3 Statements...Just True or False

But it all depends on how you define these topics of depravity, election, and predestination.

I appreciate your posts and your grace and humor. That said I cannot answer the questions because you have put parameters that only give the answer you agree with. That's my answer. Blessings.

At this point I actually regret having done the thread. I was looking to find common ground to build relationships, not cause dissension. Had I known it would become more about my motivation than God's glory, I never would have posted.

what if he’s actually only asking about the specific points and went to great lengths to say that in the op ? And isnt asking about every detail of


“Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭6:26‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭6:27-28‬ ‭KJV‬‬

3. All that are given to Jesus by the Father will come to Him and receive eternal life.

In my original response I said,



Leaving the door open for explanation. I agree with how you explain question three.

We are by nature children of wrath and deserving of God's wrath before
being saved. Was Adam by nature deserving of wrath before he sinned? -

Silly question!!! What would God be "Wrathful about" against somebody who never sinned????

Sadly. many see key words and automatically go somewhere.. Like calvinism.

it destroys conversation and makes it impossible.

I agree. it depends on how one interprets those words..

It seems elected to damnation is what people balk at more than anything regarding TULIP.

Though even the T is misunderstood, with some erroneously thinking it means man is incapable
of doing any good whatsoever and is as evil as possible all the time, when that is not what it
means at all. Arminianism also teaches the depravity of man, as does Molinism-

I know for myself, I was acutely aware when the question was being put to me (by God!!!)
of whether or not I would believe. I had encountered God personally and profoundly more
than once, but was still so stiff-necked toward the idea of the Biblical God being the One
I sought,that I found not only could I not, I did not want to acquiesce.

I was looking for further explanation but actual Calvinist or TULIP holding individuals popped in to defend the TULIP.

It is not a silly question, since you claim Adam's nature did not change.

After he sinned, he was by nature deserving of God's wrath.

Those are great verses and good to have them recalled. But I'm not bothered personally when my motivation is called into question. But when I'm the focus of the discourse Jesus isn't. Such is my lament.

Nothing to do with Adam's NATURE (which never changed). Adam was deserving
of God's WRATH because HE SINNED!!! Just the same as us when WE SIN.

set aside our differences

...or even embrace our differences... to a point.

Scripture says it is by nature. You disagree. Okay. Thanks for making that clear.[/QUOTE



“For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,

so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭5:19‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,”

What Paul’s saying is when God said this to the first man

“but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2:17‬ ‭KJV‬‬

and then adam and his wife did this

“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3:6‬ ‭

It fair thier sees to have this issue in tbier nature as humans

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭7:14-21, 23‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Conflicting good and evil knowledge Aren’t supposed to be in us it’s why God forbid it , we’re made to be in a relationship with God in Eden and just hear and follow his word but when Adam sinned it corrupted man’s mind and heart thier “ nature “ that drives them and occupies thier mind and heart

a you see everything change “ no shame before God to shame , fear and hiding from him when he calls for them on either side of the transgression you see mans perception of God change

then ten generations later you see how corrupted they really are

Nothing to do with Adam's NATURE (which never changed). Adam was deserving of God's WRATH because HE SINNED!!! Just the same as us when WE SIN.

Sadly. many see key words and automatically go somewhere.. Like Calvinism.

I sometimes get accused of being Calvinist simply because I can and do explain some (not all) of the
doctrinal points of TULIP. One of the reasons I explain them is because they are so badly misunderstood,
and those who complain against total depravity, for instance, are not even aware that the official Arminian
stance embraces the total depravity of man as well. Heh, one person here, after years of me agreeing with
their anti-Calvinist stance, basically accused me of being Calvinist -

Exactly. That is a pet passage of Calvinists. So Cameron should have simply set up a poll and then said "No need for any discussion".

I know how tempting it is to add explanations. Please refrain. I understand that apart from being able to give an explanation some may not want to participate. Perfectly understandable.

Exactly. That is a pet passage of Calvinists. So Cameron should have simply set up a poll and then said "No need for any discussion".