Culpability

[Cypress]

Do we need to be redeemed because of what we are or what we do? Culpability only rests upon one of the options. What say ye? No, there is no third option in this poll. If you want to try and espouse a third option, start another poll or thread.

 

[Greektim]

How is there not a both/and? Why is that option removed as a possibility? How can you say that culpability rest on only 1 option?

 

[preachinjesus]

I was looking for both/and and didn't see it...

So I figured the first is a result of the second, so the second can be seen as the root issue.

 

[MB]

I voted for what we do. Our sin is why we need to be redeemed. It has nothing to do what we are.
MB

 

[Herald]

I was looking for both/and and didn't see it...

Ditto. We're sinners for two reasons: 1. We are born in sin. 2. We sin. We need redemption for both reasons.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Redemption- the word itself implies totality so I would also say both.

 

[OldRegular]

We sin because of what we are, Sinners!

 

[mont974x4]

We sin because we are sinners.
So, we are guilty first because of what we are and second because of what we do. Of course an unsaved person can only sin.

 

[jbh28]

the answer is yes...or both

 

[Cypress]

We sin because of what we are,

The op has nothing to do with why we sin. I know the many opinions on why we sin.:love2:

 

[Greektim]

The op has nothing to do with why we sin. I know the many opinions on why we sin.

So you thought you would load the question to get the answer you want??? That's real honest.

 

[Cypress]

How is there not a both/and? Why is that option removed as a possibility? How can you say that culpability rest on only 1 option?

Perhaps morally responsible would convey my reason as well as culpability. Culpability implies blame worthiness. It only rests on one option.

 

[Greektim]

Perhaps morally responsible would convey my reason as well as culpability. Culpability implies blame worthiness. It only rests on one option.

Says you. But many of us disagree w/ your initial premise thus believe your question to be flawed.

 

[Cypress]

So you thought you would load the question to get the answer you want??? That's real honest.

Totally uncalled for. Answer either way or start another poll/thread. I was and am totally upfront with what I am asking. Why do you feel that I was dishonest?

 

[Cypress]

Says you. But many of us disagree w/ your initial premise thus believe your question to be flawed.

That is fine.:love2:

 

[DHK]

Do we need to be redeemed because of what we are or what we do? Culpability only rests upon one of the options. What say ye? No, there is no third option in this poll. If you want to try and espouse a third option, start another poll or thread.

The question as I see it has to do with eternal security.
The Calvinist believes in the perseverance of the elect. If he doesn't persevere then he never was one of the elect in the first place.

The typical non-cal believes in eternal security. But if he doesn't show any fruit in his life, then either he is back-slidden and will come back to the Lord eventually, or was not saved in the first place. Only God knows the heart.

Those that the Calvinist typically label as "Arminian" believe one can lose their salvation entirely. They must repent of their sin in order to restore not only fellowship but their salvation as well. They do not believe that the atonement covers their future sins.

That is the way I see it, especially after debating some in the third group that are in the Other Christian Denomination Forum. I fall into the second group, "non-Cal." I am saved because I am sinner, and my life must show fruit as well. Both are necessary.

 

[OldRegular]

We sin because of what we are,

The op has nothing to do with why we sin. I know the many opinions on why we sin.:love2:

We must have redemption because of sin. The OP has everything to do with why we sin whether you understand your own OP or not..

 

[Cypress]

The OP has everything to do with why we sin whether you understand your own OP or not..

Absurd.

 

[Cypress]

We must have redemption because of sin. The OP has everything to do with why we sin whether you understand your own OP or not..

I understand my Op just fine. The language is simple and unambiguous.

 

[Greektim]

I understand my Op just fine. The language is simple and unambiguous.

One might even say over-simplified. I still don't see how you can justify your question as an either/or. As it stands, most see it as a both/and, probably many who have given you answers. Some have commented that one leads to the other, so they chose one, but they communicated that both imply culpability.