The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Can a Non-Believer Live a Moral Life?

GEE, Randy, the topic I linked to had nothing to do with lefty-righty or with zombies. You managed to bring both things in, though! :astonished:

The topic is “Can a Non-Believer Live a Moral Life?”. I know what you linked to - Dave. I’m just focusing on our theological future. We can’t discuss such a topic, without bringing up right wing articles, left wing articles and zombies. I’m sure I can find a way, to make it all fit together. Just like folks here manage, to fit all the biblical elements - into a unified theology. :laughing:

Ah.

Okay, so if we look at this subject in a ‘realistic’ mode, And turn the paradigm view, why would we even question that a ‘non believer’ could live a moral life? Maybe we should be asking, why do we have to believe in Jesus to be a ‘moral’ person :open_mouth:

One answer is this - that without Total Depravity (TD) the entire Calvinistic house of cards comes tumbling down. If that happens, the entire age-old fight between Arminians and Calvinists and others would evaporate. There would be less to fight about, and less to divide us. So, we need TD!!

Only half-joking there. TD is THE basis for the rest of TULIP; all the other so-called ‘doctrines of grace’ depend on and follow TD.

Well, you are right IMHO, but at some point we (who the hell are the we :open_mouth: ) need to spread the news that God loves us… We are what we are created to be!!! He is God and kind of knows what is going on… MAYBE :exclamation: :laughing:

I’ve heard this said before, but can you prove it or provide a logical argument that is necessarily the case?

To begin, you’ld need to define Total Depravity. That could be a problem in itself. I’ve seen a number of different definitions.

You can prove it by removing TD, and then re-assessing ULIP.
It’s an excercise you can do yourself with a pencil and paper, just working through the results of removing TD - I spent a good little time a number of years ago doing it. It becomes apparent that hard logic demands that TD beginning point.

That’s kind of good… But what will that do to the Calvinist guard? How can he/we change that? :astonished:

I’m somewhat slow today, Chad - could you re-state the question?
Really - I am slow today. :blush:

Pretty much Dave… however, those who are predestined to believe TD, inevitably will. :laughing:

The reality is… the goodness of God has NEVER been restricted to religianity, which is WHY anyone so inclined “CAN choose to live a moral life”. Now IF such a one wants to make THAT their own badge of personal honour well good luck to them, but THAT of itself would just make them as self-righteous as the predestined churchified one who gazing down his snout musters up the humility (cough, cough) to declare… “God, I thank You that I am not like other men…”.

Why are you quoting that statement of faith? Is that answering any of the questions that have been raised? Or do you think we all have to subscribe to that statement of faith in order to declare ourselves to be “Evangelical Universalists” and thus separate the orthodox from the heretics?

No, this is the most open Christian forum that I have ever joined. It doesn’t require members to subscribe to their statement of faith. It requires only that we share our various understandings in a manner that is respectful to others.

davo said:

That is a great spin :laughing: http://images.all-free-download.com/images/graphiclarge/thumbs_up_clip_art_22903.jpg sorry I did not know the thumb was so big :laughing: :laughing:

Why not quote it. No, it didn’t answer your questions, but i suggested to you where you could find answers, if the subject interests you. I have no interest in arguing about or discussing the topic. If i did, i would have probably found threads on the topic & posted there. It is not the topic of this thread. True, this is a very open forum. I think all the regular posters here are aware of that. As such there are no obligations to answer another member’s queries.

Here’s one opinion re Calvinism & altruism:

“Total depravity does not mean that people have lost part of their humanity or are ontologically deteriorated. Just as Adam and Eve were created with the ability to not sin, people retain that essential ability to either sin or not sin, even though some properties of their humanity are corrupted.[17] It also does not mean that people are as evil as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition. Thus, even acts of generosity and altruism are in fact egoist acts in disguise. All good, consequently, is derived from God alone, and in no way through humanity.[18]”

“…It is important to understand the scope of the “total depravity” of humanity in order to understand the Calvinist-Arminian debate. As noted, both views embrace total depravity; it is a question of the action which they believe God must take to reach humanity in its fallen and depraved state. May God grant to humanity the grace to respond to God’s offer of salvation, so that all may believe (as Arminius taught)? Or must God’s grace be irresistible in order to reach humanity (as Calvin taught), so that it is impossible for anyone to be saved unless God first extends to them His irresistible grace? Stated in this manner, there is no substantial difference in total depravity as embraced by Calvinists and Arminians; both agree that humanity is in a state of depravity which prevents them from responding to God. Rather, the two groups have a different belief in the grace which God extended to humanity in response to total depravity. Calvin taught Irresistible Grace; Arminius taught Prevenient Grace.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity

How do you define Total Depravity?

Read the Westminster Creed, taking notes as you go, and it becomes clear what the ‘divines’ meant by TD. I use that as my working definition.

The question in the OP is answered easily by empirical means - be around people and watch. The only way to question that clear and distinct experience of people is a plea of special knowledge of some sort - either psychoanalytic theory or misinterpreted (imo) scriptures - and by that of course I mean TD - a theory that, for some, overrides what is plainly observable.

Origen said:

The point you quoted “Just as Adam and Eve were created with the ability to not sin, people retain that essential ability to either sin or not sin,”

How is that not free will?

This writer goes even further than you did:

shapedbytruth-news.blogspot.ca/2012/02/?m=0

And yet there are those who claim to be 4 point Calvinists.

Four-point Calvinism (the official position of Got Questions Ministries):

gotquestions.org/arminianism.html
gotquestions.org/Amyraldism.html

So who’s wrong? The author above, or the 4 pointers?

Good question. I’d like to know the answer, too.