Search results

It couldn't have been to much of a problem. It merely required the death of God to accomplish. No bigee.

Simple question: what changed in man due to sin? You profess to having studied the subject, but can't answer a simple question. The answer to the question is the basis for many different doctrines. For instance, what is depravity? What is the extent of depravity? What is man capable of...

And yet they lack faith without which it is impossible to please God.

I already understand what you believe, even without any consideration of reformed theology. Thus, reformed theology and Calvinism is unnecessary to the discussion. The only reason one brings superfluous into the discussion is to in some way use it discredit another's beliefs. It also evidences...

All that changed was their spiritual status? What does that entail specifically? They weren't actually removed from a physical location? What exactly is restored to man in salvation?

Do you believe you are my teacher? Because you addressed me and brought up a topic in a biased way in no way limits me to responding as I see fit. As I have no intention of preserving your misconceptions, I'm offering you a way forward for discussion. If one does not address the changes in man...

The fall of man is the doctrine I've been asking about. Specifically, what changed in man as a result of sin. If you don't start with what changed, it seems inevitable to me one will never understand what is actually restored in salvation.

Nope. You don't seem to be a student. What I am doing is pointing you in a direction for consideration so you can draw your own conclusions. Perhaps you haven't considered all that is to be considered.

Are you a teacher? How do you open up someone inside their own assumptions?

Simply answer the question I asked.

All without asking anything about biblical doctrine.

I asked you a question already: what was true of man before the fall that wasn't true after the fall?

You are the one dealing in tradition. I'm trying to deal with doctrine. I have pleaded with you to discuss the Bible. Your only interest is Calvin.

So why do you care what is in TULIP? Why do you concern yourself with it? Why do you ask about it?

My beliefs have nothing to do with TULIP. You have characterized them as so, however. It's incumbent on you to then show my beliefs. As you don't know what I actually believe and why, you cannot do so. Yet you still use the pejorative TULIP, which I purposefully distance myself from for the...

Why do you concern yourself with TULIP? Study scripture.

I I have no comments on TULIP. If you want to understand my position, I'm glad to show it to you. As is, you falsely characterize a position you do not understand and don't seem willing to understand. You seem to allow free thought for yourself, but others must fit into a paradigm. If you ever...

Ask those who use the acronym.

As you know, I don't subscribe to TULIP; thus, beginning with TULIP is not helpful. Beginning with what was true of man before sin and after sin is the place to start. As it is these differences which are germane to understanding what is true of man in the here and now, exploring what changed in...

And this is why nothing ever changes. People make broad statements, and when clarity is offered, people run away no clearer on what another believes and why, and still continue to make sweeping statements without any understanding. If you aren't part of the solution, you are simply contributing...