Our Glorious Gospel

Answers For Today ^ | Chuck Smith

[Corin Stormhands]

I have answered your question. You just don't understand it.

I'm not whining to anyone. Just waiting for you guys to go ballistic again. You don't need my help for that.

(although it does happen faster when Poop Pile is around)

[Corin Stormhands]

oops...darn spellcheck

*snicker*

[Corin Stormhands]

Fortunately, we have the Bible to dispel such Pelagian crap:

Hey Dr. E. Woody said "crap."

You gonna chastise him like you did me last week? Or do you only judge Arminians?

[CCWoody]

Point me to the post where you answered this question:

If sinful man doesn't even know what he needs, then how is it possible for him to seek what he needs in a sincere and faithful heart without there first being a change in his nature so that he can see what he needs?

Woody.

[jude24]

So, then, are you saying that your definition of total depravity allows that humans can behave with outward morality in accordance with the law?

As far as I'm aware, that's consistent with the historical Calvinist position.

[Corin Stormhands]

It's in Post #58. But you'd rather play your goofy games than admit it.

[lockeliberty]

Nope.

False dichotomy.

The problem lies in your premise:

"...whether God not only does something for man so that he can respond, but whether he goes so far as to do something so that he cannot not respond."

You have already agreed that man cannot respond without God doing something but it doesn't follow that therefore God must be doing something to prevent man from responding. I start with man cannot respond, period, without God doing something and unless God does something man will never respond of his own free will, not that God is preventing him from responding.

You and xzins would like to make God the great Soap
Egalitarian. Scripture and history prove you wrong.

"If man is not literally free to either accept it or reject it, then God has made the response on behalf of the man."

If you were blind but then miraculously received eyesight from God, would the seeing be yours or Gods? Would you bitch to God about forcing you to see?

[P-Marlowe]

...it doesn't follow that therefore God must be doing something to prevent man from responding. I start with man cannot respond, period, without God doing something and unless God does something man will never respond of his own free will, not that God is preventing him from responding.

Ok we're in agreement. God does not prevent man from responding. I never said he did. I never implied that he did. You are (as is typical of GRPL's) reading more into the text than what is there. So do you now want to respond to my statement:

"If you believe simply that God's grace and the work of the holy spirit provide the ability for man to freely respond to the Gospel, then you have to believe that man is also free, at that point, to reject it. If man is not literally free to either accept it or reject it, then God has made the response on behalf of the man. You can't hide from that conclusion."

So what is it? Does God make the response, or does man, at that point, freely respond or freely reject?

[xzins]

Can you give me a verse that balances with Rom 2:14b when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them

Can you give me a verse that balances with a sinner's natural ability to do lawful things according to the accusatory conscience given him by God that says a sinner has no idea what his need is?"

I'm trying to remember. Is "a sinner has no idea what his need is" a bible verse? Serious question. Is that in there somewhere (or something remarkably close to it)?

[xzins]

Is it also calvinist that their consciences are refined enough sometimes to accuse themselves as sinners and sometimes to defend themselves as non-sinners?

So the calvinist view of total depravity allows for good to be in humans?

[CCWoody]

***It's in Post #58. But you'd rather play your goofy games than admit it.***

Wow, you must be some kind of mind reader cause I didn't ask my question until Post #63, which was a response to your post #58.

So, do you actually want to try and answer the question?

Woody.

[Corin Stormhands]

Wow, you must be some kind of mind reader cause I didn't ask my question until Post #63, which was a response to your post #58.

Nope. Not a mind reader at all. But I do fully understand your pattern of taking something that's been said and trying to twist it into something else.

Which is exactly what your question does.

I explained it. Maybe someday you'll understand.

[CCWoody]

***Is "a sinner has no idea what his need is" a bible verse? Serious question. Is that in there somewhere (or something remarkably close to it)?***

It's in one of those Total Depravity verses which you Arminians love to deny. But, hey, your acknowledgment that it is in there "somewhere" is encouraging that after repeating the same verse hundreds of times, it actually seeps into your free-will addled minds.

Woody.

[Corin Stormhands]

Is "a sinner has no idea what his need is" a bible verse?

I dunno x. I can't proof-text it. That's just the way I kinda see it.

One man's "crap" is another man's fertilizer.

[Corin Stormhands]

What's the verse Woody?

[xzins]

If man is not literally free to either accept it or reject it, then God has made the response on behalf of the man. You can't hide from that conclusion."

PM, they are dealing with different people.

1. God enables Man A to respond.

2. God does not prevent Man B from responding, nor does he do anything for Man B that enables him to respond.

3. When God enables Man A to respond, then that is the endgame. The "enabling" is simply the first step in an automatic process. The dominoes then fall all the way up to glorification.

Therefore, God has done everything for Man A.

[xzins]

Seriously, does anyone have the text cite for "a sinner has no idea what his need is."?

[Revelation 911]

BTW, if you want to whine to the mods and get that "chapter of 'Calvinists in the Hands of an Angry Mod'" opened then be my guest. It is the modus operandi (sp) of Arminians when they make themselves look like fools with the things they say and want to get the thread shut down.

.....and then you immediately post this?

This little whine of mine I'm gonna make it howl. This little whine of mine I'm gonna make it howl... make it howl... make it howl...

LOL.....man, - you're going to get this place shut down for good

It's inspired disruption woody

congrats

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

36 posted on 01/07/2004 5:51:38 AM PST by PFKEY

Hey, PFKEY, guess what -- you've just been in a terrible accident, and you're dead (it's an anology, follow me through on this).

However, I have a pair of electro-shock paddles on hand, and I can bring you back -- if I so choose.

Now, if I choose to shock you back to life, you are going to breathe -- for breathing is what living men do. Is breathing necessary for life? Sure, living things require oxygen. Is it you who are doing the breathing, or me? Obviously, you. So was it your choice to live and breathe? No, it wasn't. You were dead -- you weren't choosing anything.

It was my choice which caused you to live and breathe (again, in this example), not yours. So you are doing the breathing, and breathing is necessary for life -- but the fact that you live and breathe was all of my choice, and none of yours.

[HarleyD]

"Rather than look to the power of the gospel message itself, they look for heresies in every word nit picking every jot and tittle looking for something that they can point to as a hidden theological error and then miss the glorious picture that surrounds them."

Ain't that the truth!

Thanks for the post. I've only read part of it and will have to come back later. But it's refreshing to read something with scripture in it. :O)