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

[docrob57]

That's better, that wasn't so hard was it?

So you acknowledge that God has predestined EVERY event, EVERY thought, EVERY - everything - in advance for all of history. That being the case where does man's freewill come into play?

Take an event - any event. Let's say... me going to the store today to pick up a turkey for Thanksgiving. You assert that event was ordained a millennia ago by God. It wasn't my choice to go to the store it was God's choice. God picked out my turkey and my wine that I bought at the liquor store. Nothing I did today was out of the scope of God meticulous planning a millennia ago (according to you). Where does freewill come into play? What part of my day and my subsequent decisions throughout the day were free?

I always love how you mock God's power and are then appalled when someone questions your salvation.

Anyway, as usual, you have misunderstood (lest I not be perceived as boastful, were it not for God I would misunderstand too). It is your choice within boundaries beyond which you cannot venture. It is sort of like a roach that is trapped in a shoe box.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No that comes from the Gospel, which ultimately you reject because you insist that you are the key actor in your salvation. It amzes me how quickly you result to infantilism in your arguments.

If you don't want to discuss these things don't! It's your website! If you do, then just stick to your arguments and drop all the sophomoric stuff.

:chuckle:

What part of the gospel Doc? Don't just say it... show it! What part of the gospel states that if a man believes in his heart the Lord Jesus died for him and has confessed with his mouth might not be saved?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I always love how you mock God's power and are then appalled when someone questions your salvation.

Anyway, as usual, you have misunderstood (lest I not be perceived as boastful, were it not for God I would misunderstand too). It is your choice within boundaries beyond which you cannot venture. It is sort of like a roach that is trapped in a shoe box.

Doc, instead of simply slinging insults why don't you respond to my posts????

 

[docrob57]

Doc, instead of simply slinging insults why don't you respond to my posts????

That was my response. I suggested a format to avoid this conclusion, but we have deviated from it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That was my response. I suggested a format to avoid this conclusion, but we have deviated from it.

We? You got a mouse in your pocket.

 

[docrob57]

We? You got a mouse in your pocket.

Okay, do you have anything else to say or are you done for the day.

 

[docrob57]

:chuckle:

What part of the gospel Doc? Don't just say it... show it! What part of the gospel states that if a man believes in his heart the Lord Jesus died for him and has confessed with his mouth might not be saved?

It has to do with what constitutes true belief. I will put together some references later. Of course in addition to being OV, you are also dispensationalist, so we can anticipate that you will reject these truths of God when they are presented as well.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Okay, do you have anything else to say or are you done for the day.

I'm still interested in this....

No that comes from the Gospel, which ultimately you reject because you insist that you are the key actor in your salvation. It amzes me how quickly you result to infantilism in your arguments.

What part of the gospel Doc? Don't just say it... show it!
Knight's question #7b What part of the gospel states that if a man believes in his heart the Lord Jesus died for him and has confessed with his mouth might not be saved?

 

[docrob57]

As I said in #107 I will give support later. I am leaving the office soon, and I do not have time to right now. Happy Thanksgiving, or whatever it is that you people celebrate.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Happy Thanksgiving, or whatever it is that you people celebrate.

Very nice. :nono:

Happy Thanksgiving Doc, may God bless you and your family!

 

[docrob57]

Very nice. :nono:

Happy Thanksgiving Doc, may God bless you and your family!

That was a joke, quit shaking your head.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That was a joke, quit shaking your head.

That was a joke???

 

[Nathon Detroit]

In any event, if you would like to continue this "discussion" I will, but there will have to be some rules. I know the "one on one" does not have the formality of the Battle Royale, but the way this has proceded is just silly. So, if you wish to proceed, what I insist on is that we number our questions or statements to the other to which we want a response, and the answers be numbered so that I can at least see that you intended the response to address what I had asked, even if I do not recognize it as such.

Can we add to your suggestion?

Doc, when you answer a question could you state it like this?

Docrob's answer to Knight's question #1

That way I can quickly find your answers to my questions. I will do likewise.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Agreed again!! Where we disagree is the capacity of man to say "I accept" on his own.

Now, my questions here are procedural, but I would like there to be some rhyme and reason to the discussion.

Q2. Have we finished with the "T?"

I don't think you have addressed the "T" as far as I can tell.

Q2a. If so, where are we?

Well lets see.....


Knights Question #1. Can man disobey God's will?

Docrob's answer to Knight's question #1:

Man can disobey God, of course, but God's will will be done. I am struggling with the idea of "obeying God's will."

For example Proverbs 16:9

Knight's follow-up...
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1269468&postcount=71

Doc's follow-up

Agreed.

Knights Question #2. Can you define what you believe to be "legitimate Christian thought"?
Docrob's answer to Knight's question #2:

I believe that legitimate Christian thought is foremost consistency with Biblical teaching, but I also think that we should be wary of "great new interpretations" of Scripture that emerge out of nowhere at a time distant from the times of the apostles. So I do believe that we need to take seriously the early Church teachings and things of that nature.

So, more directly, I would say that legitimate Christian thought is Biblical teaching interpreted in the context of a long, well established and logical theological tradition.

Knights Question #3. In Jonah 3 God says "and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them" yet you say.... "And no, Jonah is not an example of God repenting". Why should we be compelled to believe you know God better than Himself?

Docrob's answer to Knight's question #3:

This is far afield of what we are discussing here, and I have discussed all this with you and others before. Maybe later, but I'm not dealing with this now.

Knight's follow-up....

For those keeping score....

The Bible: "...and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them"

Docrob57: "And no, Jonah is not an example of God repenting"​

Knight's question #4. Should God's word trump any and all tradition when it comes to understanding God's attributes and what He expects from His creation?

Docrob's answer to Knight's question #4:

I agree, we always need to evaluate tradition in light of Scripture, but to claim that we are not influenced by tradition is a little naive.

Knight's question #6 Has God predestined EVERY event, EVERY thought, EVERY - everything - in advance for all of history? YES or NO?

Docrob's answer to Knight's question #6:

Yes

Knight's question #7 What gives you the right to assert that I am not saved? What is you rational (or defense) for such an assertion?

Docrob's answer to Knight's question #7:

And your pride, it it is not overcome, is what will doom your eternity.

So I asked Docrob what gospel he got that from and he stated....

No that comes from the Gospel, which ultimately you reject because you insist that you are the key actor in your salvation. It amzes me how quickly you result to infantilism in your arguments.

If you don't want to discuss these things don't! It's your website! If you do, then just stick to your arguments and drop all the sophomoric stuff.

Looking for clarification I asked...Knight's question #7b What part of the gospel states that if a man believes in his heart the Lord Jesus died for him and has confessed with his mouth might not be saved?

Docrob's answer to Knight's question #7b:

As I said in #107 I will give support later. I am leaving the office soon, and I do not have time to right now. Happy Thanksgiving, or whatever it is that you people celebrate.

I will let the audience decide how responsive Docrob is being to my questions.

Also....

Some of you may have noticed there was no question #5 from me.

To which I respond..... Ooops! :doh:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hey Docrob, your avatar is funny. I have always loved your avatar themes. And in this case you using a drawing of Lucifer along with the text "Famous Open Theists" is very funny. And although I realize that you may be attempting to make a joke don't you think that your joke should help bolster your argument and not mine?

After all....
I think its pretty obvious that Satan knows that the future is open, why else would he try to alter and attempt to thwart God's will every on every available occasion?

Lucifer is a fallen angel but an angel none the less and created by God, if anyone were to know that the future is open to contingency it would be the angels. Lucifer would love nothing more than to convince the world that there isn't hope or all men.... what a blow to the power of the gospel! Calvinism teaches that there isn't hope hope for all men yet only hope for the preselected elect and therefore while Lucifer knows the error of Calvinism clearly it works to his advantage.

Therefore, while I get the spirit of your avatar and appreciate your humor I really do not think it raises a good argument for your position.

 

[docrob57]

Wow, lot's to read! I am off to a communion service with my fellow evil heartless Calvinists. I will try to get to this later. And hi fool, I see you lurking down there!

Just to tease, I will explain why the Lucifer thing supports my position. You won't accept it, but I will explain it.

 

[docrob57]

Hey Docrob, your avatar is funny. I have always loved your avatar themes. And in this case you using a drawing of Lucifer along with the text "Famous Open Theists" is very funny. And although I realize that you may be attempting to make a joke don't you think that your joke should help bolster your argument and not mine?

After all....
I think its pretty obvious that Satan knows that the future is open, why else would he try to alter and attempt to thwart God's will every on every available occasion?

Lucifer is a fallen angel but an angel none the less and created by God, if anyone were to know that the future is open to contingency it would be the angels. Lucifer would love nothing more than to convince the world that there isn't hope or all men.... what a blow to the power of the gospel! Calvinism teaches that there isn't hope hope for all men yet only hope for the preselected elect and therefore while Lucifer knows the error of Calvinism clearly it works to his advantage.

Therefore, while I get the spirit of your avatar and appreciate your humor I really do not think it raises a good argument for your position.

Well, at least I'm not using Satan to support my position. In fact, I agree that Satan maintained the open view. But some of us tend not to agree with Satan. Go figure.

 

[docrob57]

Docrob's answer to Knight's question #7b:I will let the audience decide how responsive Docrob is being to my questions.

[/B]

I responded directly to all but 3 and 7. As to 3, I don't want to get any more sidetracked than we have been, though, as I stated, we can deal with it (again) later. As to 7, sorry, but I have a job, a 7 year old daughter and handicapped wife to take care of. The answer requires more time than I presently have to give, but I promise it will be the next thing I address.

Just as something to think about, your offense to the suggestion that you might be hellbound is very indicative of the basic spiritual problem that you have. Like any good atheist (no I am not saying you are an atheist, I am saying that your response is the same as that which typifies atheists) you assume that being told that you could be hellbound is a criticism. It bruises your pride. The fact that it bruises your pride indicates that you believe that you are somehow worthy of salvation. Yes, you can admit that you need some "help" from the atonement, but you must believe that you at least have enough good in you that you were able to recognize your sinfulness and seek salvation.

Now, at this point, if that were your only error (not counting that whole open future thing) I would not have thought in any way that you were not saved. In fact, in another thread recently someone asked if I thought you were saved and I said I did. What started changing my opinion is the denial of original sin. At least your denial that it is still in effect. If you deny that man's nature is inherently and irrevocably sinful (absent regeneration), it must be true that it is at least possible that man can live a life of perfect obedience to God and, therefore, be saved apart from the atonement. You, in fact admitted this, albeit sheepishly, in post 42:

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

Jesus was not born with the sin nature, so if we are no longer born with the sin nature then you are right, we cannot say it is impossible. Therefore, the atonement, rather than being a necessity for anyone to be saved, becomes merely an instrument that enables persons otherwise capable of resisting sin to latch on to when they go ahead and sin anyway.

This cheapens the atonement, is essentially blasphemous, and it is what pushes you over the edge, in my opinion. For what it's worth, I hope I'm wrong.

Anyway, that is the logical argument behind my assertion, next up I will construct a scriptural argument for you. Call it unresponsive if you want, but that will have to wait until later.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Well, at least I'm not using Satan to support my position. In fact, I agree that Satan maintained the open view. But some of us tend not to agree with Satan. Go figure.

Doc, that' a silly objection.

Satan knows that God exists, and even though Satan is in rebellion Satan knows that Jesus died to pay for our sin, do you agree or disagree with Satan on that point?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Just as something to think about, your offense to the suggestion that you might be hellbound is very indicative of the basic spiritual problem that you have. Like any good atheist (no I am not saying you are an atheist, I am saying that your response is the same as that which typifies atheists) you assume that being told that you could be hellbound is a criticism. It bruises your pride. The fact that it bruises your pride indicates that you believe that you are somehow worthy of salvation. Yes, you can admit that you need some "help" from the atonement, but you must believe that you at least have enough good in you that you were able to recognize your sinfulness and seek salvation.

I boast in the cross of Jesus! Do you? (Galatians 6:14, Psalms 44:8)

Now, at this point, if that were your only error (not counting that whole open future thing) I would not have thought in any way that you were not saved. In fact, in another thread recently someone asked if I thought you were saved and I said I did. What started changing my opinion is the denial of original sin. At least your denial that it is still in effect. If you deny that man's nature is inherently and irrevocably sinful (absent regeneration), it must be true that it is at least possible that man can live a life of perfect obedience to God and, therefore, be saved apart from the atonement. You, in fact admitted this, albeit sheepishly, in post 42:

Jesus was not born with the sin nature, so if we are no longer born with the sin nature then you are right, we cannot say it is impossible. Therefore, the atonement, rather than being a necessity for anyone to be saved, becomes merely an instrument that enables persons otherwise capable of resisting sin to latch on to when they go ahead and sin anyway.

This cheapens the atonement, is essentially blasphemous, and it is what pushes you over the edge, in my opinion. For what it's worth, I hope I'm wrong.

Anyway, that is the logical argument behind my assertion, next up I will construct a scriptural argument for you. Call it unresponsive if you want, but that will have to wait until later.

Why are you going back to material we have already covered?

Docrob, what you have stated so far in this "debate" is nothing more than assertion. If you want to debate me you are (at some point) going to have to backup your assertions.

I have already made several very solid biblical arguments against Total Depravity while you have made a total of zero.

I pray you and your family have a blessed Holiday! :up: