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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
docrob57 said:
Okay. so then could you please answer the specific questions that I posed.
Doc... did you read my last post?

God is clear... no son dies for the sins of their father, it's the soul that sins that dies. Do you deny that?
 

docrob57

New member
Knight said:
Doc... did you read my last post?

God is clear... no son dies for the sins of their father, it's the soul that sins that dies. Do you deny that?

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.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
docrob57 said:
Can a person overcome this propensity to sin in the post-crucifixion era? How pervasive is this tendency? Can a person confine himself to sin that does not "lead to death?"
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.

Only one Man didn't sin.... and He IS the Savior. :)
 

docrob57

New member
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. :confused:

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?"
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
docrob57 said:
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

New member
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.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
docrob57 said:
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.

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.
 

docrob57

New member
Knight said:
:bang: Apparently you didn't read post #25.

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.

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?
 

docrob57

New member
Knight said:
Excellent! When you get back, make a point so we can get started.

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?
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
docrob57 said:
Okay, I see you refuse to answer the questions, which is your privelege, so I will speculate as to the reasons why.
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?

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.
:sigh:

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?
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. :confused:
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
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....
turbo said:
Just because all have sinned, that does not mean that unsaved men sin constantly and are only capable of sin.

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 good things to those who ask Him! Matthew 7:11​
Is it a sin to give good gifts to one's children?



Jesus pointed out that Samaritans did not know God:
7 There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said unto her, "Give Me to drink." 8 (For His disciples had gone away unto the city to buy meat.)
9 Then said the woman of Samaria unto Him, "How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest a drink of me, who am a woman of Samaria?" For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
10 Jesus answered and said unto her, "If thou knewest the gift of God and who it is that saith to thee, `Give Me to drink,' thou wouldest have asked of Him, and He would have given thee living water."
...
19 The woman said unto Him, "Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and ye say that Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship."
21 Jesus said unto her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour cometh when ye shall neither on this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.23 But the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship Him." John 4:7-10,19-23​
Note that the pronouns in verse 22 are all plural. Jesus was not just saying that this woman does not know God, but that the Samaritans, as a people, did not know God. That is why He used a Samaritan to drive His point in this parable about loving your neighbor:

30Then Jesus answered and said: "A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31Now by chance* a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. 33But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. 34So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.' 36So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?"
37And he said, "He who showed mercy on him."

Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise." Luke 10:30-37​

So this Samaritan was an example of one who did not know God, yet was compassionate and loving toward his neighbor. The Samaritan was surely a sinner, but in this instance did good. The Samaritan was not sinning when he cared for his neighbor, and in fact Jesus instructed others to follow his example.


*Attn: Calvinists
Isn't it odd that Jesus said 'by chance' and not 'according to God's preordination'?
You'd think He of all people would know better.
 

docrob57

New member
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. :confused:

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.
 

docrob57

New member
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?
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."

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!
Totally irrelevant to anything I am talking about, but I'm glad it makes you happy.


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.
And, of course, no one has this desire unless it is given him by the Spirit.


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.
Well, yes, that would be true.


John 5:40 “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
Again, irrelevant.

Doc, how is it possible that men have the ability to resist God's calling if the "T" in the Calvinist TULIP exists?
Again, it isn't


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....

No offense, but if this is all you've got, perhaps we should move on. :yawn:
 

docrob57

New member
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.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
docrob57 said:
[/I] 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:
That's the best you can do?

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?
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
docrob57 said:
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.
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.

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
Not open for further replies.
Top