The original acknowledgment of confusing utter and total depravity
Claim examined: Worship, music, and prayer
Scriptural Answer
"A few things I want to point out. [name omitted] thinks he knows what we believe, but he has shown fundamental errors that, to any reader, make it crystal clear that he does not know what he is talking about." The reader can also see that David has yet to point out these so called "fundamental errors" that I am guilty of making. "He scolds me for referring people to "Calvinist websites" so they can learn what we teach and maybe form a real argument instead of straw men." David claims again (he claimed this on another thread and never bothered to prove it) that I am making "straw men". If this is the case, then let him point out to everyone here how I am "guilty" of making "straw men". "The first two obvious errors are: "The Bible states it is "through faith" and "not" through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit" I didn't equate David with saying he believes that one is saved through a "direct operation of the Holy Spirit". All one has to do is go back and re-read my post when I said, "I don't believe that I have attributed you to saying "Faith comes through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit" however, without your "direct operation", one "cannot" come to faith in Christ because they are "totally depraved". "; and confusing Total Depravity with Utter depravity." I did "not" intentionally confuse the two, when you corrected what I wrote, I no longer used the word "utter". "Firstly, Calvinist do believe that Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. No Calvinist denies this. It is the instrument God has ordained to use to bring men to Christ." I never claimed that you denied this doctrine. "Secondly, utter depravity is to be as evil and sinful as one can be. Total depravity is sin affecting the heart, the mind, the flesh, the soul, etc, a person as a whole." Can evil men wax worse and worse under "Total depravity"??? "A horrible method of argumentation is also used by [name omitted]." Since when did David become an expert on the rules of argumentation??? "His seemingly favorite one is "where does it say the words _______________?". One example I can give of this is when he attacked a verse I gave that supports the conception of a direct operation of the Holy Spirit. [name omitted] asked where the words 'direct operation' were found in the text. I simply replied by telling him I would take such a argument seriously when he would show me the verses that say Trinity, Bible, and Sola Scripture. He has not done so." David has still not answered my argument where it states a "direct operation of the Holy Spirit" is required in order to make one understand God's word. Instead he brings up other words "Trinity", "Bible" and "Sola Scripture" that are not found in the Bible to prove that he does not need to provide an answer to my question. God expects everyone to understand His word and do what He says one must do in order to be saved. God says in Ephesians 5:17, "Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is." God also says in Proverbs 2:1-5: "1 My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, 2 So that you incline your ear to wisdom, And apply your heart to understanding; 3 Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, 4 If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; 5 Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, And find the knowledge of God." "This argument, from my POV, is done only to bolster and make his posts look pretty. The important thing to do is argue if the concept is found Scripture. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet." I don't write anything "to make my posts pretty", this is nothing but a smoke screen which proves that David does not have an answer to the questions that I have asked him. If the concept was found in Scripture, he should be able to back it up with Scripture. The truth of the matter is his Calvinistic doctrines are "contrary" to Scripture and are to be rejected. "[name omitted] has a problem with this one thing called CONTEXT. The biggest example of this is his refusal to admit that those in John 6, that are drawn by the Father are raised on the last day to eternal life. We read in John 6: v.68 'eternal life' v.58 'live forever' v.57 'will live' v.54 'eternal life' v.53 Opposite: 'unless you eat... you have no life' v.51 'he will live forever' v.50 'one may eat of it and not die' v.44 'eternal life' v.40 'eternal life' v.39 'I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day' v.37 'I will certainly not cast out' v.27 'eternal life' He simply denies this. He did not, can not, and will not give us a positive interpretation of the passage, but continues to say (something along the lines of) 'it does not mean this'" Please also notice readers that David can "accuse" me all he wants of not being in "CONTEXT" however, this is not true. This is the verse David is quoting John 6:39, "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day." Please also notice that this verse was fulfilled in John 17:12, "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled." Jesus did lose one - Judas so that the Scripture might be fulfilled. His OSAS argument is false. "Because of this, [name omitted] also has problems proving his assertions. Take for example 2 Peter 3:9. We only hear why it can't mean what David Ortiz thinks it means. He has yet to tell us why he thinks this passage is speaking to non-believers." David can claim that I have a problem "proving" my assertions but does he bother to prove that this passage is speaking to only believers??? I specifically wrote, "Why should a "Christian" who has been saved have to come to "repentance" if "all" means "only the believers"??? You are the one "ignoring" the context David especially since it does not fit what you have been taught. If this passage of Scripture is talking about "believers", then how is it possible that they might "perish" in light of your OSAS doctrine???" Instead of answering my question, David can only say that I have a problem "proving my assertions". "His biggest problem is his tradition, and his insertion of libertarian free will into every passage he reads. While [name omitted] claims that "Every man can come", he directly contradicts Jesus Christ who said "No man can come". He has yet to prove libertarian free will." What tradition is David talking about here??? I am not contradicting Christ, that is David's opinion. God says in John 12:32, "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." David has to explain away the clear meaning of this verse because it doesn't fit his false doctrines. "He also seems to have some reading problems. Perhaps this comes from his refusal to read the context of things." No reading problem here David, again that is your opinion. "He quotes me: "David wrote, "Whom to believe?" Believe the word of God and not David whose doctrines are contrary to God's word." I wrote 'Jesus said No man can come to him. [name omitted] said Everyman can come to him.', but never did I mention anything about what David believes." Please notice readers that I did "not" mention what David "believes" I cautioned people to Believe the word of God and to not believe David's doctrines that are contrary to God's word. "I warn readers to avoid discussing things with this man unless you have alot of free time. You can never stay on a topic or passage long enough to find the truth (This is obvious from how many passages he has brought up to counter John 6)." The truth has been presented to you David, you have made it clear that you have no desire to change your beliefs even though they are contrary to God's word. "He throws to many screwballs at you." False teachers always have a hard time answering the truth don't they... "The place to start a discussion with types like him is with God's sovereignty and Adam's fall as his heretical doctrines (condemned by the early church), which come from Pelagius and Campbell, are based on faulty views on this." If "condemned by the early church" concerning the fall of Adam he means the Catholic Church this is a true statement however, this doctrine of Original Sin taught by the Catholic Church is "not" found in the Bible and is to be rejected. "Any topic you get into with him will eventually lead you to his gospel of "be dipped or be damned"." Really David??? If I am guilty of this on every thread, then I challenge you to prove this to be true.
KJV Scriptures Used
Read each passage in its chapter and compare the Scriptures together.