Total Inability: Genesis 1-4

[Berserk]

atpollard: "...I would prefer to pass on repeating the same old “proof texts”, arguments and counter arguments and approach this from a less travelled direction. Total Inability, the “T” in TULIP, has its roots in the “Adamic curse” and “original sin” and our “sin nature” … and the disagreement is about what these terms mean in our real lives. For this PARTICULAR BAPTIST, they mean that God must save men because men will not choose God. "

The OP invites readers to bypass the texts that refute TULIP and focus instead on the practical implications of the concept of "Total Inability." So I will defer my biblical refutation of TULIP and point to 3 ways in which the doctrine of "Total Inability" can be spiritually harmful to the cause of Christ:

(1) It makes God seem morally unjust, indeed morally monstrous to honest seekers.
Intelligent skeptics reject Christ because of honest doubts created (a) by the perceived clash between science (e. g. evolution) and Scripture and (b) by perceived mythology, errors, and contradictions in Scripture. These doubts can often be resolved by critical engagement with them on the intellectual issues. The TULIP view creates a disincentive to engage them in such fruitful debate on the grounds that they are incapable of responding through reason to the Holy Spirit's wooing. In their eyes it is patently unjust for God to reject them without providing a clear and rational path to faith.

(2) It creates a disincentive to sustained engagement in the witnessing task.
The Christian flower child (TULIP) assumes that conversion is entirely the work of the Spirit. So once they have presented the Gospel to the unbeliever, they believe that the rest is up to the grace of God. As famed Calvinist, Donald Barnhouse puts it, "I preach to the cubic foot of air in front of my face and leave the rest to the grace of God." This attitude has the effect of devaluing sustained engagement with unbelievers and their barriers to faith whi8ch might profitably be addressed.

(3) It can be a revival killer.
Epic historical revivals (the Great Awakening, the Second Great Awakening, the Welsh Revival, the Azusa Street Revival, and the Hebrides Revival) have erupted through the power of sustained intercessory prayer offered up by groups of believers. TULIP promotes the attitude that revivals come as a result of God's sovereign will alone. This fatalism unwittingly promotes a fatalistic attitude that discourages the formation of intercessory groups to pray for and draw the Spirit of revival.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Your view is wrong.

And you are welcome to think that all day long.

Me lobbing scriptures at your like they were tennis balls isn't going to change your beliefs.
Likewise, you lobbing scriptures at me isn't going to change my beliefs.

Debate and forum-based proselytizing are just a waste of time.

 

[marks]

Before we go into specifics, let's talk big picture. @atpollard are you aware that your very presence here trying to convince men to accept your views runs contradictory to your argument that men don't have free will at all?

It is kind of a moot point.

 

[Enoch111]

TULIP promotes the attitude that revivals come as a result of God's sovereign will alone.

See my post
Acts 17 refutes Racism, Calvinism, and Paganism

 

[Nancy]

atpollard: "...I would prefer to pass on repeating the same old “proof texts”, arguments and counter arguments and approach this from a less travelled direction. Total Inability, the “T” in TULIP, has its roots in the “Adamic curse” and “original sin” and our “sin nature” … and the disagreement is about what these terms mean in our real lives. For this PARTICULAR BAPTIST, they mean that God must save men because men will not choose God. "

The OP invites readers to bypass the texts that refute TULIP and focus instead on the practical implications of the concept of "Total Inability." So I will defer my biblical refutation of TULIP and point to 3 ways in which the doctrine of "Total Inability" can be spiritually harmful to the cause of Christ:

(1) It makes God seem morally unjust, indeed morally monstrous to honest seekers.
Intelligent skeptics reject Christ because of honest doubts created (a) by the perceived clash between science (e. g. evolution) and Scripture and (b) by perceived mythology, errors, and contradictions in Scripture. These doubts can often be resolved by critical engagement with them on the intellectual issues. The TULIP view creates a disincentive to engage them in such fruitful debate on the grounds that they are incapable of responding through reason to the Holy Spirit's wooing. In their eyes it is patently unjust for God to reject them without providing a clear and rational path to faith.

(2) It creates a disincentive to sustained engagement in the witnessing task.
The Christian flower child (TULIP) assumes that conversion is entirely the work of the Spirit. So once they have presented the Gospel to the unbeliever, they believe that the rest is up to the grace of God. As famed Calvinist, Donald Barnhouse puts it, "I preach to the cubic foot of air in front of my face and leave the rest to the grace of God." This attitude has the effect of devaluing sustained engagement with unbelievers and their barriers to faith whi8ch might profitably be addressed.

(3) It can be a revival killer.
Epic historical revivals (the Great Awakening, the Second Great Awakening, the Welsh Revival, the Azusa Street Revival, and the Hebrides Revival) have erupted through the power of sustained intercessory prayer offered up by groups of believers. TULIP promotes the attitude that revivals come as a result of God's sovereign will alone. This fatalism unwittingly promotes a fatalistic attitude that discourages the formation of intercessory groups to pray for and draw the Spirit of revival.

Indeed. The TULIP doctrine kills, steals and destroys ones faith and assurance of their salvation. The Holy Spirit is the One who convicts the WORLD of sin and righteous living. Our own consciences convict us or condemn us. I have yet to get an answer to certain Calvinist's on here as to the Great Commission...why would they even evangelize if all is already said and done? I have a brother who is attending a Calvinistic reformed Baptist Church, one I belonged to for 2.5 years. No warmth, but plenty of legalism and criticism. No true loving fellowship...very chilly there. God has taken me out from them and brought me to a very loving and active Church where the unadulterated WORD is given...and we receive it with joy. We have many Pastors there and someone different almost every week does the sermon. They are chock full of scripture and very big on reverence yet, not at all legalistic...which causes many to live in self condemnation. God is LOVE, JUST, GOOD and will accept any who believe on Him and live for Him. My brother just last night was talking to me about the Church he is still attending, and I am not...he is feeling the coldness and shunning that I did...I never spoke to him about the reasons I left the Church as I did not want to influence him in any way but...he is seeing the light now...they do not necessarily preach TULIP in an open way, it's more like omitting many verses that show clearly that WHOMSOEVER is invited to repent and become a child of God. And, evangelizing is very low on there list of importance. Sad really.

 

[Mjh29]

What a good Calvinist you are.

Thank you. Though I prefer depraved sinner in need of the Holy Spirit personally.

You have done what I expected, make the text in context say what it does not say.

Not at all. I compared spiritual things with spiritual things, and ruled out the false narrative you are pushing. In fact, you are the one who is reading into context every time you pull out a verse that says "all" and "every". With each of these verses, if you would take the time to look back or forwards a few verses, you would see the writer making reference to a specific people group, which was the point of saying "all"; Now, there are some times where all really does mean all, but that is only the case if the context of the passage as a whole is not talking about and referencing a specific people.

You don't like the biblical idea that Jesus died for the whole world so you resort to make 'all' = 'all KINDS of people'.

Not really. But you know what I really like? Reading a few verses before and behind a passage before pulling it out of context. I like that a lot.

Why? The biblical context of John 12:19-33 (NIV) ruins your argument.

Does it? Really?

John 12:19-33 King James Version (KJV)
19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.

20 And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:

21 The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.

22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus.

23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.

31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.

Wow, would you look at that; another one of your "all" passages that makes it a point to mention that he was talking to the Greeks and the Jews. So, when we read the context, we again see that Christ is not trying to make the point of every single person ever, but rather that the Jews no longer had singular claim on salvation.

An excellent Calvinistic commentator on John's Gospel, D A Carson (1991) supports the context that I draw upon:

1. v. 19, 'the whole world'; 'By the world, the Pharisees mean '"everyone", i.e. everyone in the Jerusalem area, including the pilgrims from all over the Mediterranean basin and beyond. But the world (kosmos; cf. notes on 1:9) commonly refers in the Fourth Gospel to people everywhere without racial distinction but who are lost and in rebellion against God (cf. notes on 3:16, 17)' (Carson 1991:435).
   
2. v. 20. 'The Greeks who request to see Jesus not only represent "the whole world" ... but they stand in contrast to the Pharisees who are exasperated by Jesus' growing influence' (Carson 1991:435).
3. vv. 31-33: 'Here, "all men" reminds the reader of what triggered these statements, viz. the arrival of the Greeks, and means "all people without distinction, Jews and Gentiles alike', not all individuals without exception, since the surrounding context has just established judgment as a major theme (v. 31)' (Carson 1991:444).

Really?

1. v. 19, 'the whole world'; 'By the world, the Pharisees mean '"everyone", i.e. everyone in the Jerusalem area, including the pilgrims from all over the Mediterranean basin and beyond. But the world (kosmos; cf. notes on 1:9) commonly refers in the Fourth Gospel to people everywhere without racial distinction but who are lost and in rebellion against God (cf. notes on 3:16, 17)' (Carson 1991:435).
   
2. v. 20. 'The Greeks who request to see Jesus not only represent "the whole world" ... but they stand in contrast to the Pharisees who are exasperated by Jesus' growing influence' (Carson 1991:435).
3. vv. 31-33: 'Here, "all men" reminds the reader of what triggered these statements, viz. the arrival of the Greeks, and means "all people without distinction, Jews and Gentiles alike', not all individuals without exception, since the surrounding context has just established judgment as a major theme (v. 31)' (Carson 1991:444).

He is not at all saying what you are. You are saying that Christ died for every single person ever, he is saying that Christ died for all KINDS [ie Racially all kinds] of people from all over the globe. He never once says that it means every single person ever. Perhaps read into the actual commentary a bit more? I mean, if you believe what the commentator said, then you nailed it on the head and are completely right. But this is not the point you were trying to make.

Your insulting me is not appreciated: 'Good solid theology is never built on pulling verses out of context'.

Your ability to take insult with even the most basic stated fact confuses me. I was simply stating the truth. And not to be rude, but I don't really care what degree you have; the Pharisees were the most well educated men of the day, who had literally memorized the entire Books of Law, and they were dead wrong. Regardless of degree, your problem is with the Word of God, and the rightful dividing of it. Again, not being insulting; I'm just stating simple fact.

 

[GodsGrace]

THE TOPIC:
We are (T)otally Incapable of choosing God on our own because sin causes us to always flee from God.

Since this is very well trodden soil, I would prefer to pass on repeating the same old “proof texts”, arguments and counter arguments and approach this from a less travelled direction. Total Inability, the “T” in TULIP, has its roots in the “Adamic curse” and “original sin” and our “sin nature” … and the disagreement is about what these terms mean in our real lives. For this PARTICULAR BAPTIST, they mean that God must save men because men will not choose God.

Agreed except for the last sentence.
The N.T. teaches that man has always had to possibility to choose God...
Romans 1:19-20 from the beginning of time God revealed Himself to man so that man is without excuse. If God wants man to be without excuse, or proclaims man is without excuse---it surely means God DID give man an opportunity to become saved.
He is thus without excuse.

INTRODUCTION

:

I grew up with the expression “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”, which means that children are like their parents. I propose that all human beings are just like our father and mother, Adam and Eve. This is the “original sin” and the “natural man” and the “fallen nature” that scripture and theologians speak of. So let’s take a closer look at the first people and see who we are at our most basic level.

GENESIS 1:

[Genesis 1:26-31 NASB]

26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, [I have given] every green plant for food"; and it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Three observations from Genesis 1, taken at face value:

• Man (male and female) was made in the image of God.
• Man was created to have “dominion” over the earth.
• Man was created “blessed” and “very good”.

The “image of God” means we possess personality (knowledge, feelings and a will), morality (the capacity to make moral judgements; a conscience), and spirituality (we are made for communion and to communicate with God)

I hope that by communion you mean also with other persons.
Just like God created a family for Himself, we also desire a family,
and just like God IS love, we also want and need love and also to give love.

God decreed that man would have “dominion” over the earth as part of His plan even before the creation of man, so our preeminence in creation and ability to affect the environment is God’s plan for man on earth. Therefore, it is a sin for mankind to not use this dominion responsibly through proper stewardship of the earth.

Agreed...although you say that God's plan for man on earth is to affect the environment. Surely there's more...or we may not know the precise reason...how could we know anything Jesus did not teach -- but you might add to this later on.

God’s first act for man after creating him, was to “bless” him, and God’s final appraisal of his entire creation was that it was “very good” … which precludes any evil at all in it.


From this I offer the following personal observations:

• Adam and Eve are what God created them to be.
• As beings with “personality, morality and spirituality” they were able to think and possess knowledge (make rational decisions), they had a conscience, and they were in communion with and communication with God.
• Adam and Eve had no external negative “baggage” from previous generations or a bad childhood to blame on any decisions they made.

Therefore, Adam and Eve represent the best that human beings are naturally capable of (morally speaking).

Not only that: They had preternatural gifts....
Immortality was one of them. They were made to never die (physically).
Adam was made with full knowledge --- he didn't have to study.
These gifts would have been passed on to us had it not been for the fall.

There might be more preternatural gifts...these I remember.
A perfect relationship with God would be another...but you already mentioned communication with God.

 

[OzSpen]

Technically, an appeal to authority fallacy since credentials cannot be verified on the internet ...

... I am really the Apostle John. I came back just like Jesus promised and the Mormons teach. [not really, just making a point]

atp,

You are correct, except that the full content of my 480pp PhD dissertation is online at: Crossan and the resurrection of Jesus : rethinking presuppositions, methods and models.

This dissertation was through the University of Pretoria, South Africa, which uses the dissertation-only approach of those who study under the British system.

Is that enough documentation for me to affirm that I have a genuine PhD in NT?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Thank you. Though I prefer depraved sinner in need of the Holy Spirit personally.



Not at all. I compared spiritual things with spiritual things, and ruled out the false narrative you are pushing. In fact, you are the one who is reading into context every time you pull out a verse that says "all" and "every". With each of these verses, if you would take the time to look back or forwards a few verses, you would see the writer making reference to a specific people group, which was the point of saying "all"; Now, there are some times where all really does mean all, but that is only the case if the context of the passage as a whole is not talking about and referencing a specific people.



Not really. But you know what I really like? Reading a few verses before and behind a passage before pulling it out of context. I like that a lot.



Does it? Really?

John 12:19-33 King James Version (KJV)
19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.

20 And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:

21 The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.

22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus.

23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.

31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.

Wow, would you look at that; another one of your "all" passages that makes it a point to mention that he was talking to the Greeks and the Jews. So, when we read the context, we again see that Christ is not trying to make the point of every single person ever, but rather that the Jews no longer had singular claim on salvation.



Really?

1. v. 19, 'the whole world'; 'By the world, the Pharisees mean '"everyone", i.e. everyone in the Jerusalem area, including the pilgrims from all over the Mediterranean basin and beyond. But the world (kosmos; cf. notes on 1:9) commonly refers in the Fourth Gospel to people everywhere without racial distinction but who are lost and in rebellion against God (cf. notes on 3:16, 17)' (Carson 1991:435).
   
2. v. 20. 'The Greeks who request to see Jesus not only represent "the whole world" ... but they stand in contrast to the Pharisees who are exasperated by Jesus' growing influence' (Carson 1991:435).
3. vv. 31-33: 'Here, "all men" reminds the reader of what triggered these statements, viz. the arrival of the Greeks, and means "all people without distinction, Jews and Gentiles alike', not all individuals without exception, since the surrounding context has just established judgment as a major theme (v. 31)' (Carson 1991:444).

He is not at all saying what you are. You are saying that Christ died for every single person ever, he is saying that Christ died for all KINDS [ie Racially all kinds] of people from all over the globe. He never once says that it means every single person ever. Perhaps read into the actual commentary a bit more? I mean, if you believe what the commentator said, then you nailed it on the head and are completely right. But this is not the point you were trying to make.



Your ability to take insult with even the most basic stated fact confuses me. I was simply stating the truth. And not to be rude, but I don't really care what degree you have; the Pharisees were the most well educated men of the day, who had literally memorized the entire Books of Law, and they were dead wrong. Regardless of degree, your problem is with the Word of God, and the rightful dividing of it. Again, not being insulting; I'm just stating simple fact.

You build strawman after strawman fallacies to defend your unbiblical system.

 

[OzSpen]

My reply? A clear teaching on the matter, not an inference from a historical narrative...

Ephesians 2:1-3 KJVS
[1] And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; [2] Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: [3] Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Romans 5:12,14 KJVS
[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: [14] Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Romans 3:9-17 KJVS
[9] What then? are we better than they ? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; [10] As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: [11] There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. [12] They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. [13] Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: [14] Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: [15] Their feet are swift to shed blood: [16] Destruction and misery are in their ways: [17] And the way of peace have they not known:

prism,

Is ALL Scripture God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17 NIV) or only the NT when it comes to teaching on how we respond to God? In fact when Paul wrote to Timothy, the only Scripture available to them was the OT.

By the way, citing a string of Scriptures without exposition is useless in explaining your point.

There is NT evidence that people can respond to the Gospel message, even though they are dead in sin. A classic example is recorded in Acts 16.

People choose (because of their free will) between alternatives: to respond in faith and repentance to the Gospel OR to reject the Gospel. An example is found with the Philippian jailer and Paul and Silas when released from prison:

25 About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. 26 Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everyone’s chains came loose. 27 The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul shouted, ‘Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!’

29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’

31 They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved – you and your household.’ 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house (Acts 16:25-31 NIV).​

This jailer, dead in trespasses and sin, responded to the proclamation made by Paul and Silas in prison, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ Paul and Silas did not say, ‘Do nothing. God has done it all for you. You are unconditionally elected and are in the Kingdom’.
Instead, Paul & Silas commanded: ‘[You] believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved – you and your household’.

There cannot be a Gospel response to receive salvation without human responsibility of the choice between Yes or No to the Gospel. Otherwise it is God’s authoritarian dictatorship that does away with certain biblical emphases.

How can this be? It’s because God’s grace has been extended to everyone and they respond in faith or reject the Gospel. We have this partially explained in Titus 2:11 (NIV), ‘For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people’.

Salvation is offered to all but not all respond in faith. That’s not because of irresistible grace because ‘the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people’.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You know my answer (Rev 5:9) and reject it, so How does Titus 2:11 fit with John 6:44 and Romans 8:29-30 and Romans 9:21?

• [John 6:44 NASB] 44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
• [Rom 8:29-30 NASB] 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to become] conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
• [Rom 9:21 NASB] 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

That doesn't answer the content of Titus 2:11.

You've engaged in dodging the issue. God's prevenient grace is amazing grace and makes salvation available to all. The NT tells us why people reject evidence for God and salvation: 'The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness' (Rom 1:18 NIV).

 

[OzSpen]

Your view is wrong.

That's your assertion/opinion. Please provide evidence for your case.

 

[Mjh29]

You build strawman after strawman fallacies to defend your unbiblical system.

An example would be nice. Again, your word does not mean as much as THE Word. Please, if you are going to correct me, by all means go ahead. But just saying this proves nothing; especially when your answer is 1 sentence long and includes 0 Scripture.

 

[Earburner]

Where does scripture actually teach any of that (except the part about death coming to all, that part I am familiar with). Too many people are asking me to reject the Scriptures that God wrote and illuminated to me and accept their personal opinions instead. How can I trust you and call the Word of God a liar?

You are asking a great deal.

Earburner wrote: "The choice for judgment of eternal death or eternal life was open to all. However, due to a wrong choice by one, the judgment of eternal death came upon all."
.
In the day of Adam and Eve, the choices made available to them was Eternal Life or eternal death.

Since it is apparent that they did not choose the "Tree of Life" first, but instead the "Tree of knowlede of good and evil", we will never know what might've been. But, if they had, then the Tree of knowledge of good and evil would have been barred from them instead, as well as for all of us.

In brief child bearing for women, would've been a plearurable affair, and men would not have suffered to til the ground, with a curse on the earth.
I suppose that all of what I said is sheer speculation, but as I did say: "we will never know what might've been".

 

[atpollard]

atp,

You are correct, except that the full content of my 480pp PhD dissertation is online at: Crossan and the resurrection of Jesus : rethinking presuppositions, methods and models.

This dissertation was through the University of Pretoria, South Africa, which uses the dissertation-only approach of those who study under the British system.

Is that enough documentation for me to affirm that I have a genuine PhD in NT?

Oz

What a coincidence! I have a full copy of MY Gospel and all of my Letters to the Church available online, too. Is that enough to prove that I am the Apostle John?

I actually believe you.
It is just that identities really cannot be accurately verified online, so claims of credentials have to be taken with a grain of salt. I have a friend who likes to challenge so-called “experts” in Greek that try to bully people online with a smattering of Greek words by asking them questions that require them to translate Kioine Greek for themselves to read his question. His goal is simply to expose false “scholars” so people will not accept their teaching just because they had a semester of Greek.

As for me, my degree is in Architecture with a single “Bible Course” at college that did far more harm than good. (Care to discuss the P, S and V texts that were assembled to form Genesis? ... I don’t.) So I just have to muddle through the best I can with what God breathed into His Scripture and what His Holy Spirit allowed me to understand out of that scripture. Poor me, just having to trust God with no theology degree.

[We lay Christians deserve some sort of handicap to level the playing field.]


[EDIT: Hey, I looked up that dissertation and it was by some guy named “Gear, Spencer D.” and not “OzSpen”. ]

 

[atpollard]

That's your assertion/opinion. Please provide evidence for your case.

No.

If you had followed that conversation, the individual to whom the comment was addressed had several times offered an opinion without support (the opinion that Calvinism is wrong) to requests to support their opinion. If someone is not willing to do more in a discussion than state “You are wrong and I have stated my opinion”, then the appropriate response IS “Your opinion is wrong.”

Dialogue requires BOTH sides to present their case, not the opponent to ask questions, the proponent to provide answers, and then the opponent to claim “that is wrong” by fiat.

 

[atpollard]

(1) It makes God seem morally unjust, indeed morally monstrous to honest seekers.

Stating facts not in evidence. There are no “honest seekers”.

[Romans 3:9-11] 9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

[1 Corinthians 2:14] 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

[John 15:16, 19 NASB] 16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and [that] your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. ... 19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

 

[Berserk]

atpollard: "What a coincidence! I have a full copy of MY Gospel and all of my Letters to the Church available online, too. Is that enough to prove that I am the Apostle John? "

Hardly, because you are apparently ignorant of the scholarly consensus that the Apostle John is not the author of the Gospel and epistles that bear "John's" name. Read almost any modern academic commentary on John to understand why.



atpollard: "Care to discuss the P, S and V texts that were assembled to form Genesis?"

No, because you haven't even identified the established sources correctly! Try JEDP.

atpollard: "Poor me, just having to trust God with no theology degree."

That's fine, but don't be proud of your lack of biblical education or act like it doesn't matter. In a sense, the Bible cannot be translated because a one to one correspondence between modern English and the original Hebrew and Greek is often lacking and the original words often derive their meaning from the cultural "language games" that determine their ancient usage and meaning. So an in depth education in the cultural background and historical situation of biblical texts can be important to any adequate understanding. That's why seminaries are needed and why good academically respectable commentaries on specific Bible books can be important for good Bible teaching by the laity.

 

[atpollard]

Debate and forum-based proselytizing are just a waste of time.

Then why are you wasting your time (and mine) in a debate section of a discussion forum if you have no intention of either debating or discussing anything?

 

[atpollard]

It is kind of a moot point.

Except I never claimed that men have no free will, so it is actually an irrelevant point.
Try reading the first few posts and see what I actually did write.