One on One: Tip toe through the TULIPs with docrob57 and Knight.

[docrob57]

That's the best you can do?

I asked you first

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.

Here is one of the questions I asked. 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? Please give me the number of the post in which you answered it and I will certainly apologize for having missed yet another post. If you continue simply to maintain that you answered it without identifying the answer, then I think we can conclude that you are being deliberately nonresponsive.

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.

You gave no examples of men resisting God's effectual call. That is where the doctrine comes in. Doing good deeds does not contradict the TULIP. "Good deeds" with wrong motive fall within the boundaries of total depravity.

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?

Since you either can't or won't answer the questions or address my points, I am pretty much forced to talk to myself.

We can debate Irresistible grace (effectual call) later. For now, once again and as directly as possible . . . does man still have a sin nature? If not, is it possible for a person to live a sin free life? If not, why not? I know you said that Jesus is the only sinless person, which is true. It also isn't the question. The question is . . . well there it is directly above.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Here is one of the questions I asked. You said that all men sin.

Yes.

You also said that post-crucifixion, we are no longer subject to the sin nature inherited by Adam.

Actually I never said that.

All men have the flesh, which is what makes us sin (it's why we have the propensity to sin). Therefore all men will sin, and and when a man (or woman) reaches the age where they are held accountable for there sin they will need a Savior.

We also know that there was one Man who overcame sin and He is our Savior.

If this is true, why do all men still sin? And, again, can this "propensity to sin" be avoided? Is it possible, at least?

It doesn't seem possible, although we know that Jesus did it so can we really say it is impossible?

Please give me the number of the post in which you answered it

Post #10, Post #16, and Post #25.

You gave no examples of men resisting God's effectual call. That is where the doctrine comes in. Doing good deeds does not contradict the TULIP. "Good deeds" with wrong motive fall within the boundaries of total depravity.

Are you suggesting that the Good Samaritan had a "wrong motive"?

Since you either can't or won't answer the questions or address my points, I am pretty much forced to talk to myself.

We can debate Irresistible grace (effectual call) later. For now, once again and as directly as possible . . . does man still have a sin nature?

For the 5th time, yes, all men have the propensity to sin and will sin, yet since the cross they are already justified form Adam's sin and therefore are only guilty of their own sin. Little babies that die to NOT go to hell as you have suggested on other threads.

 

[docrob57]

Okay at least I can say that some progress has been made. I am still curious as to why, having been released from the inheritance of Adam's sin, we still have the propensity. You indicate that it is because we have the flesh, from which comes our propensity to sin. From what I gather, everything you say suggests that, at least now, sin is not a part of our nature, in the same manner that sin was not part of Christ's nature.

Before going on, could you please confirm that my understanding of what you are saying is correct, as I apparently did not recognize that many of the responses that you put forth before were supposed to be in answer to questions I had asked, so understanding appears difficult. That isn't an insult, it is often the case when people whose basic paradigms differ signifcantly attempt discussion.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

:sigh: I am not going to address this a sixth time. Please start to make your case for the "T" in TULIP or I am going to spend my time on other more fruitful discussions. Thanks!

 

[docrob57]

:sigh: I am not going to address this a sixth time. Please start to make your case for the "T" in TULIP or I am going to spend my time on other more fruitful discussions. Thanks!

I put my defense of the "T" in post 33, and of course you have not responded to that either. I understand the tactic is to frustrate me until I just go away and then you can declare victory, but it won't work this time.


So I will assume that my understanding of your "doctrine" is correct. Since the propensity to sin is from the flesh, and since Jesus was human, regardless of Adam you must claim that Jesus was born with the same propensity to sin as everyone else. Since He did not, it must be true that it is possible for anyone else to live free from sin. This is especially true given that, in your view, since the cross, the inheritance of a pervasive sin nature from Adam has been broken.

And of course this is where your first heresy is discovered. Though you would claim that for some reason it doesn't actually occur in the real world, the potential for man to live sin free (the Pelagian heresy) renders the atonement a mere "nicety," useful for sinners who willingly go along with the program, but not an absolute necessity for salvation.

You can respond to this or not, it's up to you. The above plus, again what I presented in post 33 constitute my defense of Total Depravity. If you do not respond, I will move to an explanation of why unconditional election must naturally and logically follow.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I put my defense of the "T" in post 33, and of course you have not responded to that either. I understand the tactic is to frustrate me until I just go away and then you can declare victory, but it won't work this time.

Post #33 is the best defense you can give for Total Depravity??? :chuckle:

Uh..... OK.... go ahead and move on then.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Doc on other threads you have stated....

My question to you and to all Arminians and even Open Theists is this. How is it that you, in your flesh are better than those that have not accepted God's gift of salvation? And if you are better, can you truly not boast of your own merit in obtaining salvation, at least to some small extent?

and....

Not to play your game, but I just answered that. If it is man's to choose from his own free will, then those who choose clearly do have some basis for pride, and that, of course, is prohibited.

and...

No argument there. One of the things that I find compelling about the Reformed doctrine, as opposed to either the Arminian or the OV, is that it provides me with absolutely NO basis to claim any superiority over the "wicked," as I number among them.

And while agree that boasting can be a bad thing would you agree that there is also a way that boasting and taking pride can be a good thing?

After all.... when you tell someone that you are saved and that life in Christ is awesome you are in fact boasting and boasting in a good way. Boasting in the Lord (in a good way) is not only not wrong but good!

Psalms 44:8 In God we boast all day long, And praise Your name forever. Selah​

Paul affirms there is a good way to boast in the Lord AND a bad way to boast....

Galatians 6:14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.​

Did ya get that???? It's GOOD to boast in the cross and in our Lord Jesus Christ!

I realize that you think that because men are totally depraved they cannot therefore boast in their salvation and there is some truth to that in that men do not actually do anything to add to, their salvation, or pay for their sin. However, wouldn't you agree that boasting in the Lord is not always a bad thing? And in fact can be a good thing?

 

[docrob57]

Post #33 is the best defense you can give for Total Depravity??? :chuckle:

Uh..... OK.... go ahead and move on then.

Fortunately, I am confident that those not brainwashed into the OV mentality can understand the importance.

So given the truth of total depravity, it becomes clear that unconditional election must logically follow. If man does not have the capacity to choose God, it is obvious that, if he is to be redeemed, then that redemption must come externally.

This point is perhaps best made in this passage from Ephesians 2:

1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

In this we see both total depravity and election at work. In our natural state, we are spiritually dead, objects of wrath. God made us alive with Christ. Notice, there is no indication that God sought or required our participation in this. Note also that "our" faith is actually from God, it does not somehow spring naturally from within us.

So God gives us the faith that we need to be made alive in Christ, and He did this in order that God may be glorified through our good works (see also, for example, Mathew 5:16). And, of course, this preparation was done in advance, hence election.

It is interesting to note that the Arminian perspective, which I believe to be somewhat in error, though not off the OV deep end, also accepts the idea of election. Their argument is only with conditionality. However, if salvation is truly to be free from works, and boasting is truly to be precluded, election must be unconditional. It is not a random choice, as OVers like to argue (and from previous exchanges it appears that OVers place a great deal of stock in randomness, though it is unlikely that any of them actually know what randomness actually is) but a choice made in accordance with God's purposes. We must accept that the choice has nothing to do with us.

So there is unconditional election. If you are equally unable to offer an argument here, we can just keep moving right along.

 

[docrob57]

Doc on other threads you have stated....and....And while agree that boasting can be a bad thing would you agree that there is also a way that boasting and taking pride can be a good thing?

After all.... when you tell someone that you are saved and that life in Christ is awesome you are in fact boasting and boasting in a good way. Boasting in the Lord (in a good way) is not only not wrong but good!

Psalms 44:8 In God we boast all day long, And praise Your name forever. Selah​

Paul affirms there is a good way to boast in the Lord AND a bad way to boast....

Galatians 6:14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.​

Did ya get that???? It's GOOD to boast in the cross and in our Lord Jesus Christ!

I realize that you think that because men are totally depraved they cannot therefore boast in their salvation and there is some truth to that in that men do not actually do anything to add to, their salvation, or pay for their sin. However, wouldn't you agree that boasting in the Lord is not always a bad thing? And in fact can be a good thing?

Obviously as Paul indicated we are to boast in Christ. Why don't you just stick to the posts in this thread?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It is interesting to note that the Arminian perspective, which I believe to be somewhat in error, though not off the OV deep end, also accepts the idea of election.

Doc, I don't think anyone denies that there elect.

Do you know of any group that denies that? You have asserted that OV'ers deny that there is an "elect" and I am here to correct you that the Open View does no such thing.

Were you aware of that? :freak:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Obviously as Paul indicated we are to boast in Christ. Why don't you just stick to the posts in this thread?

Because you asked me to bring the issue here.... did you forget that already as well? :doh:

Not to play your game, but I just answered that. If it is man's to choose from his own free will, then those who choose clearly do have some basis for pride, and that, of course, is prohibited.

Anyway, I choose to fight this battle on only one front, so I will deal with these issues in the one on one.

You are a strange... strange... man.

 

[docrob57]

Doc, I don't think anyone denies that there elect.

Do you know of any group that denies that? You have asserted that OV'ers deny that there is an "elect" and I am here to correct you that the Open View does no such thing.

Were you aware of that? :freak:

You consider any time that the elect is mentioned that it is Israel that is being talked about right?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You consider any time that the elect is mentioned that it is Israel that is being talked about right?

Uh... no. :nono: (although Israel is one example of God's elect, the Body of Christ is another example).

Doc, do you know anything about Open Theism?

Maybe before you get in a discussion like this you might want to familiarize yourself with the topic. It would really be a time saver.

 

[docrob57]

Because you asked me to bring the issue here.... did you forget that already as well? :doh:You are a strange... strange... man.

And I increasingly view you as pathetic,however, perhaps we can put aside our growing mutual contempt and move on, or not, it's up to you. By this time, you have well demonstrated your inability to deal with or even understand matters which transcend the most rudimentary level of complexity. I have sufficient pity for you that I am willing to stop if you like.

 

[docrob57]

Uh... no. :nono: (although Israel is one example of God's elect, the Body of Christ is another example).

Doc, do you know anything about Open Theism?

Maybe before you get in a discussion like this you might want to familiarize yourself with the topic. It would really be a time saver.

Okay, then explain it to me.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Okay, then explain it to me.

The Body of Christ is one of God's elect.

God has elected in advance that the Body of Christ be holy and blameless on the day of redemption.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

And I increasingly view you as pathetic

Gee... Doc you are so humble and friendly. Let me go back and read your PM to me so I can keep hat "rosy" picture of you in my mind.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I have sufficient pity for you that I am willing to stop if you like.

No... no no.... we are learning so much from you, please don't stop. :shocked:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I put my defense of the "T" in post 33, and of course you have not responded to that either. I understand the tactic is to frustrate me until I just go away and then you can declare victory, but it won't work this time.

For those keeping track the following post represents what Docrob has stated is his defense for the "T" in Total Depravity..... (the famous post #33)

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?

I will let the audience decide for themselves if that is compelling and biblically factual.

 

[docrob57]

No... no no.... we are learning so much from you, please don't stop. :shocked:

Okay, I would tell you to go to hell, but I am afraid that is likely the direction you are headed, so I don't want to make light of it. I thought, obviously in error, that in this type of venue that you might be capable of civil, coherent argument, but I overestimated you. Perhaps it is too late for those of you who buy into the open theist heresy, but I hope not.