcome”.
“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Timothy 4:3).
LikeLike
Hey I like what I’m reading, Lydia and Max. Informed people with experience. We’re hitting the problem spots very well.
Now I suspect Randy has some predisposition from his background that causes him to defend New Calvinists. They say it’s a predisposition that causes some people to defend Islam as a peace loving religion.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Bill,
I am not defending them. All I am saying is that Paul isn’t giving us evidence. He claims they are saying things they clearly not saying. I want to see actual quotes. Because I teach New Covenant Theology, Paul has stated that I have to be a New Calvinist. That is just nuts. I taught NCT 20 years before anyone ever used the term NC. I am convinced that Paul has some twisted agenda that has messed up his mind. Not to mention that he denies truths that are clearly taught in Scripture. I have no affinity for NC. I do have an affinity for truth. It is time Paul started getting acquainted with it.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Read my page and tell me if I am unclear.
LikeLike
Randy, What page do you want me to read to see if you are clear? Or, do you mean your comment above?
LikeLike
Lydia,
http://www.new-covenant-theology.org
Randy
LikeLike
Check out three booklets.
“Burning Straw Dummies”
“The Saving Work of Christ”
“What Makes the Gospel Work?”
I think these are a fair representation of Calvinistic doctrine.
I would like to hear your opinion of them.
If you don’t see me here, email me at rseiver1@hotmail.com
Randy
LikeLike
Lydia,
You wrote, “To try and say we remain totally depraved and have no input into our sanctification is ridiculous. Can I choose to sin after I am saved? Can I choose not to sin? Do I make the decision pray or not? To study or not?”
I fully agree. Of course, you make the decision to pray, study etc.
I don’t believe Christians are totally depraved. I just want someone to show me where someone has said believers are totally depraved. I just want to see or hear one statement. I don’t think that is too much to ask.
Paul told me he is no longer a sinner, he is now a new creature. That just doesn’t track with 1 Jn. 1.
I do not argue that believers have not undergone a radical change. What I have argued is that we never outgrow our need for the saving and forgiving grace of God purchased for us on Calvary. If God is JUST to forgive our sins as believers, on what basis is he just if not on the basis of Christ’s redeeming work. Paul doesn’t need the gospel anymore. He has already been justified. Funny, that the Apostle went on boasting in the cross.
More later. I just don’t want to waste too much time since my comments are not being posted.
Randy
LikeLike