Can a Non-Believer Live a Moral Life?

[anon12438761]

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!

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

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!

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.

[anon12438761]

Ah.

[maintenanceman]

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

[anon12438761]

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.

[maintenanceman]

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 ) 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

[Origen]

One answer is this - that without Total Depravity (TD) the entire Calvinistic house of cards comes tumbling down.

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.

[anon12438761]

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.

[maintenanceman]

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?

[anon12438761]

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

[davo]

One answer is this - that without Total Depravity (TD) the entire Calvinistic house of cards comes tumbling down.

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

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…”.

[Paidion]

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists

We believe in one God always existing as three persons who are revealed as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
etc., etc., etc.

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.

[maintenanceman]

davo said:

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…”.

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

[Origen]

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists

We believe in one God always existing as three persons who are revealed as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
etc., etc., etc.

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.

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.

[Origen]

If an unbeliever offers a cup of water to a thirsty person, is his action evil? If he buys a meal for a hungry person is it evil? I think not.

Generally speaking actions are neither good or evil. They’re neutral. The Satan & demon possessed can do just about any action a Christian can.

The more significant question is, what is the motive & spirit behind actions. For God looks on the heart.

For example, in one of the Clint Eastwood Westerns he (Blondie) is dying of thirst in the desert. Chico offers him water from a purely selfish motive, i.e. filthy lucre.

There are many other evil motives as to why the wicked do outwardly superficial (pharisaical) good deeds. Motives they may not be aware of because they lack knowledge of what’s in their own hearts & are decieved.

Acts 26:18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those sanctified by faith in Me.’

Mt.7:11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

Jn.3:19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

Jn.7:7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me, because I testify that its works are evil.

Mt.12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Titus 3:3 For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.

Eph.2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Eph.5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on the sons of disobedience.

Col.1:21 You, being in past times alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works,

Isa.9:17 Therefore the Lord does not take pleasure in their young men, Nor does He have pity on their orphans or their widows; For every one of them is godless and an evildoer, And every mouth is speaking foolishness

Jn.2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. 24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

Is it impossible for an unbeliever to feed a hungry person for altruistic reasons?

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

[Origen]

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.

How do you define Total Depravity?

[anon12438761]

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.

[maintenanceman]

Origen said:

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]”

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?

[Origen]

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.

This writer goes even further than you did:

First, let’s take a look at some of the historic points of Calvinism, but as we do, don’t forget this quote below:

“The five points which identify Calvin’s teaching (commonly called “TULIP”) are like dominoes; they stand or fall together. If a person claims to be a One-Point (Total Depravity) Calvinist, if he believes the doctrine taught as Calvin taught it, then the person must accept the other four points.”

Similarly, if you can prove any of the points of Calvinism wrong, than the whole belief system comes tumbling down like a house of cards. So let’s take a look at some Calvinistic teachings and what the Bible has to say about them.

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?

[Origen]

Origen said:

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]”

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?

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