Doc... did you read my last post?docrob57 said:
God is clear... no son dies for the sins of their father, it's the soul that sins that dies. Do you deny that?
One on One: Tip toe through the TULIPs with docrob57 and Knight.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
God is clear... no son dies for the sins of their father, it's the soul that sins that dies. Do you deny that?
Knight said:
No, but that wasn't the question (or the questions) that I asked. And, I might add, that what you posted does not have anything to do either with the doctrine of original sin or total depravity.
Original sin states that man inherited the sin nature from Adam. It does not absolve him from his own sinful acts or place responsibility on him for Adam's sinful acts. Total depravity, again, states that due to original sin, man cannot seek God.
But for now, please answer the questions I posted 2 or 3 posts ago.
OK good you agree that no man dies for Adam's sin.docrob57 said:
Yet you promote the idea that all men are guilty of Adam's sin.
What gives?
All men sin. And once we reach the age of accountability we are held accountable for that sin and therefore all men need a Savior.docrob57 said:
Only one Man didn't sin.... and He IS the Savior.
Knight said:OK good you agree that no man dies for Adam's sin.
Yet you promote the idea that all men are guilty of Adam's sin.
What gives?
I am beginning to feel like Adlai Stevenson at the U.N. I am prepared to wait for you answer to my questions until hell freezes over. :cow:
I will repeat them in case you forgot.
Can a person overcome this propensity to sin in the post-crucifixion era? How pervasive is this tendency (the propensity to sin)? Can a person confine himself to sin that does not "lead to death?"
Sounds good, from now on I will plan on answering your questions at least three times. Feel free to answer my questions just once... I am cool with that.docrob57 said:
Knight said:Sounds good, from now on I will plan on answering your questions at least three times. Feel free to answer my questions just once... I am cool with that.
You have never come close to answering these questions. Simply claiming that you have is not the same thing. It begins to look like you are afraid of answering, however.
Let me help you here. You have said that we are no longer subject to the inheritance of a sin nature through Adam, but that we retain a propensity to sin. You have presented Biblical evidence that we are not punished for Adam's sinful behaviors. That was never an issue, but that's okay.
Try reading the questions and answering them.
:bang: Apparently you didn't read post #25.docrob57 said:
Docrob, I am not going to play games with you. Please stop saying I am not answering your questions. I have answered your question(s) three times, three different ways.
Knight said:
I am not playing games with you. Either you don't understand the questions or don't want to answer them. Let me make it a little more basic for you.
You said that all men sin. You also said that post-crucifixion, we are no longer subject to the sin nature inherited by Adam. If this is true, why do all men still sin? And, again, can this "propensity to sin" be avoided? Is it possible, at least?
Excellent! When you get back, make a point so we can get started.docrob57 said:
Knight said:
Okay, I see you refuse to answer the questions, which is your privelege, so I will speculate as to the reasons why. Since you deny original sin, you realize that there is no other reason why man would necessarily be sinful. There has to be a reason why man is by nature sinful, and absent original sin, there really isn't one.
If man is not, by nature, sinful then it follows, that there is no inherent reason why he has to sin. Accordingly, it follows that it is at least possible that man, or even some single person, could live without sinning. If that were the case, then at least for that person, the atoning sacrifice of Jesus would not be necessary, and you would, in general, have to at least lessen the value of the atonement. This, of course, is one of the things that opponents of the OV point out as a necessary and unacceptable logical consequence of the doctrine.
If man somehow does retain his sinful nature, then you still have a problem. You have to explain how a being whose nature is set against God can, of his own accord, realize his sinfulness and seek Christ as savior. Even with the drawing of the Holy Spirit, there is no reason for one who by nature hates God to accept the Spirit's leading.
Accordingly, the only doctrine which is consistent with the necessity of the atonement for salvation and with a mankind which is inherently sinful is the doctrine of total depravity.
I quite well understand why you did not want to answer. Shall we move on to the "U" now?
Uh Doc, everyone can read. I am guessing you are pretty much the only person reading this thread who hasn't seen that I have answered your question three times, three different ways. This isn't the first time you have pulled this type of stunt, on another thread you accused me three times of not answering your question until finally you realized I had answered you after all, remember?docrob57 said:
:sigh:
If I answer a 4th time will it make any difference? :nono:
Why move on to the "U"? You haven't even brought up the "T" yet.
Well.... if Doc isn't going to address the "T" in TULIP I will....
T - Total Inability/Depravity = No man can come to Christ unless God predestines him to come to Christ. Yet how then could men resist this calling?
Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 5:40 “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
Doc, how is it possible that men have the ability to resist God's calling if the "T" in the Calvinist TULIP exists?
Another aspect of Total Depravity is the notion that man can do no good without the God directing Him to do good. And to address that I will borrow from my good friend Turbo who recently wrote....
T - Total Inability/Depravity = No man can come to Christ unless God predestines him to come to Christ. Yet how then could men resist this calling?
Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 5:40 “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
Doc, how is it possible that men have the ability to resist God's calling if the "T" in the Calvinist TULIP exists?
Another aspect of Total Depravity is the notion that man can do no good without the God directing Him to do good. And to address that I will borrow from my good friend Turbo who recently wrote....
turbo said:
Knight said:Uh Doc, everyone can read. I am guessing you are pretty much the only person reading this thread who hasn't seen that I have answered your question three times, three different ways. This isn't the first time you have pulled this type of stunt, on another thread you accused me three times of not answering your question until finally you realized I had answered you after all, remember?
:sigh:
If I answer a 4th time will it make any difference? :nono:
Why move on to the "U"? You haven't even brought up the "T" yet.
What foolishness, if you can't answer, at least admit it. I have twice defined total depravity, and I even did it correctly. I said before in a PM that one of the things that really diappoints me with you guys is your intellectual dishonesty when you argue this stuff. Sadly, it is on display for all to see here.
Actually, it is more like no one can come to Christ unless the Spirit enables him too, but close enough. No one can resist, but there you are skipping ahead to the "I."
Totally irrelevant to anything I am talking about, but I'm glad it makes you happy.
And, of course, no one has this desire unless it is given him by the Spirit.
Well, yes, that would be true.
Again, irrelevant.
Again, it isn't
No offense, but if this is all you've got, perhaps we should move on. :yawn:
I should point out that I will have to depart this fascinating and enlightening discussion early tomorrow since I and my family will be going to a church Thanksgiving supper, Lord willing (not that that matters, right?). I will enjoy dining with my fellow twisted, evil and deluded 5-pointers.
That's the best you can do?docrob57 said:
Doc, why are we bothering to have this discussion if you are not even going to respond to me? And to make it worse, when I answer your questions (three different times) you simply claim I didn't.
I am sorry man but I think you are just plain rude. I would never disregard you the you disregard me. I am really not sure what your problem is but clearly you have some personality "issues". Is your goal simply to be divisive?
Again, if men are totally depraved or have zero ability to come to God except when God calls them it would follow that men could not reject that calling (also similar to the "I" in TULIP). Yet the Bible gives us dozens of examples which I provided above of men resisting God's calling. I also provided example (Turbo's excellent post) of the lost doing good deeds which also flies in the face of the "T" in the TULIP.
Did you want me to start this thread so that you could hear yourself talk or did you want to discuss the issue with me?
Thank you for defining total depravity. Yet I think we were all hoping you were going to make a case for it's existence or possibly defend it as a doctrine.docrob57 said:
Most of us already know what total depravity means and the rest could easily look up it's definition on the internet if interested.
Were you planning on offering more than a definition?
- Status