PDA

View Full Version : Grandstand discussion: "Ghost's Views on The Nature of Christ"



Pages : [1] 2

Nang
March 2nd, 2011, 03:08 PM
This thread is made available for members' opinions and comments regarding the new One on One Debate between AMR and Ghost entitled "Ghost's Views on The Nature of Christ."

The debate can be found here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72555)

CabinetMaker
March 2nd, 2011, 03:31 PM
Okay, to get things rolling here, we need to know whether or not there will actually be a one-on-one. We wait with great curiosity to see if the opening post receives an answer. Stay tuned!

godrulz
March 2nd, 2011, 04:18 PM
Pass the popcorn and my bruxism splint.:cheers:

Son of Jack
March 2nd, 2011, 04:19 PM
:Popcorn:

kmoney
March 2nd, 2011, 04:32 PM
:Popcorn:

I'm going to wait on that until I see if the one-on-one actually happens. :chuckle:

fool
March 2nd, 2011, 04:37 PM
So if the One on One doesn't happen can we use this thread to play fort in?

godrulz
March 2nd, 2011, 05:24 PM
Can we start a pool to guess when Ghost will lose his cool and take his marbles and go home? Post #?

nicholsmom
March 2nd, 2011, 05:44 PM
I think the Incarnation was a good choice. Very clear theology and a tough one to run from. Then again, ghost can be rather ghost-like, walking out the door with mystery, not to be seen again for months...
Let's hope he enjoins the battle.

ghost
March 2nd, 2011, 07:58 PM
Boring, isn't it?

Sherman
March 2nd, 2011, 09:21 PM
I am rooting for Ghost. I do not believe that Jesus had two natures. I just cannot find any scriptural support for that view. Jesus is God the Son, God incarnate.

Nang
March 2nd, 2011, 09:34 PM
I am rooting for Ghost. I do not believe that Jesus had two natures. I just cannot find any scriptural support for that view. Jesus is God the Son, God incarnate.

Well then, you hold to an unorthodox Christian view, for the historical church has always embraced the truths contained in the Chalcedonian Creed, (http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/ChalcedonianCreed.htm) that clearly defines Jesus Christ as being both fully Man and fully God.

Only heretics and false religionists have deviated or denied this teaching, since the time of Christ.

Jesus Christ Himself claimed to be the "Son of God," as well as the "Son of Man," if you require scriptural proofs.

Nang

Sherman
March 2nd, 2011, 09:47 PM
It's a creed. Show where in the scripture it is.

Here is my creed on the subject:

John 1: 1-5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.



Why do we need artificial creeds when we have the written Word?

Nang
March 2nd, 2011, 09:58 PM
It's a creed. Show where in the scripture it is.

I will defer to AMR who will be basing his arguments upon Holy Scripture during the One on One regarding this subject. Take notes. He will give you ample Scriptural evidence.


Why do we need artificial creeds when we have the written Word?

The church creeds are developed and founded upon Holy Scripture. That is their purpose. They are meant to protect and defend orthodox beliefs, according to Holy Scripture.

Anyone who deviates from the orthodox creeds, also deviates from Holy Scripture.

Nang

Sherman
March 2nd, 2011, 10:05 PM
'Orthodox' also includes classical theism (Calvinism) which I reject because I cannot find enough support for it in the scripture. This Dual natures creed makes Jesus sound like He has two spirits. It says the same thing about humans as well--they have a soul and a spirit. This concept when applied to Jesus states that God took the place of the human soul when He assumed a human body. He still had a human spirit with Him in that body. I can find this no place in scripture.

My theology is just simply what you find in the first chapter of John--->In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.......And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

Nang
March 2nd, 2011, 10:44 PM
'Orthodox' also includes classical theism (Calvinism) which I reject because I cannot find enough support for it in the scripture. This Dual natures creed makes Jesus sound like He has two spirits. It says the same thing about humans as well--they have a soul and a spirit. This concept when applied to Jesus states that God took the place of the human soul when He assumed a human body. He still had a human spirit with Him in that body. I can find this no place in scripture.

My theology is just simply what you find in the first chapter of John--->In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.......And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

Inzl,

You and I are not debating. This thread is not meant to serve you and your views, or for me to defend my views . . . but it is solely to provide a forum to comment upon a specific One on One as it develops.

AMR and Ghost will debate.

Not you and I.

Nang

ghost
March 2nd, 2011, 10:45 PM
Anyone who deviates from the orthodox creeds, also deviates from Holy Scripture.

:rotfl: Spoken like a true Roman Catholic :loser:

Sherman
March 2nd, 2011, 10:51 PM
I was thinking the same thing. Creeds seems very Catholic to me. I have no need of them since I have the written Word. If AMR's argument is going to be based on creeds, Ghost, you will win hands down.

Nang
March 2nd, 2011, 10:51 PM
Ghost,

This thread is provided to accommodate members' opinions as to the debate of your views, not for you to trash my views.

In fact, I do not even know if you and AMR are allowed to post here during your One on One.

???

ghost
March 2nd, 2011, 10:58 PM
Ghost,

This thread is provided to accommodate members' opinions as to the debate of your views, not for you to trash my views. I doubt your assessment. However, no one does a better job of trashing your views than you do, so I'll leave you to your own stupidity.


In fact, I do not even know if you and AMR are allowed to post here during your One on One.:rotfl: There you go again. :chuckle:

Sherman
March 2nd, 2011, 11:05 PM
Nang, that was really cheap of you to report my post. You are are making yourself look very bad by reporting something that is not infraction material.

rocketman
March 2nd, 2011, 11:09 PM
Well then, you hold to an unorthodox Christian view, for the historical church has always embraced the truths contained in the Chalcedonian Creed, (http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/ChalcedonianCreed.htm) that clearly defines Jesus Christ as being both fully Man and fully God.

Only heretics and false religionists have deviated or denied this teaching, since the time of Christ.

Jesus Christ Himself claimed to be the "Son of God," as well as the "Son of Man," if you require scriptural proofs.

Nang

Bad form Nang, you opened the door to a sidebar with your post above. Now your angry it's getting derailed? :idunno:

Nang
March 2nd, 2011, 11:09 PM
Nang, that was really cheap of you to report my post. You are are making yourself look very bad by reporting something that is not infraction material.

Inzl,

Your attempt to engage me in a debate about the creeds, violates the purpose of this thread and this particular forum.

Such amounts to hi-jacking.

You deserved to be reported and if Knight issues you an infraction, you deserve that, too, IMO.

And your complaint prolongs the hi-jacking.

Please cease and desist.



Nang

ghost
March 2nd, 2011, 11:11 PM
Nang, that was really cheap of you to report my post. You are are making yourself look very bad by reporting something that is not infraction material.Uh-oh, now you've done it! Watch out for the flying butt-monkeys! :shocked:

Nang
March 2nd, 2011, 11:13 PM
Bad form Nang, you opened the door to a sidebar with your post above. Now your angry it's getting derailed? :idunno:

You are correct.

I should have never responded to her opinion in the first place.

I apologize for that, but the report was warranted.

Nang

Sherman
March 2nd, 2011, 11:15 PM
"Jesus Christ Himself claimed to be the "Son of God," as well as the "Son of Man," if you require scriptural proofs"

These statements do not prove the bizarre theology in AMR's post.

We'll see how the debate between Ghost and AMR pans out. I think Ghost will win.

steko
March 2nd, 2011, 11:20 PM
I was thinking the same thing. Creeds seems very Catholic to me. I have no need of them since I have the written Word. If AMR's argument is going to be based on creeds, Ghost, you will win hands down.

The early Creeds were developed when not everybody had regular access to the written Word and not everyone could even read. Believers needed a concise, to the point statement concerning the essentials of what comprised their faith.
The word Creed comes from the Latin verb 'credo' which means 'I believe'. What is the gist of what one believes? I could say "I believe the following:" and then begin to quote the Bible verbatim from Genesis to Revelation, which is not likely or even practical. Or, one could say "I believe/credo and quote ICo 15:3-8 which is believed to originate from a very early 'creed' among the believers of that time.
During certain periods in early church history believers were being severely persecuted and killed for their faith and they needed something that could be committed to memory and held on to. Also, there were 'creedal confessions' or statements of faith that were recited when being received as a new believer among the ranks.
Whether one deems some of the creeds to be in harmony with scripture or not, each one must decide, but if one does agree with Nicea or Chalcedon, for example, they are very carefully worded formulas which help one think through what the limits are when speaking of the truths pertaining to GOD and the incarnation.

Sherman
March 2nd, 2011, 11:25 PM
Steko--Even the Chalcedonian creed really does not say all the weird stuff that is in AMR's post about Jesus and Man having two spirits. That is what gives me heartburn. It just sounds very bizarre to me.

I have no problem with Jesus being Son of God and Son of Man.

ghost
March 2nd, 2011, 11:27 PM
I have no problem with Jesus being Son of God and Son of Man.:up:

steko
March 2nd, 2011, 11:32 PM
Steko--Even the Chalcedonian creed really does not say all the weird stuff that is in AMR's post about Jesus and Man having two spirits. That is what gives me heartburn. It just sounds very bizarre to me.

I have no problem with Jesus being Son of God and Son of Man.



:)

tetelestai
March 2nd, 2011, 11:59 PM
I am rooting for Ghost.

Why wouldn't you root for the truth?

Do you see this as some sort of sporting event?


I do not believe that Jesus had two natures. I just cannot find any scriptural support for that view. Jesus is God the Son, God incarnate

(1 Tim 2:5 KJV) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

As we see, the above verse proves you wrong.

Or maybe you can explain the geneology of Jesus in Matthew 1?

This one on one will be really easy for AMR.

andyc
March 3rd, 2011, 12:29 AM
Okay, to get things rolling here, we need to know whether or not there will actually be a one-on-one. We wait with great curiosity to see if the opening post receives an answer. Stay tuned!

Well basically ghost is paranoid of AMR's intellect. And instead of actually defending himself against AMR's accusations by spending some time reading up on the the things he's being accused of and thinking about how his views may differ, he's simply denying the claims by attacking AMR's character and motives.
Ghost feels free to constantly attack Calvinism whenever he feels like it, but then he throws his toys out of the stroller when he's challenged.

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 12:30 AM
Here is the chatbox discussion, and proof that AMR is a liar. You must read from the bottom up, as that is how the chatbox is constructed.


Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, I have not. I will post it in the one-on-one when it is set up when I do choose it. Relax now. The terms have been agreed to, so wait for Knight to establish the thread.
ghost X: Have you chosen the text yet?
ghost X: We'll see won't we?
ghost X: I'm talking to YOU (AMR), you dimwit. You're such a flake.
Ask Mr. Religion: See, Ghost, you are all wrapped around the axle about man's words, but the plain fact is, as will be shown in the one-on-one, that your interpretation of Scripture is, well, wrong. Scripture will rebuke you and I pray you accept the correction.
ghost X: Not only that, but why should we believe one definition over another?
ghost X: It is very telling that you miss the point. Which version agrees with YOU? You claim that there are various definitions of the term, so how am I supposed to know which one is the one you think I believe?
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you are the one posting any link you can google. Odd, that is. You are talking to yourself now, no?
ghost X: We will debate the Bible or there will be no debate. I'm not debating the opinions of men. My opinions are worthless, and so are yours.
ghost X: So CARM is wrong? How am I supposed to know which view is the one that agrees with you? Now you know why I'm restricting the debate to the Bible.
Ask Mr. Religion: Find some scholarly books, Ghost. Do your homework.
ghost X: Here (http://www.tecmalta.org/tft320.htm) :rotfl:
ghost X: Okay Here (http://carm.org/docetism) :rotfl:
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you need to rely upon more scholarly references. Wiki is not one. Carry on, though!
Ask Mr. Religion: PM sent to Knight, Ghost. Check your mailbox.
ghost X: AMR is going to attempt to prove that I believe This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism) :rotfl:
ghost X: He doesn't know who you are, so maybe we should discuss you. Perhaps we could rectify that.
Ask Mr. Religion: Yes, Ghost, if you don't know who Jesus Christ is, then little else you have to say is of no significance, so this is the right topic to discuss.
ghost X: Why are you asking me to be "patient", am I not as patient as God has dcreed me to be? Do you have a problem with God's decrees?
Ask Mr. Religion: I am PMing Knight and you will be included so that we are all in agreement on the rules you have.
ghost X: You mean your double-minded Jesus. That's fine.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, I am trying to get my ill wife all settled for bed, so try being a wee bit more patient.
Ask Mr. Religion: The subject will be your Docetism, Ghost.
ghost X: Okay, so you don't have a topic in mind yet?
Ask Mr. Religion: Yes, Ghost I will pick from among the verses you have used. Not a problem.
ghost X: Which subject AMR? I'm letting you pick that too. I think it's only fair that I know what the subject is the same time you do.
kmoney: See ya tomorrow, TOL.
kmoney:
ghost X: Please note everyone: I've let AMR pick any text in the Bible he "chooses"
ghost X: Surely there is some text in the Bible that I've used that you think was evidence that I believe those things or some text that you think I don't understand about Calvinism. Pick the text.
Ask Mr. Religion: OK, Ghost. I will get it all arranged and make the first post telling you the Scripture verse. Stay tuned.
ghost X: I'm waiting
ghost X: Pick one and then tell me which text you want to use to prove that I teach those false doctrines. Or tell me which text you want to use to defend Calvinism.
Nang: Trad: Stay out for awhile. Enter your opinions and thoughts later.
Ask Mr. Religion: Pick one Ghost.
Ask Mr. Religion: Your Docetism, Keswickianism, or your misunderstandings of Calvinism.
Ask Mr. Religion: Trad, click the X in your posts here and they are deleted.
ghost X: What are we discussing?
ghost X: AMR won't debate anything without the Westminister Confession to back him up.
Ask Mr. Religion: OK, ghost. I will get this set up. Note that your rule 3 is not applicable for one-on-ones. It will be just you and me.
kmoney: Take your quibbles somewhere else.
kmoney: Guys, the chatbox is for lovers, not fighters.
Nang: Trad: You have no dog in this fight.
Nang: Butt out, Trad.
ghost X: That's the way he likes it.
ghost X: The third link is you pretending I backed out. You are a fraud.
ghost X: Your second link is YOU backing out. LIAR.
ghost X: The rules in my post from you first link.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost: your running- http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...20#post2518220
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost: the offer- http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...70#post2518170
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost: the thread- http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...47#post2516847
ghost X: Fine, we go by the rules I suggested in our previous discussion about this. Verse by verse, and no going forward until we either agree or come to an impasse.
Ask Mr. Religion: No so, Ghost. You know this. Like I said, pick one of the topics I suggested and we will find where our exegesis leads us. Put up, or at least stop wiggling.
ghost X: Nonsense. They know better. I offered to debate you one on one, but you refused, having rejected a verse by verse exegesis of the Bible in favor of your cut and paste opinions
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, what folks can see is a man doing all he can to avoid a direct confrontation where you would have to defend yourself.
ghost X: Calvinism is an anti-Christ religion, made up of Hitleresque superiortists
ghost X: And like I told you and all the TOL idiots who listen to you, all they have to do is look at that link to see that I have never come close to teaching anything "Keswick". You are confused and stupid.
Ask Mr. Religion: That said, Ghost, I suggest you stick to wailing about topics you don't know, like Calvinism. There's a one-on-one you might consider!
ghost X: If you want to debate someone who believes in all the crap, talk to andyc. He's an expert on claiming that the Holy Spirit gives him the power to stop coveting, and claims he never does.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you just don't get it. What you write about and declare is part and parcel Keswickianism. Deny it all you want. You need to own it. You want to rehabilitate yourself? Like I said, the one-on-one room is open.
ghost X: What? You idiot. The Keswick movement and the "Higher Life" movement are virtually the same. That was the point. Are you drunk, stupid, or both? I NEVER said anything close to there being no connection to Higher life and Keswick. LIAR.
Ask Mr. Religion: Yes, Ghost, you should beg off an actual direct encounter given this recent spate of posts. It would not be an equitable match.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost should have read the wiki item more carefully. It is dripping with Keswick references and he claims the Higher Life has no connections to it. A hoot!
ghost X: Wesley, like you, is a heretic. I reject a "second work of grace" or his "sinless perfection" nonsense. Go talk to the Nazarene church
bybee: This is not a good way to defend open-theism.
ghost X: I defend the truth on this site every day, dimwit. I just don't respond to your plagerized cut-n-paste 10 page long posts.
Ask Mr. Religion: Again, shall I assume you unwilling to defend your views?
ghost X: You're a moron. You have no case. Go play with your witch friend.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, click the Holiness link in that article and you will see how foolish you are sounding. You will have to do better to shake the Keswickian label. And especially avoid wiki items.
ghost X: Like I've said befiore, you are a liar and a fraud.
ghost X: I do not believe in any "second experiences". You cannot find a single post where I have ever made any such claim.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you can rely on that item if you want. It actually is an item that helps make my case. It is clear you don't know what you have fell into as a belief system.
ghost X: If you don't like my assessment of your corrupt theology, respond to the post which accurately defines it.
ghost X: Get over yourself, pervert. All anyone has to do is go Here and they will laugh at your suggestion that I believe in anything that resmbles "Keswick"
Ask Mr. Religion: So, shall I assume you unwilling and/or unable to withstand serious scrutiny of your odd views, preferring to linger in the crowds versus stepping into the ring with an able opponent?
Ask Mr. Religion: If you want to attempt to prove you are not a Keswickian then that sounds like a good topic for the one-on-one, no?
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you are conceding already? That was fast.
Ask Mr. Religion: If you want to discuss Calvinism and seek to show it to erroneous that works for me.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, there is this: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...40#post2597840 or your Docetism or your Keswickianism. So many choices, so pick the one you feel you have an advantage with defending. You are a gold mine of unorthodoxy.
Ask Mr. Religion: The one-on-one forum is very vacant, Ghost. Anytime you are ready to stand still long enough to come under scrutiny with no option to make drive-by posts, I'll be waiting.

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 02:56 AM
It's a creed. Show where in the scripture it is.

Here is my creed on the subject:

John 1: 1-5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.



Why do we need artificial creeds when we have the written Word?


Jn. 1:14; Philippians 2:5-11

bybee
March 3rd, 2011, 06:44 AM
Boring, isn't it?

You are not boring! Your behavior can be quite reprehensible at times, yet, in the main, theologically, I am with you.
I wonder, in passing, why you are so angry?
Your sense of humor is quite endearing, otherwise, I'd simply have to ignore you as a great parochial clod!
On occasion you can be quite insouciant.
Do carry on in your own inimitable fashion.

Sherman
March 3rd, 2011, 08:40 AM
Jn. 1:14; Philippians 2:5-11

Godrulz,

Those verses do not prove the bizarre theology of Man and Jesus having two spirits.

The Two spirits idea is greek in origin from Plato. It doesn't come from the bible.

bybee
March 3rd, 2011, 09:38 AM
Godrulz,

Those verses do not prove the bizarre theology of Man and Jesus having two spirits.

The Two spirits idea is greek in origin from Plato. It doesn't come from the bible.

With respect Inzl, I don't believe I have ever read Godrulz stating that there are two spirits?

CabinetMaker
March 3rd, 2011, 09:49 AM
Here is the chatbox discussion, and proof that AMR is a liar. You must read from the bottom up, as that is how the chatbox is constructed.


Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, I have not. I will post it in the one-on-one when it is set up when I do choose it. Relax now. The terms have been agreed to, so wait for Knight to establish the thread.
ghost X: Have you chosen the text yet?
ghost X: We'll see won't we?
ghost X: I'm talking to YOU (AMR), you dimwit. You're such a flake.
Ask Mr. Religion: See, Ghost, you are all wrapped around the axle about man's words, but the plain fact is, as will be shown in the one-on-one, that your interpretation of Scripture is, well, wrong. Scripture will rebuke you and I pray you accept the correction.
ghost X: Not only that, but why should we believe one definition over another?
ghost X: It is very telling that you miss the point. Which version agrees with YOU? You claim that there are various definitions of the term, so how am I supposed to know which one is the one you think I believe?
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you are the one posting any link you can google. Odd, that is. You are talking to yourself now, no?
ghost X: We will debate the Bible or there will be no debate. I'm not debating the opinions of men. My opinions are worthless, and so are yours.
ghost X: So CARM is wrong? How am I supposed to know which view is the one that agrees with you? Now you know why I'm restricting the debate to the Bible.
Ask Mr. Religion: Find some scholarly books, Ghost. Do your homework.
ghost X: Here (http://www.tecmalta.org/tft320.htm) :rotfl:
ghost X: Okay Here (http://carm.org/docetism) :rotfl:
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you need to rely upon more scholarly references. Wiki is not one. Carry on, though!
Ask Mr. Religion: PM sent to Knight, Ghost. Check your mailbox.
ghost X: AMR is going to attempt to prove that I believe This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism) :rotfl:
ghost X: He doesn't know who you are, so maybe we should discuss you. Perhaps we could rectify that.
Ask Mr. Religion: Yes, Ghost, if you don't know who Jesus Christ is, then little else you have to say is of no significance, so this is the right topic to discuss.
ghost X: Why are you asking me to be "patient", am I not as patient as God has dcreed me to be? Do you have a problem with God's decrees?
Ask Mr. Religion: I am PMing Knight and you will be included so that we are all in agreement on the rules you have.
ghost X: You mean your double-minded Jesus. That's fine.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, I am trying to get my ill wife all settled for bed, so try being a wee bit more patient.
Ask Mr. Religion: The subject will be your Docetism, Ghost.
ghost X: Okay, so you don't have a topic in mind yet?
Ask Mr. Religion: Yes, Ghost I will pick from among the verses you have used. Not a problem.
ghost X: Which subject AMR? I'm letting you pick that too. I think it's only fair that I know what the subject is the same time you do.
kmoney: See ya tomorrow, TOL.
kmoney:
ghost X: Please note everyone: I've let AMR pick any text in the Bible he "chooses"
ghost X: Surely there is some text in the Bible that I've used that you think was evidence that I believe those things or some text that you think I don't understand about Calvinism. Pick the text.
Ask Mr. Religion: OK, Ghost. I will get it all arranged and make the first post telling you the Scripture verse. Stay tuned.
ghost X: I'm waiting
ghost X: Pick one and then tell me which text you want to use to prove that I teach those false doctrines. Or tell me which text you want to use to defend Calvinism.
Nang: Trad: Stay out for awhile. Enter your opinions and thoughts later.
Ask Mr. Religion: Pick one Ghost.
Ask Mr. Religion: Your Docetism, Keswickianism, or your misunderstandings of Calvinism.
Ask Mr. Religion: Trad, click the X in your posts here and they are deleted.
ghost X: What are we discussing?
ghost X: AMR won't debate anything without the Westminister Confession to back him up.
Ask Mr. Religion: OK, ghost. I will get this set up. Note that your rule 3 is not applicable for one-on-ones. It will be just you and me.
kmoney: Take your quibbles somewhere else.
kmoney: Guys, the chatbox is for lovers, not fighters.
Nang: Trad: You have no dog in this fight.
Nang: Butt out, Trad.
ghost X: That's the way he likes it.
ghost X: The third link is you pretending I backed out. You are a fraud.
ghost X: Your second link is YOU backing out. LIAR.
ghost X: The rules in my post from you first link.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost: your running- http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...20#post2518220
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost: the offer- http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...70#post2518170
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost: the thread- http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...47#post2516847
ghost X: Fine, we go by the rules I suggested in our previous discussion about this. Verse by verse, and no going forward until we either agree or come to an impasse.
Ask Mr. Religion: No so, Ghost. You know this. Like I said, pick one of the topics I suggested and we will find where our exegesis leads us. Put up, or at least stop wiggling.
ghost X: Nonsense. They know better. I offered to debate you one on one, but you refused, having rejected a verse by verse exegesis of the Bible in favor of your cut and paste opinions
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, what folks can see is a man doing all he can to avoid a direct confrontation where you would have to defend yourself.
ghost X: Calvinism is an anti-Christ religion, made up of Hitleresque superiortists
ghost X: And like I told you and all the TOL idiots who listen to you, all they have to do is look at that link to see that I have never come close to teaching anything "Keswick". You are confused and stupid.
Ask Mr. Religion: That said, Ghost, I suggest you stick to wailing about topics you don't know, like Calvinism. There's a one-on-one you might consider!
ghost X: If you want to debate someone who believes in all the crap, talk to andyc. He's an expert on claiming that the Holy Spirit gives him the power to stop coveting, and claims he never does.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you just don't get it. What you write about and declare is part and parcel Keswickianism. Deny it all you want. You need to own it. You want to rehabilitate yourself? Like I said, the one-on-one room is open.
ghost X: What? You idiot. The Keswick movement and the "Higher Life" movement are virtually the same. That was the point. Are you drunk, stupid, or both? I NEVER said anything close to there being no connection to Higher life and Keswick. LIAR.
Ask Mr. Religion: Yes, Ghost, you should beg off an actual direct encounter given this recent spate of posts. It would not be an equitable match.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost should have read the wiki item more carefully. It is dripping with Keswick references and he claims the Higher Life has no connections to it. A hoot!
ghost X: Wesley, like you, is a heretic. I reject a "second work of grace" or his "sinless perfection" nonsense. Go talk to the Nazarene church
bybee: This is not a good way to defend open-theism.
ghost X: I defend the truth on this site every day, dimwit. I just don't respond to your plagerized cut-n-paste 10 page long posts.
Ask Mr. Religion: Again, shall I assume you unwilling to defend your views?
ghost X: You're a moron. You have no case. Go play with your witch friend.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, click the Holiness link in that article and you will see how foolish you are sounding. You will have to do better to shake the Keswickian label. And especially avoid wiki items.
ghost X: Like I've said befiore, you are a liar and a fraud.
ghost X: I do not believe in any "second experiences". You cannot find a single post where I have ever made any such claim.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you can rely on that item if you want. It actually is an item that helps make my case. It is clear you don't know what you have fell into as a belief system.
ghost X: If you don't like my assessment of your corrupt theology, respond to the post which accurately defines it.
ghost X: Get over yourself, pervert. All anyone has to do is go Here and they will laugh at your suggestion that I believe in anything that resmbles "Keswick"
Ask Mr. Religion: So, shall I assume you unwilling and/or unable to withstand serious scrutiny of your odd views, preferring to linger in the crowds versus stepping into the ring with an able opponent?
Ask Mr. Religion: If you want to attempt to prove you are not a Keswickian then that sounds like a good topic for the one-on-one, no?
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you are conceding already? That was fast.
Ask Mr. Religion: If you want to discuss Calvinism and seek to show it to erroneous that works for me.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, there is this: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...40#post2597840 or your Docetism or your Keswickianism. So many choices, so pick the one you feel you have an advantage with defending. You are a gold mine of unorthodoxy.
Ask Mr. Religion: The one-on-one forum is very vacant, Ghost. Anytime you are ready to stand still long enough to come under scrutiny with no option to make drive-by posts, I'll be waiting.
Looks more like a temper-tantrum on your part more than anything else. But I would expect nothing less given your propensity to quibble over they way a person says something.

None the less, thanks for responding to the OP in the one-on-one and for asking Knight to move a few posts out of the one-on-one.

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 10:04 AM
Looks more like a temper-tantrum on your part more than anything else. But I would expect nothing less given your propensity to quibble over they way a person says something.

None the less, thanks for responding to the OP in the one-on-one and for asking Knight to move a few posts out of the one-on-one.

The post proves that AMR never mentioned Apolloinarianism, which is what he chose to accuse me of teaching in the one on one. The post you quoted discusses ONLY Keswick, Docetism or Calvinism.

In the chatbox AMR chose to discuss Docetism READ THE POST, IDIOT. He has not done that. That is what we agreed to.

What's amazing to me is how many of you people on TOL side with messengers instead of the truth. I find that very interesting considering that you all put such an emphasis on character, and then you prove yourselves to have none.

CabinetMaker
March 3rd, 2011, 10:11 AM
The post proves that AMR never mentioned Apolloinarianism, which is what he chose to accuse me of teaching in the one on one. The post you quoted discusses ONLY Keswick, Docetism or Calvinism.

In the chatbox AMR chose to discuss Docetism READ THE POST, IDIOT. He has not done that. That is what we agreed to.

What's amazing to me is how many of you people on TOL side with messengers instead of the truth. I find that very interesting considering that you all put such an emphasis on character, and then you prove yourselves to have none.
I am very interested in the truth. I think that Calvinism is a distortion of the truth of the truth. I think that some of your interpretations of the gospel are also distortions of the truth. I think that the one-on-one will be an interesting discussion but I seriously doubt it will end in a definitive statement of what the truth really is.

That is just my opinion because I am also rather sure that some of my understanding regarding the truth of the Gospel is also distorted. There is no single man nor organized religion on Earth today that has perfect understanding of the truth. To claim otherwise is foolishness.

nicholsmom
March 3rd, 2011, 10:17 AM
The post proves that AMR never mentioned Apolloinarianism, which is what he chose to accuse me of teaching in the one on one. The post you quoted discusses ONLY Keswick, Docetism or Calvinism.

In the chatbox AMR chose to discuss Docetism READ THE POST, IDIOT. He has not done that. That is what we agreed to.

But you did protest, ghost. You claimed that you are no Docetist, in so many words. So I think it's rather generous of AMR to focus the one-on-one on the core of the Docetism heresy which, as I read it (though I'm no theologian) is the same as the core of the Apolllinarian heresy and the reason that Docetism is related to, or draws its heretical teachings from Apollinarianism.

So, partly because you hate the theological labels, partly because you, like any individual, cannot be fully pigeon-holed (are not in total agreement with any one theology or doctrine but your own), AMR has reduced the argument to the one heresy common to these two that you seem to share.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. Are you or are you not willing to discuss this one aspect of Docetism (the nature of Christ)? If you are, then stop all the posturing, admit that the nature of Christ is certainly an aspect of Docetism which you are willing to discuss as it relates to your own view of the nature of Christ, and get on with it.

nicholsmom
March 3rd, 2011, 10:23 AM
Steko--Even the Chalcedonian creed really does not say all the weird stuff that is in AMR's post about Jesus and Man having two spirits. That is what gives me heartburn. It just sounds very bizarre to me.

I have no problem with Jesus being Son of God and Son of Man.

How can He do that? There are only two ways that I can see for Him to be both god and man:
1) half God, half man :shocked:
2) fully God, fully man - which is a supernatural paradox, that is, only possible for God

Do you see another way?

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 10:29 AM
But you did protest, ghost. You claimed that you are no Docetist, in so many words. So I think it's rather generous of AMR to focus the one-on-one on the core of the Docetism heresy which, as I read it (though I'm no theologian) is the same as the core of the Apolllinarian heresy and the reason that Docetism is related to, or draws its heretical teachings from Apollinarianism. There is absolutely no affiliation between Apollinarianism and Docetism. They are not even close. Again, it would be like him accusing me of being a Mormon, and then accusing me of being a Jehovah's Witness. The similarities on lie in the fact that they both teach a false idea about the identity of Jesus.

It simply amazes me how ignorant everyone on this site is.


So, partly because you hate the theological labels, partly because you, like any individual, cannot be fully pigeon-holed (are not in total agreement with any one theology or doctrine but your own), AMR has reduced the argument to the one heresy common to these two that you seem to share.That's not even close to what happened. AMR changed the subject.

All he had to do is say... "I want to discuss your beliefs about the nature of Jesus. That you teach that Jesus does not have two natures". He did not do that. He has accused me of two beliefs (Docetism and the Keswick movement) in which I have no affiliation. He makes those two accusations in nearly every post where he speaks to me or about me. He offered to prove that I teach those things in light of my denials. I agreed and even gave him the choice to discuss either one in a One on One debate.

He then started the debate accusing me of something completely unrelated. And no one on this site has the integrity or intelligence to hold him accountable.


Are you or are you not willing to discuss this one aspect of Docetism (the nature of Christ)?Absolutely! But, that is not what he is discussing. He changed the subject. How dense are you?

graceandpeace
March 3rd, 2011, 10:31 AM
I am very interested in the truth. I think that Calvinism is a distortion of the truth of the truth. I think that some of your interpretations of the gospel are also distortions of the truth. I think that the one-on-one will be an interesting discussion but I seriously doubt it will end in a definitive statement of what the truth really is.

That is just my opinion because I am also rather sure that some of my understanding regarding the truth of the Gospel is also distorted. There is no single man nor organized religion on Earth today that has perfect understanding of the truth. To claim otherwise is foolishness.

I agree, and it is pride in man that would claim otherwise. Knowledge puffeth up, everyone wants to believe that their form of 'knowledge' of the gospel is THE TRUTH; and then they want to judge the others outside of their form of truth as unsaved.. I think Jesus has a different idea......instead of judging us by knowledge, He judges our hearts...as we see written. Sincerity goes a long way with God, for love covers the multitude of sin...if we simply believe in Jesus Christ and that He died for our sins...and, was raised the third day; to glory, in order to make the way open for us, too. (He never lost the power to take His life back again...for He was God, in whom all power dwelled...this to me means, He could never of sinned.) Even in His fully man, state, what man seems to forget, is that at the SAME time, He was FULLY GOD. God cannot sin, and God cannot be tempted with sin.

Most of the time, those whom uphold 'knowledge' as the way to be saved; miss the forest for the trees...I know, I once did it, too.

There comes a time in a person's walk with God that you ultimately have to admit you do not know it all, and it is then you can find peace, among men.

Let God judge, I say; and stop making His simple and basic message such a hard thing to figure out.

Men and their creeds...that judge sincere hearts as outside of the faith that saves....get's on me nerves....:drum:

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 10:41 AM
From Here (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/167323/Docetism)

Docetism, (from Greek dokein, “to seem”), Christian heresy and one of the earliest Christian sectarian doctrines, affirming that Christ did not have a real or natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one. Though its incipient forms are alluded to in the New Testament, such as in the Letters of John (e.g., 1 John 4:1–3; 2 John 7), Docetism became more fully developed as an important doctrinal position of Gnosticism, a religious dualist system of belief arising in the 2nd century ad which held that matter was evil and the spirit good and claimed that salvation was attained only through esoteric knowledge, or gnosis. The heresy developed from speculations about the imperfection or essential impurity of matter. More thoroughgoing Docetists asserted that Christ was born without any participation of matter and that all the acts and sufferings of his life, including the Crucifixion, were mere appearances. They consequently denied Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension into heaven. Milder Docetists attributed to Christ an ethereal and heavenly body but disagreed on the degree to which it shared the real actions and sufferings of Christ. Docetism was attacked by all opponents of Gnosticism, especially by Bishop Ignatius of Antioch in the 2nd century.

Here is one definition of Docetism, which is inline with many other definitions as I will take the next several days to provide to all of you morons.

AMR accused me of teaching these false doctrines. I agreed to defend myself against his accusation that I teach these false doctrines. He changed the subject, and no one on this site has the integrity to hold him accountable.

Sherman
March 3rd, 2011, 11:05 AM
How can He do that? There are only two ways that I can see for Him to be both god and man:
1) half God, half man :shocked:
2) fully God, fully man - which is a supernatural paradox, that is, only possible for God

Do you see another way?

Number one is just bone headed. 2 is correct. Have two souls is not a perquisite for 2 to be correct.:dizzy: That is just bizarre human reasoning. People need to stop trying to anyalize God and just take His word for what it says.:mmph:

Here is my belief--Jesus is God incarnate. He did not have a human sin nature.

graceandpeace
March 3rd, 2011, 11:07 AM
It has been my experience that we all get 'judged' as teaching false doctrine, by those whom do not read and comprehend our words in context of what and how we would believe them in our own mind.

Everyone on this board is guilty of it; at one time or other, in mho..IF they have posted on this board and been a part of a discussion at all.

If we could all agree we ALL do this; this place would be a better place, in mho.


We all get mad and leave, then we come back, LOL.

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 11:29 AM
It has been my experience that we all get 'judged' as teaching false doctrine, by those whom do not read and comprehend our words in context of what and how we would believe them in our own mind.That's fine, but that's not what AMR is doing.

bybee
March 3rd, 2011, 11:38 AM
:
The post proves that AMR never mentioned Apolloinarianism, which is what he chose to accuse me of teaching in the one on one. The post you quoted discusses ONLY Keswick, Docetism or Calvinism.

In the chatbox AMR chose to discuss Docetism READ THE POST, IDIOT. He has not done that. That is what we agreed to.

What's amazing to me is how many of you people on TOL side with messengers instead of the truth. I find that very interesting considering that you all put such an emphasis on character, and then you prove yourselves to have none.

:D Not only do I have character but, I am a character, and so are you.

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 11:46 AM
Evidence # 2 Here (http://carm.org/docetism)

Docetism was an error with several variations concerning the nature of Christ. Generally, it taught that Jesus only appeared to have a body, that he was not really incarnate, (Greek, "dokeo" = "to seem"). This error developed out of the dualistic philosophy which viewed matter as inherently evil, that God could not be associated with matter, and that God, being perfect and infinite, could not suffer. Therefore, God as the word, could not have become flesh per John 1:1,14, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.. " This denial of a true incarnation meant that Jesus did not truly suffer on the cross and that He did not rise from the dead.

The basic principle of Docetism was refuted by the Apostle John in 1 John 4:2-3. "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." Also, 2 John 7, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist."

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117) and Irenaeus (115-190), and Hippolatus (170-235) wrote against the error in the early part of the second century.

Docetism was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 11:57 AM
"The first known advocate of docetism was Cerinthus (circa 85 AD). He held that Jesus differed from other men only in that He was better and wiser than they, and that the divine Christ descended upon Him at the baptism and left Him at the cross."
Based on what AMR says, it would appear that he is much closer to Docetism than I am.



I am almost certain that you misunderstood gr. God, the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, in no way died on the Cross. Who did die? The Son of Man, Jesus, the man.

Gr, are you claiming that the Son of God, who is God, died on the cross? I hope not.

Sherman
March 3rd, 2011, 12:39 PM
Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/images/juice/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1644591#post1644591)
I am almost certain that you misunderstood gr. God, the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, in no way died on the Cross. Who did die? The Son of Man, Jesus, the man.

Gr, are you claiming that the Son of God, who is God, died on the cross? I hope not.

I think we just entered the twilight zone! I cannot see any scriptural evidence for this kind of hair splitting. Again it's this bizarre two spirits doctrine rearing its head. :dead: It creates all kinds of weird conclusions.

Nang
March 3rd, 2011, 01:03 PM
Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/images/juice/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1644591#post1644591)
I am almost certain that you misunderstood gr. God, the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, in no way died on the Cross. Who did die? The Son of Man, Jesus, the man.

Gr, are you claiming that the Son of God, who is God, died on the cross? I hope not.

I think we just entered the twilight zone! I cannot see any scriptural evidence for this kind of hair splitting. Again it's this bizarre two spirits doctrine rearing its head. :dead: It creates all kinds of weird conclusions.

This is not "hair-splitting" but a delving into a study of Christology, which is sorely needed on this ~theological~ website.

A denial of the humanity of Christ is as serious as denying His divinity.

Jesus Christ died on the cross as the Son of Man; Mediator and representative of His people; bearing their sins in His BODY.

He suffered a substitutional judgment for their sins and a substitional death in their stead, in His BODY.

Then by His own power, He overcame death and resurrected from the grave, in His BODY.

Meanwhile, God the Son remained in paradise with the thief who died on his cross the same day the Son of Man died on His cross.

This is the gospel of Jesus Christ, people. We all should be eager to learn what we can about this miracle of grace, and be less eager to ignorantly impose our finite thinking upon the greatest work of God Almighty!

I consider it very sinful for any to attempt to distract from learning about our Lord, who gave His human life for us humans, by silly whining, complaining, and throwing up smoke screens in order to avoid discussing vital biblical truths.

Nang

Sherman
March 3rd, 2011, 01:32 PM
Nang I am not denying the humanity of Christ--I am denying the two spirits doctrine. Jesus never had a corruptible mind like you or I. He didn't have two souls--no one does. This whole argument stems from a human attempt to understand the dichotomy of Jesus becoming flesh. It's like a baby trying to analyse a car. We won't have all the answers until we get to heaven.

I just don't accept the notion that anyone can have two souls or spirits. There is one caveat though, There is a second Spirit, though and I wasn't born with Him--the Holy Spirit. He came into my life when I accepted Jesus as my Savior.

Nang
March 3rd, 2011, 01:43 PM
Nang I am not denying the humanity of Christ--I am denying the two spirits doctrine.

(I consider the spirit and the soul to be the same.)

Jesus Christ was filled with the Holy Spirit, plus He possessed a human spirit. Both were in union in His one Person.



Jesus never had a corruptible mind like you or I.

Agreed.



He didn't have two souls--no one does.

Perhaps this was the purpose of the incarnation? To reconcile and harmonize the human spirit with the Spirit of God?




I just don't accept the notion that anyone can have two souls or spirits. There is one caveat though, There is a second Spirit, though and I wasn't born with Him--the Holy Spirit. He came into my life when I accepted Jesus as my Savior.

Indeed. You remain one and the same person, but now your human spirit abides alongside with the Holy Spirit.

This is why a serious discussion of the nature of Jesus Christ is so important for us to grasp.

There are some wonderful truths for all of us to learn, if we can just get past ourselves and our prideful egos.

Nang

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 01:47 PM
Nang I am not denying the humanity of Christ--I am denying the two spirits doctrine. Jesus never had a corruptible mind like you or I. He didn't have two souls--no one does. This whole argument stems from a human attempt to understand the dichotomy of Jesus becoming flesh. It's like a baby trying to analyse a car. We won't have all the answers until we get to heaven.

I just don't accept the notion that anyone can have two souls or spirits. There is one caveat though, There is a second Spirit, though and I wasn't born with Him--the Holy Spirit. He came into my life when I accepted Jesus as my Savior.You are absolutely correct. They do teach that Jesus has two minds and two spirits.

Jesus is every bit as much a human man as the rest of us, but not double-minded or multiple spirits. They would have you believe that when Jesus died on the cross, the one spirit (as God the Son) departed the other spirit (as Son of Man) and only the man tasted death, not God. They have two distinct persons in one body, which logically leads to Jesus being two distinct persons in one body for all of eternity. The reason they worship a double-minded Jesus, is because they are double-minded themselves.

Guyver
March 3rd, 2011, 02:25 PM
Well basically ghost is paranoid of AMR's intellect. And instead of actually defending himself against AMR's accusations by spending some time reading up on the the things he's being accused of and thinking about how his views may differ, he's simply denying the claims by attacking AMR's character and motives.


I partly agree with this. While the debate itself is not that compelling to me....one of the participants suffers from APD(antisocial personality disorder) and displays a classic textbook example of sociopathy.

So, it's interesting to observe the interactions from that standpoint.

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 02:40 PM
Godrulz,

Those verses do not prove the bizarre theology of Man and Jesus having two spirits.

The Two spirits idea is greek in origin from Plato. It doesn't come from the bible.

He has two natures, not two human or two divine spirits. He is fully God, fully man, one person with two natures, not two spirits and two minds (Schizo).

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 02:41 PM
The post proves that AMR never mentioned Apolloinarianism, which is what he chose to accuse me of teaching in the one on one. The post you quoted discusses ONLY Keswick, Docetism or Calvinism.

In the chatbox AMR chose to discuss Docetism READ THE POST, IDIOT. He has not done that. That is what we agreed to.

What's amazing to me is how many of you people on TOL side with messengers instead of the truth. I find that very interesting considering that you all put such an emphasis on character, and then you prove yourselves to have none.

In the past, he has labeled you as Apo (which you admit is partially true). His Docetic accusation is newer and unfair in my mind.

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 02:41 PM
He has two natures, not two human or two divine spirits. He is fully God, fully man, one person with two natures, not two spirits and two minds (Schizo).Define your version of "nature"

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 02:43 PM
In the past, he has labeled you as Apo (which you admit is partially true). His Docetic accusation if newer and unfair in my mind.Thank you William.

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 02:45 PM
Number one is just bone headed. 2 is correct. Have two souls is not a perquisite for 2 to be correct.:dizzy: That is just bizarre human reasoning. People need to stop trying to anyalize God and just take His word for what it says.:mmph:

Here is my belief--Jesus is God incarnate. He did not have a human sin nature.

You wrongly assume the sinful nature theory of tradition which is not true. Having a human body/nature would not make him sinful. Having a dog nature does not make the dog a moral sinner. The human body of Adam was not sinful. He became sinful when he misused his faculties in disobedience to God.

There is no reason to deny Christ's human nature/body if we reject false views on sin/sin nature.

The virgin conception does not make Jesus sinless (Mary was a sinner and contributed genetically to His human nature...hence need to say sin passes through male sperm=nonsense). The virgin conception allows Deity to add humanity in the one person of Christ, the God-Man.

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 02:52 PM
Define your version of "nature"


Nature is a metaphysical/substance/being/ontology statement whereas sin, choice, volition, mind, etc. is technically a moral category (academically, philosophically, theologically).

A rock has a mineral nature. A dog has an animal/canine nature. A cat has a feline nature. God has a divine, uncreated, eternal spirit nature. Angels have a created angelic nature. Sinners and saints have a human nature (even the 2011 NIV corrects Gk. sarx from 'sinful nature'/preconceived theology back to literal 'flesh'...the semantic range of meaning with this word depends on context and is used in 8 different ways in the NT...so watch the proof texting/eisegesis). To say that man has a genetic sinful nature is a category confusion of morals vs metaphysics. It negates personal responsibility and accountability, opens the door to homosexuality being genetic vs chosen, reduces sin to the same level as brown hair and blue eyes (amoral).

I might say we form a sinful nature as we habitually chose to sin. I would not say we have a sinful nature passed on in the blood from Adam back of the will that makes us sin.

We are sinners because we sin; we are not sinners because our Christian parents had sex leading to conception in the confines of a godly marriage.

Tradition is not always truth.

Lest your shirt gets in a knot, we agree with the bottom line that all men are sinners in need of a sinless Savior (Rom. 1-5).

Nang
March 3rd, 2011, 02:59 PM
Uh, friends . . .

Here we are (and I have also shared in this) discussing the subject of the One on One debate that we are supposed to be observing.

There may never be a One on One debate on this subject if we keep providing it in the Grandstands.

C'mon ghost . . . there is lot's of interest in this subject and all of us want to know how you teach the Incarnation.

Step up and define your views in the proper forum.

Nang

Sherman
March 3rd, 2011, 02:59 PM
You wrongly assume the sinful nature theory of tradition which is not true. Having a human body/nature would not make him sinful. Having a dog nature does not make the dog a moral sinner. The human body of Adam was not sinful. He became sinful when he misused his faculties in disobedience to God.

There is no reason to deny Christ's human nature/body if we reject false views on sin/sin nature.

The virgin conception does not make Jesus sinless (Mary was a sinner and contributed genetically to His human nature...hence need to say sin passes through male sperm=nonsense). The virgin conception allows Deity to add humanity in the one person of Christ, the God-Man.

You make more sense than AMR does.

I still don't accept the notion that people, or Jesus had two spirits. That's just odd.

I choose to base my theology solely on what I can find in scripture, not on anything than any person drums up or theorizes.

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 03:02 PM
The one on one heat vs light illustrates why I am not quick to want to start one with Ghost (semantics, arrogance, ignorance would dominate).

I find it hard to believe that some thoughts and verses from their posts are not from a book or commentary without giving credit to the sources. I doubt they are composing original material without looking at a source off the top of their heads (not that it is totally unacceptable, but some credit should be given).

I disagree with AMR that a trichotomous view is part of the root problem. I am trichotomous, yet I have a similar, traditional incarnational understanding as AMR (so, non-sequitur). I am also not convinced that Apo and Docetic views are as strongly linked as AMR thinks. They are distinct heresies and some similarity should not mean complete lumping in with the label (Ghost may be Apo, but I don't think Doc. is a fair label since Ghost would reject Doc. quicker than Apo.). I would also think their articulations are salvific since both trust Jesus as God in the flesh (technical details vary and Scripture is not a systematic theology text).

Nang
March 3rd, 2011, 03:02 PM
You make more sense than AMR does.

How do you know? AMR has not had opportunity to fully express his views, yet.

(Plus, you are agreeing with godrulz's denial of original sin, you probably don't know!)

Nang

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 03:06 PM
Nature is a metaphysical/substance/being/ontology statement whereas sin, choice, volition, mind, etc. is technically a moral category (academically, philosophically, theologically).

You must be tired, because the context of my question was in regards to your statement that Jesus has two natures, not about "sin nature".

Define nature in context to your claim that Jesus has two natures.

We know that Jesus came in the flesh, but to have everything that every man does He would have to have his own spirit (and/or soul - depending on a tri or di chotomy view) and his own mind as every man does. As AMR suggested, the man (Jesus) with his own spirit gave up that spirit when he died on the cross, while God the Son (Jesus) left the man Jesus to die and took His Spirit with Him. :dizzy:

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 03:10 PM
Uh, friends . . .

Here we are (and I have also shared in this) discussing the subject of the One on One debate that we are supposed to be observing.

There may never be a One on One debate on this subject if we keep providing it in the Grandstands.

C'mon ghost . . . there is lot's of interest in this subject and all of us want to know how you teach the Incarnation.

Step up and define your views in the proper forum.

Nang

Waiting on AMR to respond to my post that explains the verse he provided. I am also hoping that Knight will remove AMR's posts that flat out lie about how he intentionally has deceived Knight, myself, and everyone else on this site, by claiming that we would discuss his claim that I teach Docetism, and then changing it to Apolloinarianism

Sherman
March 3rd, 2011, 03:12 PM
Nang, I don't accept everything godrulz says, he just not as far out there as AMR.

When held under a microscope--Theology written in books other than the bible just gets odd. I am choking on this Platonic two spirits idea. :vomit:

I am not Armenian either.

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 03:16 PM
You must be tired, because the context of my question was in regards to your statement that Jesus has two natures, not about "sin nature".

Define nature in context to your claim that Jesus has two natures.

We know that Jesus came in the flesh, but to have everything that every man does He would have to have his own spirit (and/or soul - depending on a tri or di chotomy view) and his own mind as every man does. As AMR suggested, the man (Jesus) with his own spirit gave up that spirit when he died on the cross, while God the Son (Jesus) left to the man Jesus to die and took His Spirit with Him. :dizzy:

I would assume AMR is saying that the human spirit of Christ left the body at physical death, just like any other human who dies.

Jesus is God vs created angel (Arianism). He is not uncreated spirit floating around, but He also took on physical form, genuine humanity (Jn. 1; Phil. 2). Scripture does not give technical details on the exact nature of how God becomes man in Christ without ceasing to be God. For you, there is probably a semantical issue (what is 'nature'). I am saying that Jesus Christ is not mere man nor just divine. He has divine attributes (eternal Word made flesh) and human attributes (hungry, thirst, tired, died). He is not just God, not just man. He is one person.

I think your expression of details needs to be tweaked and that you should not object to one person with two natures if you would properly understand what is meant by nature.

The traditional view is that Jesus had two wills, divine and human will. I don't feel comfortable with that 'orthodox' statement, but I do feel comfortable talking about two natures, one mind.

There are incarnational heresies because Scripture does not read like a systematic theology book. I think you have a form of Apo that is not the best understanding, but I don't think it is a denial of incarnation like JWs are guilty of, etc. Likewise, whether AMR is right or wrong on the technical details, I think you agree on the bottom line that Jesus is God in the flesh, not a mere created being who is not God nor a God who is not also man in some sense.

Christology, anthropology, harmartiology are related in the incarnation. If one wrongly thinks that having a human nature is tantamount to having a sinful nature, then any talk of human nature will be and should be rejected. However, if being human with a body is not why we are guilty sinners, then we can retain divine/human nature semantics vs angel, rock, dog, etc.

Sherman
March 3rd, 2011, 03:17 PM
Waiting on AMR to respond to my post that explains the verse he provided. I am also hoping that Knight will remove AMR's posts that flat out lie about how he intentionally has deceived Knight, myself, and everyone else on this site, by claiming that we would discuss his claim that I teach Docetism, and then changing it to Apolloinarianism

I think he's trying to wiggle out of a losing battle. He can't prove you teach Docetism because you don't. His views are closer to Docetism than yours are.

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 03:19 PM
Waiting on AMR to respond to my post that explains the verse he provided. I am also hoping that Knight will remove AMR's posts that flat out lie about how he intentionally has deceived Knight, myself, and everyone else on this site, by claiming that we would discuss his claim that I teach Docetism, and then changing it to Apolloinarianism

He now seems to think they are related errors, so it is not a lie. He will have to be challenged to prove that they are related and you are guilty of both. I don't think it needs censorship as much as clarity.

You accuse me of being the spawn of Satan or teaching perfectionism. I think you are wrong, but I don't demand all your posts with your honest opinion be removed. I expect you to defend your conclusion and I expect to have a right to publicly disagree. A debate means people will say the wrong things because one view is right, the other wrong, or both wrong. Removing the error means we remove the debate.

Nang
March 3rd, 2011, 03:21 PM
AMR has begun his argument . . .

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 03:22 PM
I think he's trying to wiggle out of a losing battle. He can't prove you teach Docetism because you don't. His views are closer to Docetism than yours are.

A heretical view may have some truth to it. There are also nuances within any broad label.

Calvinists accuse Arminians of being Pelagians. Arm and Pel are both free will theists vs determinists, but the accusation is false since Arm. disagree with Pelagius on many points.

Likewise, Socinus had some true understanding about free will and the future, but he rejected the Deity of Christ. To pejoratively label Open Theists as Socinian is argumentum ad hominem, an unfair accusation/straw man.

Muslims believe in one God, but that does not make them Jews nor Christians who also believe in one God.

I believe in a future millennial kingdom, but that does not make me a JW. I believe in family, but that does not make me Mormon nor them Christian.

Sherman
March 3rd, 2011, 03:22 PM
I have a question--Doesn't Calvinism teach that all humans are fallen and their natures are fallen? How can Jesus have a fallen nature?

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 03:24 PM
I have a question--Doesn't Calvinism teach that all humans are fallen and their natures are fallen? How can Jesus have a fallen nature?

Jesus has a human nature, not a fallen nature. I imagine they would argue that the virgin birth keeps Jesus from having a fallen nature, but what about sinful Mary's contribution? Calvinism is not right about everything.

Nang
March 3rd, 2011, 03:29 PM
I have a question--Doesn't Calvinism teach that all humans are fallen and their natures are fallen? How can Jesus have a fallen nature?

Yes, Calvinists teach the Total Depravity of all men.

No, Jesus Christ had a human nature but not a fallen nature.

The difference?

We are created beings.

Jesus Christ is "uncreate" Creator.

Nang

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 03:30 PM
Jesus has a human natureDefine "human nature".

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 03:35 PM
Yes, Calvinists teach the Total Depravity of all men.

No, Jesus Christ had a human nature but not a fallen nature.

The difference?

We are created beings.

Jesus Christ is "uncreate" Creator.

Nang

Logically, you link humanity with sinfulness, so I think you are being inconsistent. Mary was sinful and contributed genetically to Jesus' humanity. The usual spin is that sin is passed on through the male, but I dare you to find any logical/biblical basis for that traditional spin/loop hole.

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 03:44 PM
Define "human nature".

Human nature refers to the essential quality/characteristics of something, what it is to be man/woman vs animate or inanimate creation or Deity. A female nature includes common human characteristics with males, but sexual organs and genetic matter (XY vs XX, penis vs vagina) differs.

The nature of fire is to burn. The nature of salt is to preserve. The nature of a rock is to sit there. The nature of God uniquely relates to Him being sovereign, uncreated, eternal, spirit, triune, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (unlike us). The nature of being human is to be personal with will, intellect, emotions (God and angels have this, but no physical body), blood, guts, spirit, body, bones, etc. Humans are different than primates because we are in the image of God (does not mean physical image like Mormons teach).

Human nature is what it means to be human vs God, angel, rock, dog, fire, wind, TV, computer, car, sun, moon, etc.

It is not essential on a metaphysical/physical/ontological/being/substance level for humans to be sinful since sin is a moral/volitional issue, not a physical, genetic, metaphysical/being issue.

Don't follow Augustine, Plato, Aquinas in their philosophical errors that have been uncritically embraced by lazy Christians. Follow Scripture that agrees with the gist of my view (even secular philosophers understand these distinctions better than some Christians who trust Aquinas more than common sense and Scripture).

No, I am not worried about my views on this subject sending me to hell because they won't. Denying Christ's Deity/humanity/sinfulness is an issue that I am not guilty of (nor are you or AMR).

Nang
March 3rd, 2011, 03:50 PM
Logically, you link humanity with sinfulness, so I think you are being inconsistent.

Of course you do, because you deny the federal headship of Adam. Which is theologically dangerous, because then you must also deny the Federal Headship of Jesus Christ in His incarnation, which makes His cross work efficacious on our behalf. (one error leads to the next . . .)



Mary was sinful and contributed genetically to Jesus' humanity.

Mary was also justified, forgiven, and imputed with righteousness. And she did not conceive in the normal sense that results in the handing down of original sin from the parents to the child.

(AMR has posted on One on One. Are you not going to read it?)

Nang

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 03:52 PM
Human nature refers to the essential quality/characteristics of something, what it is to be man/woman vs animate or inanimate creation or Deity. A female nature includes common human characteristics with males, but sexual organs and genetic matter (XY vs XX, penis vs vagina) differs.

The nature of fire is to burn. The nature of salt is to preserve. The nature of a rock is to sit there. The nature of God uniquely relates to Him being sovereign, uncreated, eternal, spirit, triune, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (unlike us). The nature of being human is to be personal with will, intellect, emotions (God and angels have this, but no physical body), blood, guts, spirit, body, bones, etc. Humans are different than primates because we are in the image of God (does not mean physical image like Mormons teach).

Human nature is what it means to be human vs God, angel, rock, dog, fire, wind, TV, computer, car, sun, moon, etc.

It is not essential on a metaphysical/physical/ontological/being/substance level for humans to be sinful since sin is a moral/volitional issue, not a physical, genetic, metaphysical/being issue.

Don't follow Augustine, Plato, Aquinas in their philosophical errors that have been uncritically embraced by lazy Christians. Follow Scripture that agrees with the gist of my view (even secular philosophers understand these distinctions better than some Christians who trust Aquinas more than common sense and Scripture).

No, I am not worried about my views on this subject sending me to hell because they won't. Denying Christ's Deity/humanity/sinfulness is an issue that I am not guilty of (nor are you or AMR).

How then does Paul say that the sons of disobedience are by nature children of wrath? Eph 2:3

What makes them by nature a child of wrath?

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 04:08 PM
I find it hard to believe that some thoughts and verses from their posts are not from a book or commentary without giving credit to the sources. I doubt they are composing original material without looking at a source off the top of their heads (not that it is totally unacceptable, but some credit should be given).I can't speak for AMR, but when I answered the verses, I did not even look over any of my own notes from the past, let alone any other persons view or opinion. As I always do, I go directly to God and pray earnestly for Him to give me the right words to speak in order that He is glorified.

When you see me telling people to go to hell and calling them liars etc, that is all me and my rather limited vocabulary. :sozo2:

CabinetMaker
March 3rd, 2011, 04:24 PM
Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
It would be helpful to the discussion, Ghost, if you refrain from responding until I have responded to your interpretation of the passage. ;)

Originally Posted by Ghost
No problem, I'm not even going to take the time to read this one.
An interesting development has occurred, one of the participants in the one-on-one is refusing to follow the rules of the one-on-one that he insisted upon. The tantrum continues.

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 04:25 PM
Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
It would be helpful to the discussion, Ghost, if you refrain from responding until I have responded to your interpretation of the passage. ;)

Originally Posted by Ghost
No problem, I'm not even going to take the time to read this one.
An interesting development has occurred, one of the participants in the one-on-one is refusing to follow the rules of the one-on-one that he insisted upon. The tantrum continues.What rule is that?

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 04:25 PM
Of course you do, because you deny the federal headship of Adam. Which is theologically dangerous, because then you must also deny the Federal Headship of Jesus Christ in His incarnation, which makes His cross work efficacious on our behalf. (one error leads to the next . . .)




Mary was also justified, forgiven, and imputed with righteousness. And she did not conceive in the normal sense that results in the handing down of original sin from the parents to the child.

(AMR has posted on One on One. Are you not going to read it?)

Nang


Sounds Catholic/Augustinian vs biblical to me.

Federal Headship is a theory, not fact. Importing it to Rom. 5 could lead to proof texting that logically leads to universalism, which we both deny.

Adam's sin did lead to physical depravity that taints the human race (genetic). You make the mistake of confusing physical and moral depravity, the latter being volitional.

Denying original sin is not a denial of Christ's sinlessness nor the efficacy of the cross (TULIP is also wrong). One can safely reject Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin, Nang since it is not a rejection of Scripture, Christ, gospel, cross. You beg the question by assuming your view is infallible or the only possible credible way to look at things (that Scripture does not resolve like a systematic theology text).

So, you think sin is passed through the male vs female? Where do you find that in Scripture or logic?!

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 04:27 PM
I can't speak for AMR, but when I answered the verses, I did not even look over any of my own notes from the past, let alone any other persons view or opinion. As I always do, I go directly to God and pray earnestly for Him to give me the right words to speak in order that He is glorified.

When you see me telling people to go to hell and calling them liars etc, that is all me and my rather limited vocabulary. :sozo2:

I would be slow to use the Lord's name in vain to endorse your imperfections and flesh. You are sounding charismatic. I can subjectively pray to God and assume the impressions are an endorsement for my beliefs and practices?

I will concede that you have a good heart and mind, but I will not concede that all your beliefs and practices are godly and infallible.

CabinetMaker
March 3rd, 2011, 04:28 PM
What rule is that?
This one:
2. We don't move to a new question, until the first question is settled that we are either in agreement or immovable
You have neither reached an agreement nor an impasse, you simply decided to ignore AMR's post.

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 04:32 PM
This one:
2. We don't move to a new question, until the first question is settled that we are either in agreement or immovable
You have neither reached an agreement nor an impasse, you simply decided to ignore AMR's post.AMR's post does not address mine (as he himself stated). He is just telling (whoever he thinks will listen) what his view of the text is. That doesn't concern me. The onus is on him to prove that what I believe is unbiblical and reflects the teachings of Docetism. His recent post is just him showing off. It's a common practice of religious people who boast in their flesh. You, more than anyone, should know that.

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 04:33 PM
How then does Paul say that the sons of disobedience are by nature children of wrath? Eph 2:3

What makes them by nature a child of wrath?

Thx for your patience with a slow, dull nit wit like me. Your leading questions towards the trap may just work.

My present understanding is that the reason we are by nature objects of wrath is because we sin (Eph. 2; Rom. 1-3; Rom. 5:12 why? BECAUSE ALL SINNED...cf. Rom. 3:23....nothing about Adam...we follow in his footsteps but are guilty/objects of wrath because we each sin...I am not responsible for Hitler's sin).

The issue is WHEN we became objects of wrath. I do not believe an aborted fetus is an object of wrath because they lack mental and moral capacity to sin. The abortionist is the sinner, not the 'product of conception'/fetus/infant. We become sinners when we sin. We become humans when we are conceived (vs Mormon or evolution ideas). Eph. 2 and Rom. 1-3 links our status as sinners and objects of wrath with volitional sin (you will talk about sin vs sins, as I once did because of Miles Stanford, texts we used in Bible College for sanctification studies).

We are sinners because we sin (Bible). We sin because we are born sinners (Augustine, based on a couple figurative language texts with alternate, better understanding Ps. 51 Hebraism).

http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbsindex.htm

(yes, Finney was not wrong about everything)

Moral vs physical depravity is one issue that would bring clarity to your misunderstanding of Paul.

CabinetMaker
March 3rd, 2011, 04:34 PM
AMR's post does not address mine (as he himself stated). He is just telling (whoever he thinks will listen) what his view of the text is. That doesn't concern me. The onus is on him to prove that what I believe is unbiblical and reflects the teachings of Docetism. His recent post is just him showing off. It's a common practice of religious people who boast in their flesh. You, more than anyone, should know that.
I have no clue what you are talking about. I have no boast in my flesh. None at all.

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 04:35 PM
godrulz, ... if it is human nature to be a child of wrath, then how do you say that Jesus has a human nature.

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 04:36 PM
I have no clue what you are talking about. I have no boast in my flesh. None at all.

It is an unfair, false accusation against those who reject Exchanged Life articulations/theories, sozoisms (it is true of some people who reject the true Christ/gospel).

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 04:38 PM
I have no clue what you are talking about. I have no boast in my flesh. None at all.You do it all the time, as you add works to faith as evidence of someone who is saved. You also judge others according to their flesh, and whether or not they meet your standard of how you think a Christian should behave, thus comparing yours behavior with others, which is what boasting in the flesh means.

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 04:41 PM
godrulz, ... if it is human nature to be a child of wrath, then how do you say that Jesus has a human nature.

You are confusing me with Nang and others (JoeyArnold). It is not human nature to be a child of wrath. One becomes a human at conception. One becomes a sinner when one has mental/moral capacity to sin and disobey/rebel/reject truth/God.

Adam was created innocent, not sinful/guilty. He sinned without a causative nature back of his will (just as Lucifer did without a sinful nature). Those who follow Satan are children of Satan. Those who receive Christ are children of God (Jn. 1:12). Babies don't go to hell. Why? They should if they are born sinners and objects of His wrath (hence Catholics deal with original sin through sacrament of infant baptism, the point they think one is born again....one error leads to another).

You may not see the light yet (physical vs moral depravity), but surely you can see that I agree with you that Paul is not talking to aborted fetuses, but people with mental and moral capacity who volitionally sinned and rejected God. We agree that men are sinners. We don't support infant baptism. We know Christ is sinless. We know we need a sinless Savior and that our works are filthy rags and add nothing to His shed blood. I am on your side, honest.:chew:

Feel free to test and reject my view, but make sure you understand it. You are confusing being human (Jesus had a body, but was sinless) with being sinful. Being human, dog, ape does not make one sinful. Misusing our good, God-given mind and will/body is why we sin and are sinners (if Adam can sin without an inherited sinful nature, then so can his progeny).

Jesus is, was, always will be sinless. He was also fully human, but unique in that He is fully divine. Having a body does not make one a sinner. Misusing our body with our mind/will makes us sinners (something an embryo cannot do despite being fully human...hence no moral issue, no hell).

CabinetMaker
March 3rd, 2011, 04:53 PM
You do it all the time, as you add works to faith as evidence of someone who is saved. You also judge others according to their flesh, and whether or not they meet your standard of how you think a Christian should behave, thus comparing yours behavior with others, which is what boasting in the flesh means.
You, sir, are a liar. I can say that because in another thread I went on record, with you, clearly stating that works are not required for anything. You have once again ignored that and substituted your own words and accuse me based on that. You bear false witness.

Second, I do not judge others. At all. There is a different Judge who sits over us all who is far more qualified to judge than I. I will make comments about how a Christian behaves and I may suggest that they should examine their behaviors to see if they are in-line with scripture, but I have never once made any proclamation about a persons state of grace based solely on their behaviors. Again, you bear false witness against me.

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 04:54 PM
You, sir, are a liar. I can say that because in another thread I went on record, with you, clearly stating that works are not required for anything. You have once again ignored that and substituted your own words and accuse me based on that. You bear false witness.

Second, I do not judge others. At all. There is a different Judge who sits over us all who is far more qualified to judge than I. I will make comments about how a Christian behaves and I may suggest that they should examine their behaviors to see if they are in-line with scripture, but I have never once made any proclamation about a persons state of grace based solely on their behaviors. Again, you bear false witness against me.

If you are a true believer who understands grace, then is he a liar, just wrong in his accusations, or both?

I don't know all that you believe, but I don't doubt that you know and love the same Jesus that I do. See you in the sky.

CabinetMaker
March 3rd, 2011, 05:01 PM
If you are a true believer who understands grace, then is he a liar, just wrong in his accusations, or both?He has passed from being merely wrong in his accusations to actually lying about what I have said because I very clearly and directly stated to him that works are not required for salvation. I believe that works are a natural result of salvation. He continues to say that I preach works based salvation. That is a lie.


I don't know all that you believe, but I don't doubt that you know and love the same Jesus that I do. See you in the sky.I don't know all that you believe nor do I believe all that I see you being accused of believing. I would imagine that there are a few theological issues where we will not see eye to eye. I do believe that you have confessed with your mouth what you believe in your heart and that we are indeed brothers in Christ. See you in the sky my Brother.

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 05:03 PM
You, sir, are a liar. I can say that because in another thread I went on record, with you, clearly stating that works are not required for anything. You have once again ignored that and substituted your own words and accuse me based on that. You bear false witness.

Second, I do not judge others. At all. There is a different Judge who sits over us all who is far more qualified to judge than I. I will make comments about how a Christian behaves and I may suggest that they should examine their behaviors to see if they are in-line with scripture, but I have never once made any proclamation about a persons state of grace based solely on their behaviors. Again, you bear false witness against me.

Then explain this...


That is why the New Testament states quite clearly that the thief, the sexually immoral, the liar and the murderer will not inherit the kingdom of God. Simply put, if you accept Jesus as your savior, truly accept Him, your life will be transformed and you will not be a thief, sexually immoral, a liar or a murderer.Your statement implies that those who do those things are not saved.

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 05:06 PM
He has passed from being merely wrong in his accusations to actually lying about what I have said because I very clearly and directly stated to him that works are not required for salvation. I believe that works are a natural result of salvation. He continues to say that I preach works based salvation. That is a lie. You're the one lying. Read my previous post.
you add works to faith as evidence of someone who is saved It says nothing about works to be saved, but that you teach (as you just confirmed) that works are the result of being saved.

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 05:25 PM
He has passed from being merely wrong in his accusations to actually lying about what I have said because I very clearly and directly stated to him that works are not required for salvation. I believe that works are a natural result of salvation. He continues to say that I preach works based salvation. That is a lie.

I don't know all that you believe nor do I believe all that I see you being accused of believing. I would imagine that there are a few theological issues where we will not see eye to eye. I do believe that you have confessed with your mouth what you believe in your heart and that we are indeed brothers in Christ. See you in the sky my Brother.

Rom. 10:9-10


He makes the same false accusations against me despite Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 1:16; Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 3:5; I Jn. 5:11-13, Rom. 10:9-10, etc.

Any rejection of his theories/articulations is seen as a rejection of the gospel (he adds his views on sanctification to the gospel of justification). I disagree with Calvinism's TULIP, but I would not say they deny justification by grace through faith (I would be wrong to do so).

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 05:27 PM
Then explain this...

Your statement implies that those who do those things are not saved.

New creature in Christ is not a title divorced from reality. A lack of transformation may be an evidence for a still birth, lack of saving faith (not a works issue). Rom. 12:1-2; Rom. 6-8; I Cor. 6:9-11, etc. should be normative, not exceptional, for a new convert over time. His equation of justification/sanctification is part of the problem (rejects a straw man of our view).

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 05:28 PM
You're the one lying. Read my previous post. It says nothing about works to be saved, but that you teach (as you just confirmed) that works are the result of being saved.

Faith=root

works=fruit

We are not saying root=fruit. Rom. 10:9-10; Jn. 3:16 is true without works.

ghost
March 3rd, 2011, 05:34 PM
New creature in Christ is not a title divorced from reality. A lack of transformation may be an evidence for a still birth, lack of saving faith (not a works issue). Rom. 12:1-2; Rom. 6-8; I Cor. 6:9-11, etc. should be normative, not exceptional, for a new convert over time. His equation of justification/sanctification is part of the problem (rejects a straw man of our view).


Faith=root

works=fruit

We are not saying root=fruit. Rom. 10:9-10; Jn. 3:16 is true without works.

Do you agree with godrulz CM?

graceandpeace
March 3rd, 2011, 06:15 PM
How then does Paul say that the sons of disobedience are by nature children of wrath? Eph 2:3

What makes them by nature a child of wrath?

Good point.

graceandpeace
March 3rd, 2011, 06:32 PM
Ghost,

Works will be displayed through a christian; but they are not our own..they are the works of the holy spirit in us; love, joy, peace, patience..etc..all at WORK in us...these things automatically result in ACTION. We are just the plain ole dirt that God works through.

That is why James said, faith without works is dead; because a man without the spirit is dead; also. Jame 2...last verse.

Godrulz, and Cabinet maker are saying what I am saying...it aint about us.

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 08:20 PM
Ghost,

Works will be displayed through a christian; but they are not our own..they are the works of the holy spirit in us; love, joy, peace, patience..etc..all at WORK in us...these things automatically result in ACTION. We are just the plain ole dirt that God works through.

That is why James said, faith without works is dead; because a man without the spirit is dead; also. Jame 2...last verse.

Godrulz, and Cabinet maker are saying what I am saying...it aint about us.

Do we do the good works (motive is key) or are we passive sock puppets that He manipulates? An atheist can do good works and some Christians do not. The fruit of the Spirit (character issues) are not the same as works of service, etc. Love is also volitional, so it is possible for an atheist to love and a Christian to hate or a Christian to love and an atheist to hate (again, motive is the key). We have the indwelling Spirit that enables us to obey with right motive, but it is not passive, causative, coerced.

Good to see you back, Jack (er Jane, former pain).

Brother Ducky
March 3rd, 2011, 09:15 PM
Waiting on AMR to respond to my post that explains the verse he provided. I am also hoping that Knight will remove AMR's posts that flat out lie about how he intentionally has deceived Knight, myself, and everyone else on this site, by claiming that we would discuss his claim that I teach Docetism, and then changing it to Apolloinarianism

For a moment, let's assume the worst possible case: AMR lied and changed the subject. Why should Ghost care? Ghost has the opportunity to take AMR to task for what really matters, theology. After all, this is Theology Online, is it not? What a deal, the chance to bring out the big sticks and put the Calvinistic AMR in his place!

And all we see is whining about nothing! Deal with the debate as it is. May the truth of Scripture prevail.

Peace,
Rick

CabinetMaker
March 3rd, 2011, 09:25 PM
Then explain this...

Your statement implies that those who do those things are not saved.
This is not my statement. So I will let the speaker of this statement speak:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version, 2011)

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-10&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28477a)] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.



Can you be a believer and be sexually immoral, an idolater, and adulterer, a drunkard, a homosexual or a thief and still inherit the Kingdom of God? Can I really say I believe that Jesus is my savior and have immoral sex an steal and drink?

CabinetMaker
March 3rd, 2011, 09:28 PM
Do you agree with godrulz CM?
He is far closer to the truth than you on this subject.

godrulz
March 3rd, 2011, 10:35 PM
This is not my statement. So I will let the speaker of this statement speak:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version, 2011)

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-10&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28477a)] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.



Can you be a believer and be sexually immoral, an idolater, and adulterer, a drunkard, a homosexual or a thief and still inherit the Kingdom of God? Can I really say I believe that Jesus is my savior and have immoral sex an steal and drink?


The same book talks about Corinthian saints who do these things. There is a difference between a godless, Christ-less, habitual sinner and a Christian who has an isolated lapse of immorality, lying, lusting, etc. A Christian teenager can violate God's standard of purity (petting, porn, etc.) without this verse sending them straight to hell. An unbeliever who is given over to these things without twinge of conscience, struggle, eventual repentance, etc. is showing that they are lost. The root is unbelief with various fleshly sins. For us, the root of faith saves by grace even if we we tell a lie (believers in Scripture did these things and are not identical to the godless who reject Christ and do the same things).

CabinetMaker
March 3rd, 2011, 11:44 PM
The same book talks about Corinthian saints who do these things. There is a difference between a godless, Christ-less, habitual sinner and a Christian who has an isolated lapse of immorality, lying, lusting, etc. A Christian teenager can violate God's standard of purity (petting, porn, etc.) without this verse sending them straight to hell. An unbeliever who is given over to these things without twinge of conscience, struggle, eventual repentance, etc. is showing that they are lost. The root is unbelief with various fleshly sins. For us, the root of faith saves by grace even if we we tell a lie (believers in Scripture did these things and are not identical to the godless who reject Christ and do the same things).
I think that there is a difference between a believer who stumbles and somebody who claims to be a believer yet leads a deeply immoral life making no effort to repent. I agree with you.

graceandpeace
March 4th, 2011, 07:28 AM
Do we do the good works (motive is key) or are we passive sock puppets that He manipulates? An atheist can do good works and some Christians do not. The fruit of the Spirit (character issues) are not the same as works of service, etc. Love is also volitional, so it is possible for an atheist to love and a Christian to hate or a Christian to love and an atheist to hate (again, motive is the key). We have the indwelling Spirit that enables us to obey with right motive, but it is not passive, causative, coerced.

Good to see you back, Jack (er Jane, former pain).

LOL, perhaps I just needed a respite...and, I agree it has everything to do with motive, for of course, the motive must be that it is the result of Christ in us; the hope of glory. Glorying in the flesh is what those whom are OUTside of Christ do, as shown by their works..that they think are good...AMEN? There really is no such thing as a 'good work' outside of Christ; for they all go to the dung pile eventually..in that they will not last; or remain.

graceandpeace
March 4th, 2011, 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz
The same book talks about Corinthian saints who do these things. There is a difference between a godless, Christ-less, habitual sinner and a Christian who has an isolated lapse of immorality, lying, lusting, etc. A Christian teenager can violate God's standard of purity (petting, porn, etc.) without this verse sending them straight to hell. An unbeliever who is given over to these things without twinge of conscience, struggle, eventual repentance, etc. is showing that they are lost. The root is unbelief with various fleshly sins. For us, the root of faith saves by grace even if we we tell a lie (believers in Scripture did these things and are not identical to the godless who reject Christ and do the same things).

Amen

Cabinet:


I think that there is a difference between a believer who stumbles and somebody who claims to be a believer yet leads a deeply immoral life making no effort to repent. I agree with you.

Amen..agreed.:wave:..it always goes back to motive...that is 'why we cannot judge a brother by his 'sin'...we may see a brother/sister sin; and only God knows if they are doing it out of weakness or out of 'not caring' about whom and what Christ has done for us, by His sacrifice. If we know the person really well, sometimes we can know, if we have them in our everyday lives, for example..and, when this occurs, we are to go to them in private and confront them with their sin, to let them know that blatant sin is not ok with God. Blatant sin being, an ongoing, sin that shows to be without remorse...because we are to warn them of their wrong thinking, in that Christ did not die for us to give us a license to sin.

Ktoyou
March 4th, 2011, 06:33 PM
I partly agree with this. While the debate itself is not that compelling to me....one of the participants suffers from APD(antisocial personality disorder) and displays a classic textbook example of sociopathy.

So, it's interesting to observe the interactions from that standpoint.

:wazzup:

How do you know this? Do you dress your opinions with technical terms for impact, or have you made an examination? I doubt you know the person you are referring to as having mental disorders. What specific textbook are you referring to when you say one is a sociopath? It would be better to use laymen terms; such as wacky, or :kookoo:
:rotfl:

Guyver
March 4th, 2011, 06:51 PM
:wazzup:

How do you know this?



Skill and cunning over ignorance and superstition every time.

Do you know what sociopath means? Have you even bothered to look it up?

It's not the same thing as psychopath. Let your fingers do the googling before you speak next time.

Keyword = sociopathy

nicholsmom
March 4th, 2011, 07:16 PM
Skill and cunning over ignorance and superstition every time.

Do you know what sociopath means? Have you even bothered to look it up?

It's not the same thing as psychopath. Let your fingers do the googling before you speak next time.

Keyword = sociopathy

:doh:
Accusing ktoyou of laziness when you didn't even bother to find out who she is :nono: Pathetic.

nicholsmom
March 4th, 2011, 07:18 PM
ghost, you aren't even trying in the one-on-one. Didn't you agree to the debate?
Your whole "Translation:" blather is evasive and non-responsive as well as embedding ad-hominem attacks.

ghost
March 4th, 2011, 07:30 PM
ghost, you aren't even trying in the one-on-one. Didn't you agree to the debate?
Your whole "Translation:" blather is evasive and non-responsive as well as embedding ad-hominem attacks.That's simply because AMR "chose" to make ad-hominem attacks of my methods of interpretation and communication rather than the content of what I said. If he can't say something so that the "layman" can understand it, then he's only communicating to either hear himself talk, or to impress his peers. For you to suggest that I'm only attacking him with no content, suggests that you did not read the entire post, or are making your own ad-hominem attack.

Nang
March 4th, 2011, 08:16 PM
Ghost,

If Jesus Christ did not possess a human will (along with a godly will), how did He submit His will to the Father's will, throughout His life and death?



"He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, 'O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.'" Matthew 26:39

This is Scriptural proof that Jesus had a distinct human will from the Father's will, which proved to be in harmony with the will of God at all times and on all points.

But if Jesus submitted His human will to the divine will of the Father, it is evidence He obeyed and submitted from a distinct human nature than the divine in His incarnation.

It was the incarnated existence of the Son of Man who volitionally voiced from His human soul, this petition and plea.

It is a vital truth to note.

Nang

Brother Ducky
March 4th, 2011, 08:38 PM
Ghost,
If I understand you correctly, you do not hold that Jesus had
[1] a human nature and
[2] a divine nature.

If true, whatever else you may or may not be, you certainly place yourself outside of traditional Christianity.

Guyver
March 4th, 2011, 08:44 PM
:doh:
Accusing ktoyou of laziness when you didn't even bother to find out who she is :nono: Pathetic.

No, what's pathetic is trying to talk about something you know nothing about.

Do you know the attributes of a sociopath? Do you know what a sociopath is?

If not, then what's the point of your post? If you took the time to look up my point, then you would have to agree that my point stands.

You've been around here long enough for that.

Lon
March 4th, 2011, 09:00 PM
Ask Mr. Religion: The subject will be your Docetism, Ghost.
Address this in the One-on-One. It is a waste of space and need only two things: 1) A request for a definition and how specifically it addresses your position (reading a few books isn't a poor suggestion, but simply ask him to clarify what specifically he's calling you on). In other words, ask him to say it without using the word (which would be the definiton).
2) Respond/enjoin the One-on-One

nicholsmom
March 4th, 2011, 09:31 PM
No, what's pathetic is trying to talk about something you know nothing about.
From ktoyou's "About Me" tab on her profile page:
Occupation
Retired psychologist, ENTJ

Maybe you could read a few of her posts concerning her work in forensic psychology before trying to suggest that she knows nothing of sociopathy :rolleyes:

Honestly, it doesn't take much effort to discover these things...


Do you know the attributes of a sociopath? Do you know what a sociopath is?
ktoyou can tell you. It was she to whom you were responding when she asked you if you'd actually met ghost to make the diagnosis.


If not, then what's the point of your post?
It was an attempt to prevent your further embarrassing of yourself for ignorance of the one with whom you're conversing. Sorry I clearly failed :sigh: I do try.


You've been around here long enough for that.
You would think that I would quit trying to keep people from putting their own feet in their mouths, but it's the mother in me, you see.

Guyver
March 4th, 2011, 09:46 PM
From ktoyou's "About Me" tab on her profile page:
Occupation
Retired psychologist, ENTJ

Maybe you could read a few of her posts concerning her work in forensic psychology before trying to suggest that she knows nothing of sociopathy :rolleyes:



Thank you nicholsmom for your kind words, and your attempt to keep me from putting my foot in my mouth.

I've never been to Ktoyou's profile page, so I wasn't aware of the information that you posted.

So, maybe I should be asking this question to Ktoyou, or for anyone else who is somewhat familiar with the topic at hand.

Can you tell me what are some of the primary attributes and behaviors of someone who is a sociopath?

ghost
March 4th, 2011, 10:32 PM
Address this in the One-on-One. It is a waste of space and need only two things: 1) A request for a definition and how specifically it addresses your position (reading a few books isn't a poor suggestion, but simply ask him to clarify what specifically he's calling you on). In other words, ask him to say it without using the word (which would be the definiton).
2) Respond/enjoin the One-on-OneI did that Lon, but he ignored my countless requests.

It's impossible for me to read his mind, which is exactly what he was asking me to do. There was no way for me to know what resource he derived his view from, only that he is convinced that only his view is the correct one, but would never tell me what that was. I looked at several sources online, who were all pretty much saying the same thing (including CARM), but he said they were all wrong without telling me what is right. AMR is a schemer. He knew what he was doing, and he doesn't think he owes anyone an explanation.

Please go Here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2598238&postcount=1) for more details.

ghost
March 4th, 2011, 10:34 PM
Ghost,

If Jesus Christ did not possess a human will (along with a godly will), how did He submit His will to the Father's will, throughout His life and death?



"He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, 'O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.'" Matthew 26:39

This is Scriptural proof that Jesus had a distinct human will from the Father's will, which proved to be in harmony with the will of God at all times and on all points.

But if Jesus submitted His human will to the divine will of the Father, it is evidence He obeyed and submitted from a distinct human nature than the divine in His incarnation.

It was the incarnated existence of the Son of Man who volitionally voiced from His human soul, this petition and plea.

It is a vital truth to note.

Nang

Those are good points, and I have a response, that I intend to incorporate in the discussion as it progresses.

ghost
March 4th, 2011, 10:38 PM
Ghost,
If I understand you correctly, you do not hold that Jesus had
[1] a human nature and
[2] a divine nature.

If true, whatever else you may or may not be, you certainly place yourself outside of traditional Christianity.Please explain what you think "nature" is?

Ktoyou
March 4th, 2011, 11:21 PM
Thank you nicholsmom for your kind words, and your attempt to keep me from putting my foot in my mouth.

I've never been to Ktoyou's profile page, so I wasn't aware of the information that you posted.

So, maybe I should be asking this question to Ktoyou, or for anyone else who is somewhat familiar with the topic at hand.

Can you tell me what are some of the primary attributes and behaviors of someone who is a sociopath?

Sure, I will send you the psychoanalytic foundations for the psychopathic deviate, which is the underpinning of the first MMPI SD scale along with its description as a character disorder. Along with this the reasons for change in the 1960s toward the examination of sociological impact on morality, cross-examined with aspects of sociology and the conclusion for typing the wayward, in its many manifestations as Antisocial Personality Disorder, along with the political and forensic reasons to incorporate two different aetiologies of deviancy into one common diagnoses. Along with profile examples of the manifest difference between the psychopathic and sociopathic.

Since this is a forum on theology, you will have to pay my time, which I will wave to a contribution to TOL.

Or go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Psychopathy_vs._sociopathy)
Psychopathy vs. sociopathy

Hare writes that the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy may "reflect the user's views on the origins and determinates of the disorder."[52]

In the preface to the fifth edition of The Mask of Sanity, Cleckly stated, "... revisions of the nomenclature have been made by the American Psychiatric Association. The classification of psychopathic personality was changed to that of sociopathic personality in 1958", suggesting that he did not recognise any difference between the conditions.

"David T. Lykken proposes psychopathy and sociopathy are two distinct kinds of antisocial personality disorder. He believes psychopaths are born with temperamental differences such as impulsivity, cortical underarousal, and fearlessness that lead them to risk-seeking behavior and an inability to internalize social norms. On the other hand, he claims sociopaths have relatively normal temperaments; their personality disorder being more an effect of negative sociological factors like parental neglect, delinquent peers, poverty, and extremely low or extremely high intelligence. Both personality disorders are the result of an interaction between genetic predispositions and environmental factors, but psychopathy leans towards the hereditary whereas sociopathy tends towards the environmental."

Keep in mind this David person read my work, and others like me, not the other way around. He also does not mention amorality, which has been observed, yet unfashionable to report today.:chew:

Lon
March 5th, 2011, 04:17 AM
I did that Lon, but he ignored my countless requests.

It's impossible for me to read his mind, which is exactly what he was asking me to do. There was no way for me to know what resource he derived his view from, only that he is convinced that only his view is the correct one, but would never tell me what that was. I looked at several sources online, who were all pretty much saying the same thing (including CARM), but he said they were all wrong without telling me what is right. AMR is a schemer. He knew what he was doing, and he doesn't think he owes anyone an explanation.

Please go Here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2598238&postcount=1) for more details.

This particular is a difficult discussion because we are wading through the very nature of God. The RC calls the trinity a mystery and rightly so for there are aspects that seem beyond our comprehension to attain when we get right down to it. When we are looking at Christ's nature, it can be a confusing subject as well so, for me, any discussion on this particular is win-win. If one is corrected in their thinking, no problem. If one is better able to express their thoughts so that others grasp the matter more clearly, it's a win as well.

I actually had this convo with AMR before you did when AMR addressed Enyart and Lamerson's Battle Royale. In the grandstands I mentioned:


AMRA-BEQ16 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1535845#post1535845) - "No. Christ is God and cannot divest himself of any of His attributes."

Both a good question and answer here. I'd hope this will get some good meaningful interaction because it is one of the heavy-weight questions in theology needing really clear and thorough discussion. Philippians 2:6-12 comes to the forefront along with the other scriptures AMR (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1535845#post1535845) cited. This discussion question is in introductory stages in my assessment. Lamerson (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=838885#post838885) and Enyart (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=841685&postcount=18) took the discussion here. I didn't see it addressed in depth. Perhaps it isn't necessary. Lamerson answers with a line similarly found (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1535845#post1535845)in AMR's repsonse. BE skipped it altogether in redress. Perhaps Enyart/Lamerson/AMR are in agreement upon that particular?
The ensuing conversation with Cabinet Maker may help as you and AMR are going through a similar discussion (as well as the links given above). For my part in the conversation, I had adopted a faulty view of Christ's nature from a Professor and was corrected by Nang and AMR. I initially held that God died on the cross because Jesus was God. Here is the thinking behind my correction:
Q1: What is death?
A1: It is separation from life
Q2: Can God die?
A1: If so, He ceases to exist, is separated from life. Logically, it is impossible for God to die. Man's soul is destroyable, God's is not.
:. (therefore) When Christ died on the cross, whatever was human died, whatever was divine could not.
Hence, I came to the correct understanding that the second person in the Trinity could not die. A cross could not kill God.

I'm unsure if that helps, but I would say I could have been accused accordingly by my misheld belief prior to the particular discussion. I don't really look at labels of heresy as much as trying to ascertain specifically what I may hold incorrectly because I'm seeking to be orthodox (correct) and am open to these corrections in light of scriptural truth (not saying you aren't, just how I handle these particulars). BTW, AMR briefly describles his term definitions in the above link.

Lon
March 5th, 2011, 07:45 AM
A good treatment (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05633a.htm) for anyone following.

ghost
March 5th, 2011, 09:36 AM
This particular is a difficult discussion because we are wading through the very nature of God.Yes, Jesus has the very nature of God, I agree.
The RC calls the trinity a mystery and rightly so for there are aspects that seem beyond our comprehension to attain when we get right down to it.And that is why acknowledging that Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God is sufficient.
When we are looking at Christ's nature, it can be a confusing subject as well so, for me, any discussion on this particular is win-win.Anyone who reads their Bible knows that Jesus has the nature of God. It is apparent. The difficulty comes for those who want to prove that Jesus has the nature of man. We know that Jesus has a real human body, born of a woman, so the debate about what the "nature" is might be more appropriate.
If one is corrected in their thinking, no problem. If one is better able to express their thoughts so that others grasp the matter more clearly, it's a win as well.:up: I think that's possible so that a child can understand it. I am a simple, narrow minded, person. I prefer to strip away all of the unnecessary supposed intellectual chatter, and get to the point.


I had adopted a faulty view of Christ's nature from a Professor and was corrected by Nang and AMR. I initially held that God died on the cross because Jesus was God. Here is the thinking behind my correction:
Q1: What is death?
A1: It is separation from life
Q2: Can God die?
A1: If so, He ceases to exist, is separated from life. Logically, it is impossible for God to die. Man's soul is destroyable, God's is not.
:. (therefore) When Christ died on the cross, whatever was human died, whatever was divine could not.
Hence, I came to the correct understanding that the second person in the Trinity could not die. A cross could not kill God.

Lon, no one ceases to exist. Death is separation from the body. It can also be separation from God. God tasted death through the body of Jesus.

"But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone." Heb 2:9

If God did not taste death through His human body, then you have God (who has a mind) departing to leave the Man Jesus to taste death with his mind (a double-minded being). Jesus said that those who believe in Him will never die John 11:26. Are you going to suggest that this was not true for Jesus?

1. Do you believe that when Jesus was resurrected that He was not God in the flesh?

2. If you think Jesus has two natures, where was Jesus (the Man) during those 3 days?

3. Paul says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Was this not true of Jesus?

4. Was God the Son sitting in heaven waiting for Jesus (the Man) to die so that the two of them would be one again?

5. Does the Man, Jesus, still have his own mind, nature, spirit/soul as he sits at the right hand of God?

I have many more questions to ask, but that's a good start.


I'm unsure if that helps, but I would say I could have been accused accordingly by my misheld belief prior to the particular discussion. I don't really look at labels of heresy as much as trying to ascertain specifically what I may hold incorrectly because I'm seeking to be orthodox (correct) and am open to these corrections in light of scriptural truth (not saying you aren't, just how I handle these particulars).At least between you and AMR you admit you're still learning. :up:

Guyver
March 5th, 2011, 10:40 AM
Since this is a forum on theology, you will have to pay my time, which I will wave to a contribution to TOL.

Or go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Psychopathy_vs._sociopathy)
Psychopathy vs. sociopathy



Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, it failed to answer the question. I asked you to list the key behaviors and attributes of a sociopath.

Instead, you sent me a wiki link on psychopathy?

It seems to me that as a retired professional from the field, you could have selected a more reliable source.

Also, I'm not sure if you are trying to argue that there is no distinction between the two rather than both being a subset of the condition known as APD.

godrulz
March 5th, 2011, 01:11 PM
A good treatment (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05633a.htm) for anyone following.

We can only speculate on the exact relationship of two natures in one person, but we all must affirm that Jesus is not just Deity, not just humanity, but the God-Man, one person with two natures, fully God, fully man.

There are incarnational heresies that we must avoid to stay within the above parameters, regardless of imperfect understanding on things not fully revealed in a systematic, definitive way (cf. trinity which is not pure mystery since we do have revelation vs hidden, but finite cannot fully grasp infinite).

I tell JWs (they ask who ran universe while Jesus was dead if Jesus is God...shows wrong concept of death, trinity, incarnation) that God cannot die (in His eternal, uncreated, triune, immortal glory), but the one who died was God (the eternal Word/God made flesh; Deity adding humanity in one person).

Lon
March 5th, 2011, 01:28 PM
Lon, no one ceases to exist. Death is separation from the body. It can also be separation from God. God tasted death through the body of Jesus.

Yes, exactly what I thought when I said "Yes" the first time. Check out that link, it may help though it is a bit heady. It describes what scripture must mean and what it cannot by walking through early church heresies.
I believe the Chaldean Creed has it right (AMR's Link).

If God did not taste death through His human body, then you have God (who has a mind) departing to leave the Man Jesus to taste death with his mind (a double-minded being). Jesus said that those who believe in Him will never die John 11:26. Are you going to suggest that this was not true for Jesus?
We have two things here to consider 1) a good and agreed upon definition of death and 2) What it means that God tasted death.
On this latter point, we could speculate but I believe the Early Church had it right that scripture must be express on this and whatever we say must sync. Those bishops were much more committed regarding heresy. They went to war with one another over these matters to the death. They were all in on their commitments so, for me, those coucils are important in wading through this discussion.


1. Do you believe that when Jesus was resurrected that He was not God in the flesh?
Not sure what you are asking here (and I might have to do some homework to answer sufficiently).


2. If you think Jesus has two natures, where was Jesus (the Man) during those 3 days?
As with the first question, this one seems to make a separation that Orthodox believers try to avoid. I.E. AMR's Chaldean link (http://carm.org/christianity/creeds-and-confessions/chalcedonian-creed-451-ad):

...according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten...
Note that the Son is not divided into two distinct persons but subsists as one.

3. Paul says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Was this not true of Jesus?
This would take quite a lot to explain my 'no' answer. It has to do with Jesus' work on the cross and what it effected for this verse to be true.
Briefly, yes for us, no, not for Him.

4. Was God the Son sitting in heaven waiting for Jesus (the Man) to die so that the two of them would be one again?
No, not two separate beings.

5. Does the Man, Jesus, still have his own mind, nature, spirit/soul as he sits at the right hand of God?
From the link (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05633a.htm) I cited:

...when the Divine word became man, He remained one and the same in essence, attributes and personality; in all respects the same as before...

ghost
March 5th, 2011, 02:07 PM
Note that the Son is not divided into two distinct persons but subsists as one.

Then you disagree with AMR's claim that God did not die on the cross? You cannot say that Jesus is one person, and then also say that God was not in Christ when Jesus died. That is a contradiction.

godrulz
March 5th, 2011, 02:18 PM
Then you disagree with AMR's claim that God did not die on the cross? You cannot say that Jesus is one person, and then also say that God was not in Christ when Jesus died. That is a contradiction.

Ghost, toast (clink or burnt) or roast?

We need to avoid the JW illogic due to misunderstanding trinity/incarnation/Deity/humanity/death.

How much of the problem here is semantical/imprecision? Neither of you deny the Trinity/Deity/humanity/death/resurrection of Christ, so there are degrees of 'heresy' (salvific vs debatable).

ghost
March 5th, 2011, 02:30 PM
Ghost, toast (clink or burnt) or roast?

We need to avoid the JW illogic due to misunderstanding trinity/incarnation/Deity/humanity/death.

How much of the problem here is semantical/imprecision? Neither of you deny the Trinity/Deity/humanity/death/resurrection of Christ, so there are degrees of 'heresy' (salvific vs debatable).

We also need to avoid claiming that Jesus has two natures, minds, souls/spirits.

I use to say that Jesus was not fully human/man, because of all the false teaching I had to counter that redefined the man He is. It was wrong for me to phrase it as such, but I did so to counter the "two-nature, two soul/spirit, double-minded Jesus. Jesus is the perfect man with God's nature, who had to learn to speak, to walk, etc.

godrulz
March 5th, 2011, 02:49 PM
We also need to avoid claiming that Jesus has two natures, minds, souls/spirits.

I use to say that Jesus was not fully human/man, because of all the false teaching I had to counter that redefined the man He is. It was wrong for me to phrase it as such, but I did so to counter the "two-nature, two soul/spirit, double-minded Jesus. Jesus is the perfect man with God's nature, who had to learn to speak, to walk, etc.

You are right that how we define 'nature' may be part of the problem. AMR is right to insist on accepted definitions, not your personal one that is not standard/technical (how many debates go south over this issue with you?).

One person with two natures is defensible. Some other details like two wills is debatable in my mind. None of us say that Jesus is schizo/multiple personality, but we simply don't have clear revelation on how Deity/humanity relate in the unique (monogenes) person of Christ during the incarnation. Do we die on this hill and shed blood with brethren like we would with a JW over the Deity of Christ?:alien:

Ktoyou
March 5th, 2011, 07:18 PM
Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, it failed to answer the question. I asked you to list the key behaviors and attributes of a sociopath.

Instead, you sent me a wiki link on psychopathy?

It seems to me that as a retired professional from the field, you could have selected a more reliable source.

Also, I'm not sure if you are trying to argue that there is no distinction between the two rather than both being a subset of the condition known as APD.

You are a first rate idiot! I send you this:

"David T. Lykken proposes psychopathy and sociopathy are two distinct kinds of antisocial personality disorder. He believes psychopaths are born with temperamental differences such as impulsivity, cortical underarousal, and fearlessness that lead them to risk-seeking behavior and an inability to internalize social norms. On the other hand, he claims sociopaths have relatively normal temperaments; their personality disorder being more an effect of negative sociological factors like parental neglect, delinquent peers, poverty, and extremely low or extremely high intelligence. Both personality disorders are the result of an interaction between genetic predispositions and environmental factors, but psychopathy leans towards the hereditary whereas sociopathy tends towards the environmental."

Then you cannot see it addresses sociopaths? What you what is for me to give you, for free, information you have no right to request. If you are so interested in the topic, go to a psychological forum, I'm sure there are some out there.:listen::dunce: Do NOT ask me about this again!

voltaire
March 5th, 2011, 09:43 PM
If everyone agrees that nature does not entail physical characteristicss then ghost is a monophysite. So am I. What is wrong with that?

Nang
March 5th, 2011, 10:29 PM
If everyone agrees that nature does not entail physical characteristicss then ghost is a monophysite. So am I. What is wrong with that?

Quite a lot . . .

But then neither you nor ghost seem open to learning from others, so what can be done or said to correct your view?

Nang

Lon
March 6th, 2011, 12:00 AM
Then you disagree with AMR's claim that God did not die on the cross? You cannot say that Jesus is one person, and then also say that God was not in Christ when Jesus died. That is a contradiction.
Again, could a cross kill God? It wasn't on here, so I'd recommend starting a thread "Did God die on the Cross?"
Last year the Lutheran church discussed this topic at length to hammer out their view on the matter.
You'll get a good discussion going but do continue your one on one with AMR. It will only clarify discussion and He's better prepared for this particular discussion than I, having read all the books and gone through these indepth classes.

godrulz
March 6th, 2011, 12:15 AM
If everyone agrees that nature does not entail physical characteristicss then ghost is a monophysite. So am I. What is wrong with that?

It is hard to spell.

godrulz
March 6th, 2011, 12:36 AM
Again, could a cross kill God? It wasn't on here, so I'd recommend starting a thread "Did God die on the Cross?"
Last year the Lutheran church discussed this topic at length to hammer out their view on the matter.
You'll get a good discussion going but do continue your one on one with AMR. It will only clarify discussion and He's better prepared for this particular discussion than I, having read all the books and gone through these indepth classes.

JWs argue that Jesus is not God because who would run the universe if God was dead on the cross?! This is dumb and reflects zip understanding of trinity, Deity, incarnation, humanity, death.

The eternal, invisible, infinite God did not die in total on the cross (He is spirit and immortal).

We know that Jesus is not just spirit-Deity nor solely mortal humanity. He is God-Man, fully God, fully man (Deity/humanity in one person=unique). Deity cannot die without adding humanity (nor can the Father be hungry, thirsty, limited, weak without incarnating). Only the Word/Son became flesh, not the entire triune Godhead. The fulness of Deity is in Christ, but the Father and Holy Spirit did not assume flesh, so they did not die as humans. Mormon concepts of physical gods (Father included) are false, but the incarnation is true.

We can say that the One who died on the cross is God, but we should mean that this is the Son incarnate, not the triune God in total. The Father and Son are in relationship, but they are not the same personal distinction.

There is no reason to avoid two nature talk if we understand it correctly. I am still not sold on traditional two will talk though.

Lon
March 6th, 2011, 01:17 AM
Again, could a cross kill God? It wasn't on here, so I'd recommend starting a thread "Did God die on the Cross?"
Last year the Lutheran church discussed this topic at length to hammer out their view on the matter.
You'll get a good discussion going but do continue your one on one with AMR. It will only clarify discussion and He's better prepared for this particular discussion than I, having read all the books and gone through these indepth classes.
Oops, AMR corrected me here. There was a previous discussion (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45335) of the same (which also gives further context for Ghost and AMR's One on One).

Lon
March 6th, 2011, 04:14 AM
We can say that the One who died on the cross is God, but we should mean that this is the Son incarnate, not the triune God in total. The Father and Son are in relationship, but they are not the same personal distinction.
That's pretty close to the Chaldean statement.

There is no reason to avoid two nature talk if we understand it correctly. I am still not sold on traditional two will talk though.
That would be another heresy altogether. The Creed makes it clear that the flesh and divine are indivisible.

Brother Ducky
March 6th, 2011, 07:05 AM
Please explain what you think "nature" is?

Ghost,
Sorry for the delay. I have been away from serious TOLing for a few days.

For the sake of discussion, I will roughly define "nature" as:

The qualities and characteristics that something what it is, and not something else.

I could elaborate or quote but I hope this will suffice for now.

Basicly, traditional Creedal Christianity has held that Jesus had everything to be "man" and everything to be "God."

Peace,
Rick

voltaire
March 6th, 2011, 08:42 AM
Romans 5 says all who are in adam are condemned. 1 Corinthians 15 say all who are in adam die. The 2 nature crowd insists that Jesus was fully man in every conceivable way. If that is true then romans 5 and 1 corinthians 15 applies to Jesus as well and Jesus was born condemned and was appointed to die as all men are.

Nang
March 6th, 2011, 12:55 PM
Romans 5 says all who are in adam are condemned. 1 Corinthians 15 say all who are in adam die. The 2 nature crowd insists that Jesus was fully man in every conceivable way. If that is true then romans 5 and 1 corinthians 15 applies to Jesus as well and Jesus was born condemned and was appointed to die as all men are.

How can the last (second) Adam be IN the first Adam?

Jesus Christ did not suffer death because of His humanity; He suffered death substitutionally for His people, in His humanity.

IOW's Jesus died Nang's death, not His own.

Nang

godrulz
March 6th, 2011, 09:18 PM
Romans 5 says all who are in adam are condemned. 1 Corinthians 15 say all who are in adam die. The 2 nature crowd insists that Jesus was fully man in every conceivable way. If that is true then romans 5 and 1 corinthians 15 applies to Jesus as well and Jesus was born condemned and was appointed to die as all men are.

Physical death/depravity is genetic, but it is not moral. Sinners, redeemed saints, sinless Jesus all die physically secondary to the Fall.

Moral depravity is volitional, not genetic. Jesus is sinless and lacks moral depravity, unlike all of us.

You beg the question assuming your interpretation of Rom. 5 is infallible and that 'original sin' is truth, not tradition. The perfect humanity of Jesus is another matter distinct from moral depravity. The virgin conception relates to Deity becoming man, not the impeccability/sinlessness of Christ.

Nang
March 7th, 2011, 06:54 PM
I find it amusing (?) that ghost is yelling at AMR to get to the point of the One on One while he refuses to engage the point of the One on One by posting biblical reasons for why he denies the two natures of Christ.

Nang

ghost
March 7th, 2011, 07:02 PM
I find it amusing (?) that ghost is yelling at AMR to get to the point of the One on One while he refuses to engage the point of the One on One by posting biblical reasons for why he denies the two natures of Christ.

NangWhat the hell are you talking about? The onus is on AMR to prove that I teach Docetism. He is to provide Biblical text and ask me questions regarding that text. He is not supposed to be telling us what he believes. He is supposed to proving what he claims I believe. I responded to the text, and to his questions about that very same text. All AMR has done is attempt to tell us what his views are, and critique my communication skills that don't meet his standards.

This is supposed to be a discussion, not me trying to defend what i believe by writing a thesis on the subject. So, you can stop with your lies, deception, and acts of witchcraft.

voltaire
March 8th, 2011, 02:25 AM
Physical death/depravity is
genetic, but it is not moral.
Sinners, redeemed saints,
sinless Jesus all die
physically secondary to the
Fall.
Moral depravity is
volitional, not genetic.
Jesus is sinless and lacks
moral depravity, unlike all
of us.
You beg the question
assuming your
interpretation of Rom. 5 is
infallible and that 'original
sin' is truth, not tradition.
The perfect humanity of
Jesus is another matter
distinct from moral
depravity. The virgin
conception relates to Deity
becoming man, not the
impeccability/sinlessness
of Christ.-----godrulz. How does this aimless rambling essay even come close to refuting a single point I made?

SaulToPaul
March 8th, 2011, 05:07 AM
-----godrulz. How does this aimless rambling essay even come close to refuting a single point I made?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51ybp_YFo7I

CabinetMaker
March 8th, 2011, 10:35 AM
Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Ghost, as a self-professed teacher of Scripture, do you believe that exegesis requires those of us that teach Scripture possess a sound knowledge and consideration of the underlying ancient Biblical languages?
Originally Posted by Ghost: No

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Ghost, do you believe that when one is engaged in a formal theological discussion, such as this one-on-one, that proper exegesis is an essential aspect to make ones points clear and to illuminate the Scripture being discussed?
Originally Posted by Ghost: No

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Ghost, perhaps you think formal exegesis is interpreting English translations only? Why? If so, then which English translation should we all be using?
Originally Posted by Ghost: Which Greek translation should we all be using?

If all this other crap is what you wanted to debate, then perhaps you should have not have switched it to Apollinarianism.


Hmmm.. It appears as though Ghost does not believe that a person needs to have sound knowledge of biblical principles to either teach the bible or to hold a discussion with people about the meaning of the bible. This is either a very concerning attitude on Ghost's part or its just Ghost being flippant. I am guessing it is the latter. Ghost has a tendency to become very flippant with people he does not care for and this seems to be the case here.

ghost
March 8th, 2011, 02:09 PM
Hmmm.. It appears as though Ghost does not believe that a person needs to have sound knowledge of biblical principles to either teach the bible or to hold a discussion with people about the meaning of the bible. It appears that you cannot read, and are in fact a liar and a slanderer. I never implied or said anything close to your false accusation.

Brother Ducky
March 9th, 2011, 05:14 AM
If everyone agrees that nature does not entail physical characteristicss then ghost is a monophysite. So am I. What is wrong with that?

Would you please elaborate on your particular understanding on the nature of Christ?

Peace,
Rick

CabinetMaker
March 9th, 2011, 08:51 AM
It appears that you cannot read, and are in fact a liar and a slanderer. I never implied or said anything close to your false accusation.
So it wasn't you that typed "no" to the questions AMR asked you? Wow. You must have a Ghost writer working for you.

graceandpeace
March 9th, 2011, 09:25 AM
So it wasn't you that typed "no" to the questions AMR asked you? Wow. You must have a Ghost writer working for you.

In mho...people's intents can be misconstrued.

I don't believe Jesus had two nature's either....and, I also do not believe you have to interpret the bible knowing greek.

Languages and words..words and languages...a word does not change meanings; due to it being in a different language; and this is what Ghost is meaning, in mho..and, I agree with that concept.

CabinetMaker
March 9th, 2011, 09:45 AM
In mho...people's intents can be misconstrued.

I don't believe Jesus had two nature's either....and, I also do not believe you have to interpret the bible knowing greek.

Languages and words..words and languages...a word does not change meanings; due to it being in a different language; and this is what Ghost is meaning, in mho..and, I agree with that concept.
But sometimes words are mis-translated. In the KJV a word was translated as "slave" and that single translation led slavery as we had it in the US. The word should have been translated as "bond-servant" which is completely different than slavery. That is why it is important to know some history and some original language.

graceandpeace
March 9th, 2011, 09:49 AM
But sometimes words are mis-translated. In the KJV a word was translated as "slave" and that single translation led slavery as we had it in the US. The word should have been translated as "bond-servant" which is completely different than slavery. That is why it is important to know some history and some original language.


how is the word 'slave' different than the analogy of a 'bond servant'?

A bond servant is a slave...but, the point I was trying to make is not in comparing translations; but that a word does not change meaning from one language to another. If you say a sentence in any language; it still says the same thing.

:wave2:

ghost
March 9th, 2011, 10:06 AM
So it wasn't you that typed "no" to the questions AMR asked you? Wow. You must have a Ghost writer working for you.I didn't say "no" to the things you said I did. You are a liar. Plain and simple.

CabinetMaker
March 9th, 2011, 10:07 AM
how is the word 'slave' different than the analogy of a 'bond servant'?

A bond servant is a slave...but, the point I was trying to make is not in comparing translations; but that a word does not change meaning from one language to another. If you say a sentence in any language; it still says the same thing.

:wave2:
No, it is not the same. A slave is an unwilling arrangement. I take you prisoner and force you to work for me. A bond servant at the time of Christ was a person who sold themselves into bondage to a family. They were frequently trusted with raising the children and managing the finances of their owner.

The other problem you run into is that some words in one language do not have direct translations into a different language. A few years ago VW had an ad campaign built on the word "farfugnugen" (I have no idea if that is spelled correctly). There is no English translation for that word, instead, it is translated based on the context and the feeling the word conveys in German. Languages are never ever translate as word for word. In Greek there are four words used to convey the emotion of love. The four words convey different intensity of the emotion. In English we have one word.

CabinetMaker
March 9th, 2011, 10:12 AM
I didn't say "no" to the things you said I did. You are a liar. Plain and simple.
No more so than you. Each and every time you respond to a line or a phrase from a poster and ignore the rest of the post you are guilty of what you accuse me (and others) of.

ghost
March 9th, 2011, 10:23 AM
No more so than you.Prove that I have done so, pervert.
Each and every time you respond to a line or a phrase from a poster and ignore the rest of the post you are guilty of what you accuse me (and others) of.Provide one single piece of evidence. You can't. :loser:

CabinetMaker
March 9th, 2011, 10:34 AM
Prove that I have done so, pervert. Provide one single piece of evidence. You can't. :loser: Okey dokey. Here is what I said originally:


Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Ghost, as a self-professed teacher of Scripture, do you believe that exegesis requires those of us that teach Scripture possess a sound knowledge and consideration of the underlying ancient Biblical languages?
Originally Posted by Ghost: No

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Ghost, do you believe that when one is engaged in a formal theological discussion, such as this one-on-one, that proper exegesis is an essential aspect to make ones points clear and to illuminate the Scripture being discussed?
Originally Posted by Ghost: No

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Ghost, perhaps you think formal exegesis is interpreting English translations only? Why? If so, then which English translation should we all be using?
Originally Posted by Ghost: Which Greek translation should we all be using?

If all this other crap is what you wanted to debate, then perhaps you should have not have switched it to Apollinarianism.


Hmmm.. It appears as though Ghost does not believe that a person needs to have sound knowledge of biblical principles to either teach the bible or to hold a discussion with people about the meaning of the bible. This is either a very concerning attitude on Ghost's part or its just Ghost being flippant. I am guessing it is the latter. Ghost has a tendency to become very flippant with people he does not care for and this seems to be the case here.

Here is your response.




Originally Posted by CabinetMaker http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/images/juice/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2602971#post2602971)
Hmmm.. It appears as though Ghost does not believe that a person needs to have sound knowledge of biblical principles to either teach the bible or to hold a discussion with people about the meaning of the bible.


It appears that you cannot read, and are in fact a liar and a slanderer. I never implied or said anything close to your false accusation.
So you responded to the first sentence and ignored the second sentence wherein I said that you were not saying that a person did not need a sound biblical base for teaching and debates. It would appear that you read the first sentence, blew a cork, fired of your typical response and never bothered to actually read the rest of the post.

ghost
March 9th, 2011, 11:05 AM
So you responded to the first sentence and ignored the second sentence wherein I said that you were not saying that a person did not need a sound biblical base for teaching and debates. It would appear that you read the first sentence, blew a cork, fired of your typical response and never bothered to actually read the rest of the post.You just lied again.

You're such an idiot. :rotfl:

CabinetMaker
March 9th, 2011, 11:10 AM
You just lied again.

You're such an idiot. :rotfl:
"It appears that you cannot read, and are in fact a liar and a slanderer. I never implied or said anything close to your false accusation. "

Now who said that...

ghost
March 9th, 2011, 11:19 AM
"It appears that you cannot read, and are in fact a liar and a slanderer. I never implied or said anything close to your false accusation. "

Now who said that...CM...

You said:

"It appears as though Ghost does not believe that a person needs to have sound knowledge of biblical principles to either teach the bible or to hold a discussion with people about the meaning of the bible."

You claimed from my responses to AMR that I don't believe someone needs to have a "sound knowledge of biblical principles" to teach or hold a discussion about the meaning of the Bible.

I NEVER said any such thing, because I DO BELIEVE you must have sound knowledge of biblical principles to teach or hold a discussion about the meaning of the Bible.

I never said otherwise.

You are a liar, and an idiot.

CabinetMaker
March 9th, 2011, 11:23 AM
CM...

You said:

"It appears as though Ghost does not believe that a person needs to have sound knowledge of biblical principles to either teach the bible or to hold a discussion with people about the meaning of the bible."

You claimed from my responses to AMR that I don't believe someone needs to have a "sound knowledge of biblical principles" to teach or hold a discussion about the meaning of the Bible.

I NEVER said any such thing, because I DO BELIEVE you must have sound knowledge of biblical principles to teach or hold a discussion about the meaning of the Bible.

I never said otherwise.

You are a liar, and an idiot.
That is what I pointed out in the part of the original post that you continue to ignore. It is just that your response to AMR was so poorly worded that it is hard to determine what part of AMR's post you were saying no to. SO, I needled you a bit about the poor wording and then pointed out that you were basically being obtuse.

ghost
March 9th, 2011, 11:36 AM
That is what I pointed out in the part of the original post that you continue to ignore. It is just that your response to AMR was so poorly worded that it is hard to determine what part of AMR's post you were saying no to. SO, I needled you a bit about the poor wording and then pointed out that you were basically being obtuse.My "no" responses are to his questions. I said "no" to them, because I meant "no".

AMR never asked me the things that you in turn accused me of saying "no" to.

Get it?

godrulz
March 9th, 2011, 11:48 AM
how is the word 'slave' different than the analogy of a 'bond servant'?

A bond servant is a slave...but, the point I was trying to make is not in comparing translations; but that a word does not change meaning from one language to another. If you say a sentence in any language; it still says the same thing.

:wave2:

Actually, words have a semantical range of meaning and concepts can vary from age to age, culture to culture, region to region.

We must find out what it meant to the original audience in their language/thought patterns and then make application by way of principle to our times.

Slavery in biblical times was closer to employee-employer, not black slave vs white lord.

CabinetMaker
March 9th, 2011, 11:56 AM
My "no" responses are to his questions. I said "no" to them, because I meant "no".

AMR never asked me the things that you in turn accused me of saying "no" to.

Get it?
Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Ghost, as a self-professed teacher of Scripture, do you believe that exegesis requires those of us that teach Scripture possess a sound knowledge and consideration of the underlying ancient Biblical languages?

Originally Posted by Ghost: No[/box]
Were you saying no to exegesis or sound knowledge? Were you trying to say the two are not related?


Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Ghost, do you believe that when one is engaged in a formal theological discussion, such as this one-on-one, that proper exegesis is an essential aspect to make ones points clear and to illuminate the Scripture being discussed?

Originally Posted by Ghost: No
Here you appear to be saying that proper exegesis is not required to be able to clearly communicate your meaning. Given that exegesis is defined as:
exegesis: a critical interpretation or explication, especially of biblical and other religious texts. How do you conclude that a critical understanding of the text is not required to clearly make your point?

godrulz
March 9th, 2011, 12:00 PM
http://www.metrolyrics.com/theyll-know-we-are-christians-by-our-love-lyrics-jars-of-clay.html

Whatever, huh?

ghost
March 9th, 2011, 12:10 PM
CM...

At least you finally admit that you lied when you said...


"It appears as though Ghost does not believe that a person needs to have sound knowledge of biblical principles to either teach the bible or to hold a discussion with people about the meaning of the bible."


As clearly stated in AMR's questions, he never asked me what you are accusing me of. That is the point. You twisted and perverted his words and mind to come up with your convoluted statement.


Were you saying no to exegesis or sound knowledge? Were you trying to say the two are not related?The fact that you are asking me this is proof that you cannot read. The context of "sound knowledge" has to do with the ancient biblical languages, not of the Bible.


Here you appear to be saying that proper exegesis is not required to be able to clearly communicate your meaning.Again, that is not what he asked. He asked if proper exegesis was essential to make a point clear or to give illumination to Scripture. The answer was and is "no" it is not necessary.

godrulz
March 9th, 2011, 12:12 PM
More heat than light. Instead of interacting with the concepts, it is more self-defense, ad hominem attacks, etc.

It should be about truth, not pride.

CabinetMaker
March 9th, 2011, 12:18 PM
CM...

At least you finally admit that you lied when you said...



As clearly stated in AMR's questions, he never asked me what you are accusing me of. That is the point. You twisted and perverted his words and mind to come up with your convoluted statement.
Still ignoring the part of the original post means you are still guilty of doing what you claim I am doing since I never accused of anything other than being obtuse.


The fact that you are asking me this is proof that you cannot read. The context of "sound knowledge" as to do with the ancient biblical languages, not of the Bible.Seems as though the two are one in the same given that the Bible is originally written in ancient Biblical languages. As pointed out earlier in this thread, a mis-interpretation of one word when being translated from ancient biblical languages to Olde English lead to several generations of slavery in this country.


Again, that is not what he asked. He asked if proper exegesis was essential to make a point clear or to give illumination to Scripture. The answer was and is "no" it is not necessary.
Again, given the definition of exegesis, how do you conclude that a critical and proper understand of Biblical texts is not required to teach people those same texts?

ghost
March 9th, 2011, 12:30 PM
Perhaps you are better suited to have discussions with Squeaky, Letsargue, or Joey Arnold.

It is waste of my time to try and converse with an idiot like you.

CabinetMaker
March 9th, 2011, 12:44 PM
Perhaps you are better suited to have discussions with Squeaky, Letsargue, or Joey Arnold.

It is waste of my time to try and converse with an idiot like you.
{Translation: Once again backed into a corner, Ghost throws up hands and flees the conversation.}

Fair enough. I have better things to do as well.

CabinetMaker
March 10th, 2011, 09:00 AM
IS the one-on-one done? Never mind.

ghost
March 10th, 2011, 09:14 AM
IS the one-on-one done? Never mind.Ask AMR, it's been his turn to respond for nearly 6 days now.

Brother Ducky
March 10th, 2011, 07:06 PM
We also need to avoid claiming that Jesus has two natures, minds, souls/spirits.

I use to say that Jesus was not fully human/man, because of all the false teaching I had to counter that redefined the man He is. It was wrong for me to phrase it as such, but I did so to counter the "two-nature, two soul/spirit, double-minded Jesus. Jesus is the perfect man with God's nature, who had to learn to speak, to walk, etc.

I think that only two natures have ever been the norm, not "minds" or "souls/spirits." But, regardless, if Jesus has but one nature, is it human or divine, or a mixture 50/50 60/40, or something altogether different?
If divine, how was he our sacrificial substitute? If human, how could he atone for sin? On the basis of his perfect life, and perfect keeping of the Law, he would have been saved, but with no merit left over for us.

Just something to keep you busy while AMR is otherwise occupied. And do you see that you could be accused of Docetism given the second sentence of your quote above?

Peace,
Rick

godrulz
March 10th, 2011, 07:48 PM
Two natures in one person is standard. Two minds, souls, spirits, bodies, or whatever would be more straw man.

ghost
March 10th, 2011, 07:49 PM
I think that only two natures have ever been the norm, not "minds" or "souls/spirits." If you conclude that God did not die on the cross for our sins, then you have two independent beings.


If divine, how was he our sacrificial substitute? God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. We were reconciled to God through His death Romans 5:10


And do you see that you could be accused of Docetism given the second sentence of your quote above?
No

godrulz
March 10th, 2011, 11:37 PM
If you conclude that God did not die on the cross for our sins, then you have two independent beings.

God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. We were reconciled to God through His death Romans 5:10

No

The Word made flesh who is God died on the cross, the God-Man. The triune God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit did not incarnate, so they did not die. Your logic does not follow for a trinitarian view (but it may follow vs non sequitur for a modalistic/oneness view that only recognizes one person in the Godhead).

Brother Ducky
March 11th, 2011, 07:27 AM
If you conclude that God did not die on the cross for our sins, then you have two independent beings.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this. Do you hold that the second person of the Trinity died and for a period of time there was a "Binity" Godhead?

Guyver
March 13th, 2011, 08:29 PM
I know it's bad form to kick a man when he's down, but I saw this one coming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y55wvdcCJfk

I knew this guy couldn't handle a rational debate.

Rock on Ghost.

rocketman
March 13th, 2011, 08:33 PM
I know it's bad form to kick a man when he's down, but I saw this one coming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y55wvdcCJfk

I knew this guy couldn't handle a rational debate.

Rock on Ghost.

I have to agree

Matt. 12:34 You offspring of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

Guyver
March 13th, 2011, 08:36 PM
I have to agree

Matt. 12:34 You offspring of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

I think he stopped his anti-psychotic's one day too soon. :]

voltaire
March 13th, 2011, 08:36 PM
Lying through 95 % of your statements is not a rational debate guyver. AMR posted nothing but lies and slander concerning ghost.

Guyver
March 13th, 2011, 08:38 PM
Lying through 95 % of your statements is not a rational debate guyver. AMR posted nothing but lies and slander concerning ghost.

Right. Ghost was crying from post one.

Eeeew......I post this under protest.....wah wah!

No skills.

WizardofOz
March 13th, 2011, 08:40 PM
Lying through 95 % of your statements is not a rational debate guyver. AMR posted nothing but lies and slander concerning ghost.

Better to expose the lies or :baby: and flame out?

Cursing the mans family? :down:

godrulz
March 13th, 2011, 08:47 PM
Lying through 95 % of your statements is not a rational debate guyver. AMR posted nothing but lies and slander concerning ghost.

This is not true. I will suggest that AMR may be stereotyping or lumping ghost in with the whole heresy when ghost (not the host with the most) has a similar point or two, but more differences. He may be Docetic on one small point, but that does not mean he embraces or is guilty of Doceticism as a whole. I would expect AMR to catch this rookie mistake.

Just because Arminians believe in free will does not make them Pelagians (Calvinistic false assumption).

Just because Socinus was right about the nature of the future does not mean Open Theists are Socinists (he denied the Deity of Christ, which Open Theists do not).

I think ghost has some aspects similar to some heresies, but his views are unique and inaccurate, but not off the deep end in total like Doceticism, Gnosticism, etc.

AMR is right to take him to task and note some parallels, but would probably be wrong to lump him in totally with these major heresies.

Ghost is guilty of the same and worse, though. He can dish it out, but he cannot take it.

He should not scold us for rejecting his truth because of his behavior. He should take responsibility for his fleshliness and let his views rise or fall on their own merit. Likewise, AMR's self-control and sophistication does not mean he is right about everything (but his vocab alone can intimidate people into silence).

The mediate position is to accept me as right, a better guru then both. PM me for my address so you can all send me money.

godrulz
March 13th, 2011, 08:48 PM
Better to expose the lies or :baby: and flame out?

Cursing the mans family? :down:

There is no excuse for his profanity and attacks. Anyone who dares say anything about his family risks death, but he can dish it out.

Jesus does not curse people and wish that they go to hell (yet ghost will use His name in vain and claim Spirit support for his sinfulness).

voltaire
March 13th, 2011, 08:50 PM
Right. Ghost was crying from
post one.
Eeeew......I post this under
protest.....wah wah!
No skills.------guyver. If being a master liar and manipulator and being slick as a snake makes you a person with skills then yes i agree AMR has plenty of skill.

voltaire
March 13th, 2011, 08:53 PM
This is not true. I will
suggest that AMR may be
stereotyping or lumping
ghost in with the whole
heresy when ghost (not the
host with the most) has a
similar point or two, but
more differences.------knowingly making claims that are false is called lying no matter how you slice it godrulz.

voltaire
March 13th, 2011, 08:55 PM
Better to expose the lies or
and flame out?
Cursing the mans family?
-------how calm and rational are you when someone continually and malevolently lies about you?

godrulz
March 13th, 2011, 08:57 PM
Better to expose the lies or
and flame out?
Cursing the mans family?
-------how calm and rational are you when someone continually and malevolently lies about you?

I am frequently misunderstood and misrepresented and I would not stoop to foul language and family attacks. Don't defend arrogant immaturity. If AMR did what ghost did, I could see him getting that upset. AMR made some valid points. Anything false could be refuted without personal attacks (but ghost does not have the same skill and knowledge as AMR, who is also far from perfect, like me).

Guyver
March 13th, 2011, 09:00 PM
Ghost is guilty of the same and worse, though. He can dish it out, but he cannot take it.


This is what I've been saying all along.

Yes, there have been a time or two that I have gotten sucked into those tactics.

Look, it don't care what the issue is....there's a proper way to go about and an improper way. Ghost was a case study in gome home and do it again.

There's a thing called speaking the truth in love. That's what Jesus did. Just because Jesus went off on the Pharisee's does not give any follower of Christ an excuse to level both barrels and blast away at the people for whom Christ died. Jesus pointed out the hypocrisy of the pharisees.

If you have the truth, you speak the truth in love. The truth will speak to those who love the truth.

If you try to tell me that the cube root of nine is three, I will politely tell you that you are incorrect, and show you the proof.

That's the way you do it. You don't start cursing everyone on TOL, and your opponents' family. Sheez. Even old school mobsters had more respect for people than that.

Guyver
March 13th, 2011, 09:01 PM
This is what I've been saying all along.

Yes, there have been a time or two that I have gotten sucked into those tactics.

Look, I don't care what the issue is....there's a proper way to go about and an improper way. Ghost was a case study in gome home and do it again.

There's a thing called speaking the truth in love. That's what Jesus did. Just because Jesus went off on the Pharisee's does not give any follower of Christ an excuse to level both barrels and blast away at the people for whom Christ died. Jesus pointed out the hypocrisy of the pharisees.

If you have the truth, you speak the truth in love. The truth will speak to those who love the truth.

If you try to tell me that the cube root of nine is three, I will politely tell you that you are incorrect, and show you the proof.

That's the way you do it. You don't start cursing everyone on TOL, and your opponents' family. Sheez. Even old school mobsters had more respect for people than that.

Guyver
March 13th, 2011, 09:03 PM
Sorry for that double post. I was trying to edit my first post for a typo.

Town Heretic
March 13th, 2011, 09:13 PM
I disagree with AMR on any number of things. I don't support the Calvinist view on any number of points that distinguish it, but I have never known him to lie and dislike the easy way in which so many use the term. Men can differ. Men can believe and address a difference and still see it differently.

AMR's position in relation to ghost is his to make and ghost's to counter, as was their agreement. This came as no surprise to either party and both entered into the discourse with their eyes open.

Now I have had my character attacked on more than one occasion. ASCon did it with regularity and I responded without forgetting my responsibility as a member of the Body of Christ to conduct myself within the bounds of decency. Foul language has no place in the mouth of a Christian, especially in the mouth of one defending a particular understanding of the faith. And no, neither does a lie, but a lie in theological circles seems to me to frequently be a matter of investment in a particular context. An absolute misstatement of fact can be set out for all to see and the damage of attempting to perpetrate a fraud will do more against the utterer than it ever did against the unjustly accused.

:e4e:

rocketman
March 13th, 2011, 09:16 PM
I disagree with AMR on any number of things. I don't support the Calvinist view on any number of points that distinguish it, but I have never known him to lie and dislike the easy way in which so many use the term. Men can differ. Men can believe and address a difference and still see it differently.

AMR's position in relation to ghost is his to make and ghost's to counter, as was their agreement. This came as no surprise to either party and both entered into the discourse with their eyes open.

Now I have had my character attacked on more than one occasion. ASCon did it with regularity and I responded without forgetting my responsibility as a member of the Body of Christ to conduct myself within the bounds of decency. Foul language has no place in the mouth of a Christian, especially in the mouth of one defending a particular understanding of the faith. And no, neither does a lie, but a lie in theological circles seems to me to frequently be a matter of investment in a particular context. An absolute misstatement of fact can be set out for all to see and the damage of attempting to perpetrate a fraud will do more against the utterer than it ever did against the unjustly accused.

:e4e:

Well put TH...:thumb:

Knight
March 13th, 2011, 09:20 PM
I've been really busy and haven't had time to read or follow the One on One. But, I guess it's pretty clear who won that one. I disagree with AMR on the topic and tend to think ghost is pretty spot on (on the topic) but clearly ghost lost this one is grand fashion.

Another blow to the cause. :(

rocketman
March 13th, 2011, 09:23 PM
I've been really busy and haven't had time to read or follow the One on One. But, I guess it's pretty clear who won that one. I disagree with AMR on the topic and tend to think ghost is pretty spot on (on the topic) but clearly ghost lost this one is grand fashion.

Another blow to the cause. :(

Sad but, true....:sigh:

godrulz
March 13th, 2011, 09:31 PM
I've been really busy and haven't had time to read or follow the One on One. But, I guess it's pretty clear who won that one. I disagree with AMR on the topic and tend to think ghost is pretty spot on (on the topic) but clearly ghost lost this one is grand fashion.

Another blow to the cause. :(

If it was a boxing match and AMR knocked him out, I would say AMR won. Just because ghost freaked out does not mean he lost the debate if AMR is dead wrong and ghost is accurate in his beliefs.

So, ghost may be a loser in congenial debate, but that does not mean AMR won the debate if AMR is wrong on his beliefs/points.

I may go for stalemate since AMR may have stereotyped ghost's views too much and ghost's views may not be totally correct/orthodox.

Given enough time, I think AMR could show ghost had some defective views, but I don't think he could definitively prove he is a Docetic heretic in total.

For the record, I am never happy to see ghost banned, but I do believe he needed censure and discipline (I was a rat, OK).

Guyver
March 13th, 2011, 09:46 PM
So, ghost may be a loser in congenial debate, but that does not mean AMR won the debate if AMR is wrong on his beliefs/points.



Whatever. A fail is a fail.

This was a FAIL-O-RAMA.

In fact one could say this was a ........failtacular?

Failtacular.... a fail so epic it's almost a win.


http://i483.photobucket.com/albums/rr192/GuyverOne/failtaculare.jpg

Guyver
March 13th, 2011, 09:56 PM
I mean, even the crew of the Starship Enterprise gives this one a double FACEPALM!!!!



http://i483.photobucket.com/albums/rr192/GuyverOne/facepalm.jpg

godrulz
March 13th, 2011, 09:57 PM
How about this? Ghost does not win the Miss Congeniality Award and AMR wins debate by default because it was short-circuited by the ban?

Guyver
March 13th, 2011, 10:20 PM
How about this? Ghost does not win the Miss Congeniality Award and AMR wins debate by default because it was short-circuited by the ban?

How about this? Ghost fails, and he should just keep his big mouth shut until such time as he learns what it means to treat all people with the proper courtesy and respect that they deserve as human beings......especially the brethren!!!!!!!

Whatsoever you do to the least of these my brethren, that you do unto me.

godrulz
March 13th, 2011, 10:30 PM
How about this? Ghost fails, and he should just keep his big mouth shut until such time as he learns what it means to treat all people with the proper courtesy and respect that they deserve as human beings......especially the brethren!!!!!!!

Whatsoever you do to the least of these my brethren, that you do unto me.

I could second that.

rocketman
March 13th, 2011, 10:47 PM
How about this? Ghost fails, and he should just keep his big mouth shut until such time as he learns what it means to treat all people with the proper courtesy and respect that they deserve as human beings......especially the brethren!!!!!!!

Whatsoever you do to the least of these my brethren, that you do unto me.

Amen to that....

godrulz
March 13th, 2011, 10:56 PM
Amen to that....

We should watch what we say since ghost may come back and haunt/hunt us.

Lon
March 13th, 2011, 11:04 PM
Sad. I don't even think he was mad at the 1on1 as the rants started first in other posts prior.

rocketman
March 13th, 2011, 11:28 PM
We should watch what we say since ghost may come back and haunt/hunt us.

ghost has told me he doesn't care for me so I really don't care. I have said nothing that I am ashamed of.

godrulz
March 13th, 2011, 11:40 PM
ghost has told me he doesn't care for me so I really don't care. I have said nothing that I am ashamed of.

We stand before the true Judge in Christ. Ghost is full of hot air and is an accuser of the brethren, in the flesh vs Spirit.

Guyver
March 14th, 2011, 08:09 AM
We should watch what we say since ghost may come back and haunt/hunt us.


I don't know, usually his outbursts are just directed at one person. This time he dissed the entire TOL group. I think that might have been his swan song.

But, if not; he's going to need another username and signature. I was thinking we could help him out with some suggestions. Like...


Username: Ghost Again

Signature: Disappearing then ......just disappearing again.

or..

Username: Noso

Signature: Failure; it's what I do.

or


Username: FitsandSputters

Signature: Winning. It isn't everything; it's the only thing. I never do.

or


Username: Spazzo

Signature: Failure is not an option, it's just how I roll.


Those are just a few ideas to help him out if he ever decides to come back here.

Guyver
March 14th, 2011, 08:32 AM
I'm running out of ideas for Ghost's, Sozo, Sozo Again, Mystery, Door, username; but I still have some signature ideas for him if he ever comes back here.

Reach for the stars; then fail.

If at first you don't succeed; FAIL.

When all else fails.....fail.

When the going gets tough; fail.

Just fail.

Failure; it's easier than winning.

Keep smiling. Then fail.

Hopefully those ideas will offer some perspective. Have to run now. Good day.

SaulToPaul
March 14th, 2011, 08:35 AM
Dave's main "fault" is that he cares too much about the gospel, and doesn't want to see anyone go to hell. I admire that in the man.

Town Heretic
March 14th, 2011, 09:32 AM
Dave's main "fault" is that he cares too much about the gospel, and doesn't want to see anyone go to hell. I admire that in the man.
With respect, STP, while I don't doubt that Dave cares and is driven in his understanding, I don't see that as the fault here. He recognizes his obligation as a worker for Christ and attempts to toil in that field. But his principle fault is that he frequently puts his sense of personal dignity above that mission and exercises a want of control over his tongue in response to perceived slight and even less understandably, disagreement of a less personally directed manner. The things he says in his outrage would never be uttered by the one he represents and shouldn't be in defense of Biblical principle as he sees it. The language he used here is indefensible and unbecoming of a brother in general. More so in relation to any discourse on matters pertaining to the Holy. A man of God should speak as a man of God and his language and conduct must be above reproof or it works to no good end and undermines the faith.

Dave is smart enough and old enough to know that. He chooses his blindness. Even after the rush of anger his response to my objection wasn't to see what moved me to make it and examine his own misconduct, but to focus on how he felt wronged and to lash out at others...:sigh: That's just not getting the job done.

Lon
March 14th, 2011, 09:57 AM
Dave's main "fault" is that he cares too much about the gospel, and doesn't want to see anyone go to hell. I admire that in the man.
Is it his work or His work?

Guyver
March 14th, 2011, 10:10 AM
Dave's main "fault" is that he cares too much about the gospel, and doesn't want to see anyone go to hell. I admire that in the man.


Who's Dave? Are we still talking about Ghost?

What do you mean he cares too much about the gospel and doesn't want to see anyone go to hell?

He's told me to go to hell two or three times already.

He's called me and my family a bunch of Christless perverts.

That's not caring too much about the gospel or a person's salvation; it's just a fail.

graceandpeace
March 14th, 2011, 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaulToPaul
Dave's main "fault" is that he cares too much about the gospel, and doesn't want to see anyone go to hell. I admire that in the man.

No, his main fault is that he has replaced the gospel with his theories.

The gospel does not entail that we believe what is contained in
'ghost's theories of what one must believe to be saved.

He adds things that are not required....and, if you speak of a non essential, and, he does not agree with that particular non essential, according to him, you simply are not saved.

Seems to me alot of people on here do that.:kookoo:

graceandpeace
March 14th, 2011, 10:21 AM
:first::first::first:
I disagree with AMR on any number of things. I don't support the Calvinist view on any number of points that distinguish it, but I have never known him to lie and dislike the easy way in which so many use the term. Men can differ. Men can believe and address a difference and still see it differently.

AMR's position in relation to ghost is his to make and ghost's to counter, as was their agreement. This came as no surprise to either party and both entered into the discourse with their eyes open.

Now I have had my character attacked on more than one occasion. ASCon did it with regularity and I responded without forgetting my responsibility as a member of the Body of Christ to conduct myself within the bounds of decency. Foul language has no place in the mouth of a Christian, especially in the mouth of one defending a particular understanding of the faith. And no, neither does a lie, but a lie in theological circles seems to me to frequently be a matter of investment in a particular context. An absolute misstatement of fact can be set out for all to see and the damage of attempting to perpetrate a fraud will do more against the utterer than it ever did against the unjustly accused.

:e4e:

CabinetMaker
March 14th, 2011, 10:46 AM
I've said it before and it needs to be said again. Ghost does not need our ridicule and scorn, he deeds our prayers. He is, after all, a brother in Christ. And I have seen some of his posts when he is calm and collected and he does have a very good understanding of the Gospel even though is application of the Gospel may be a bit lacking. I have been attacked by him more than once and have a civil discussion with him upon occasion. I have needled him in an effort to get him to understand some of my points which probably is not the best way to engage him.

So Ghost will leave us for a while. He will return either as Ghost or a new incarnation and when he does, we welcome home our prodigal son with open arms.

Remember the Golden Rule - Treat others as you want to be treated. That does not mean that when somebody mistreats you you have the right the mistreat them in return. What it means is that regardless of how somebody treats you, you ALWAYS treat them as you want to be treated.

graceandpeace
March 14th, 2011, 10:50 AM
I've said it before and it needs to be said again. Ghost does not need our ridicule and scorn, he deeds our prayers. He is, after all, a brother in Christ. And I have seen some of his posts when he is calm and collected and he does have a very good understanding of the Gospel even though is application of the Gospel may be a bit lacking. I have been attacked by him more than once and have a civil discussion with him upon occasion. I have needled him in an effort to get him to understand some of my points which probably is not the best way to engage him.

So Ghost will leave us for a while. He will return either as Ghost or a new incarnation and when he does, we welcome home our prodigal son with open arms.

Remember the Golden Rule - Treat others as you want to be treated. That does not mean that when somebody mistreats you you have the right the mistreat them in return. What it means is that regardless of how somebody treats you, you ALWAYS treat them as you want to be treated.


:thumb:I agree.

godrulz
March 14th, 2011, 11:02 AM
Dave's main "fault" is that he cares too much about the gospel, and doesn't want to see anyone go to hell. I admire that in the man.

I know mature believers who are passionate for Christ/gospel/lost. They act nothing like poor Dave. The problem is that he has zeal without knowledge/wisdom. He turns things into us/me vs them because he adds to the gospel (sozoisms). He does not speak truth in love, but displays arrogance, ignorance, flesh. He is not the Messiah, not a guru, but he is a godplayer, jury, judge, executioner. He has a stress/anger issue, instability, lack of discernment, etc. He also has other good qualities that could be channeled if he truly walked in the Spirit and had the mind of Christ. It does not help that he is not under authority of local church leadership, but is a Lone Ranger without checks/balances.

Godly believers who don't want anyone to go to hell (including Jesus/Paul) do not act like he does. He needs to repent and grow, not be coddled. He has an ego and wants to be right at all costs. He fails to see when he is wrong. Pride goes before a fall. More heat than light follows in his wake.

He argues more about doctrinal things than the gospel. He does not share the gospel in a winsome way, but plays the role of accuser of the brethren creating confusion and chaos, not clarity.

I have not seen him in person, but I would not be surprised if he turns more people off than on to Christ. The gospel can be an offense, but we should not be personally offensive for no good reason.

He may also suffer from short man only child syndrome (SMOCS).

godrulz
March 14th, 2011, 11:04 AM
:thumb:I agree.

Moi aussi, mostly (he makes the gospel more narrow than it is and excludes legit believers).

godrulz
March 14th, 2011, 11:06 AM
Who's Dave? Are we still talking about Ghost?

What do you mean he cares too much about the gospel and doesn't want to see anyone go to hell?

He's told me to go to hell two or three times already.

He's called me and my family a bunch of Christless perverts.

That's not caring too much about the gospel or a person's salvation; it's just a fail.

He tells any 'opponent' to jump in front of a train, go to hell and drag your family there, can't wait to see you fry, etc.

He is an arrogant, insecure megalomaniac. I will also be the first to love, restore, welcome him (my wife fears he will find out where we live).

Town Heretic
March 14th, 2011, 11:08 AM
I've said it before and it needs to be said again. Ghost does not need our ridicule and scorn, he deeds our prayers. He is, after all, a brother in Christ. And I have seen some of his posts when he is calm and collected and he does have a very good understanding of the Gospel even though is application of the Gospel may be a bit lacking. I have been attacked by him more than once and have a civil discussion with him upon occasion. I have needled him in an effort to get him to understand some of my points which probably is not the best way to engage him.

So Ghost will leave us for a while. He will return either as Ghost or a new incarnation and when he does, we welcome home our prodigal son with open arms.

Remember the Golden Rule - Treat others as you want to be treated. That does not mean that when somebody mistreats you you have the right the mistreat them in return. What it means is that regardless of how somebody treats you, you ALWAYS treat them as you want to be treated.
Couldn't agree more. I was saddened by his failure here and remain fond of Dave else. God bless, keep and instruct him and may he return to us the better for it.

godrulz
March 14th, 2011, 11:13 AM
Couldn't agree more. I was saddened by his failure here and remain fond of Dave else. God bless, keep and instruct him and may he return to us the better for it.

This has happened many times. He is yet to return changed since he probably thinks he has no faults and the rest of us are the problem. He is like a martyr for his own cause (like cults who feel vindicated if they are persecuted).

Guyver
March 14th, 2011, 01:17 PM
He tells any 'opponent' to jump in front of a train, go to hell and drag your family there, can't wait to see you fry, etc.

He is an arrogant, insecure megalomaniac. I will also be the first to love, restore, welcome him (my wife fears he will find out where we live).

You can't resore one who doesn't repent. There's nothing to restore from. He doesn't believe in repentance, except unto salvation.

Therefore, he doesn't believe he has done any wrong. If you attempt to "welcome" him or restore him; you miss the point.

Until he acknowledges his faults, weaknesses, and sins; they will continue just as they always have.

PS. To Cabinet Maker. If you want to pray for him; may I suggest you begin to pray that he learns how to repent.

graceandpeace
March 14th, 2011, 02:28 PM
Moi aussi, mostly (he makes the gospel more narrow than it is and excludes legit believers).

exactly

I would hate to be judged by his 'form' of gospel.

graceandpeace
March 14th, 2011, 02:38 PM
You can't resore one who doesn't repent. There's nothing to restore from. He doesn't believe in repentance, except unto salvation. Therefore, he doesn't believe he has done any wrong. If you attempt to "welcome" him or restore him; you miss the point.

Until he acknowledges his faults, weaknesses, and sins; they will continue just as they always have.

PS. To Cabinet Maker. If you want to pray for him; may I suggest you begin to pray that he learns how to repent.

I believe repentance is a one time thing, too...(not that not knowing that is a salvational issue).

The problem does not come forth from there, in mho..it is derived from the false thought that we, as christians are NOT under a 'form' of law. Some have simply forgotten that Faith worketh by love..and, without love, there is no 'light' to anyone. Not that we work up this love; but it is the result of a changed heart. A heart that has been truly converted.

It is faith that worketh by LOVE; that is the law of Christ that we are under...and, hatred has no place in it.

He whom hates his brother, and openly shows it has not submitted to the law of Christ. I am NOT saying they are not saved...most of the time, these immature christians have to learn the hard way that God really does demand more from us than just what comes out of our mouths...Jesus said this on the matter:

Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me.


Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.

A changed heart is walking by the law of Christ, via love that has been placed in it...by the working of the holy spirit.

We cannot judge anyone on this; as saved or unsaved because we all walk in the flesh and allow the flesh to rule us at times...that is why I do not judge anyone on this board...what we can judge is the actions..and, simply put, any actions that come forth from a mindset of 'hate' is not of God....

We are even commanded to love our enemies....if that is love that has been displayed here, I don't want any part of it.

Brother Ducky
March 14th, 2011, 03:54 PM
Dave's main "fault" is that he cares too much about the gospel, and doesn't want to see anyone go to hell. I admire that in the man.

I hope you are right about Dave, but I do not think his behavior here reflects that concern.

Across threads and over time and manifestation I think his views and theology to be outside the mainstream of Christian thought and belief. He might be right. I don't think so, but perhaps.

It seems to me that if you are going against 2000 years of tradition and thought [not that tradition has to be correct] you should be able assert what you believe, defend it from Scripture, interact with previously established points of view, and point out the weaknesses of those points of view in a logical and rational way, which in no way precludes passion.

Name-calling and insulting those whose beliefs you do not hold is hardly the way of making your point. Especially when you hold ideas that are on the fringe.

Peace,
Rick

Guyver
March 14th, 2011, 06:12 PM
I believe repentance is a one time thing, too...(not that not knowing that is a salvational issue).

It is faith that worketh by LOVE; that is the law of Christ that we are under...and, hatred has no place in it.

A changed heart is walking by the law of Christ, via love that has been placed in it...by the working of the holy spirit.


I agree with much of what you said here. But I do not agree that a person is only to repent one time. Sure, maybe the repentance of unbelief is a one time thing as it pertains to salvation; but to say that one never needs to repent again after that is entirely unBiblical. It's so clear, I don't see how anyone would view it any other way.

PM me if you want some scriptural support for that statement.

As far as Christianity being a religion of love, you are on the money. That's exactly what it is. We love Him because He first loved us. And, we are to love our brothers - that's pure Bible.

Guyver
March 14th, 2011, 06:25 PM
He does not speak truth in love, but displays arrogance, ignorance, flesh. He is not the Messiah, not a guru, but he is a godplayer, jury, judge, executioner. He has a stress/anger issue, instability, lack of discernment, etc. He also has other good qualities that could be channeled if he truly walked in the Spirit and had the mind of Christ. It does not help that he is not under authority of local church leadership, but is a Lone Ranger without checks/balances.

Godly believers who don't want anyone to go to hell (including Jesus/Paul) do not act like he does. He needs to repent and grow, not be coddled. He has an ego and wants to be right at all costs. He fails to see when he is wrong. Pride goes before a fall. More heat than light follows in his wake.

He argues more about doctrinal things than the gospel. He does not share the gospel in a winsome way, but plays the role of accuser of the brethren creating confusion and chaos, not clarity.

I have not seen him in person, but I would not be surprised if he turns more people off than on to Christ. The gospel can be an offense, but we should not be personally offensive for no good reason.

He may also suffer from short man only child syndrome (SMOCS).

You have said so much that's on the money here, I don't even know where to start. To me, someone who truly believes would be passionate about sharing their faith; and they would find a proper way to do it. Anyone who really believes the Bible wouldn't want their worst enemy to go to hell - let alone someone who already says they believe in Jesus Christ.

As far as the other issues go, I also agree; and as I said very early in this thread - I truly believe I've been able to see why.

I'm just going to list a few attributes of a person with APD. I've personally known someone who has this. They have a lot of superficial charm and can appear very intelligent. Yet they also display other characteristics, that are reflective of extreme egotism or narcissism. These are just a few.

Apparent lack of remorse or empathy for others
Persistent lying or stealing
Poor behavioral controls expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper
A history of childhood conduct disorder
Promiscuity
Tendency to violate the boundaries and rights of others Aggressive, often violent behavior; prone to getting involved in fights
Inability to tolerate boredom
Poor or abusive relationships
Irresponsible work behavior
Disregard for safety
Cruelty to animals

Obviously, it would take a personal inventory to identify more of these, but some are clearly visible.

godrulz
March 14th, 2011, 07:05 PM
Ghost does not believe in 'mental illness'.

Ask Mr. Religion
March 14th, 2011, 07:50 PM
The one-on-one thread is now officially closed, so my self-imposed moratorium of participating in this thread during the active debate can be lifted. I thought it best to not post here during the debate given the high tension between Ghost and myself.

I am obviously disappointed in how things ended. I have forgiven (dismissed the debt owed) Ghost's concluding vulgar epithets, and justice was handed out appropriately for them.

I hope Ghost will also forgive my own very direct assaults in the one-on-one. I could have adopted a more irenic approach, but I was often given over to my own anger and frustrations and did not hold back in showing the same. Unfortunately, the pre-debate chatbox discussion where some very ugly comments made therein determined my course in the debate. I should have let that whole discussion go by as but mere pre-show theatrics. ;)

I won't seek out Ghost (Dave) for another one another one-on-one debate format. Our approaches to theological discourse are simply too far apart and I don't think God would be fully glorified by either of us in such a venue.

My key objective in the one-on-one was to showcase what I believe are some grave misunderstandings by some, Ghost in particular, related to Christology. I think I met my objective, albeit in part, and hopefully set some on a path of deeper study, prayer, and reflection on the topic. If this happens, then the discussion was successful.

As TH and others have said eloquently, Ghost needs our prayers. I lift them up on his behalf often. He obviously struggles with how he is perceived and this sensitivity often seems to rule his tongue, contra James 3. My prayers are that it be the will of God that Ghost's passion for what he holds dear be moderated by a kinder spirit in his witness. I pray that same prayer for myself daily.

AMR

Guyver
March 14th, 2011, 08:00 PM
Ghost does not believe in 'mental illness'.

daNile is a big river and alot of people live near it.

He doesn't think he needs to repent if he sins either; doesn't make it true.

Guyver
March 14th, 2011, 08:04 PM
The one-on-one thread is now officially closed, so my self-imposed moratorium of participating in this thread during the active debate can be lifted. I thought it best to not post here during the debate given the high tension between Ghost and myself.

I am obviously disappointed in how things ended. I have forgiven (dismissed the debt owed) Ghost's concluding vulgar epithets, and justice was handed out appropriately for them.

AMR

That just shows that you're a class act and Ghost is not.

I thought from the start that it was very bad form for Ghost to even be on this thread. He had all the opportunity to make his points in the one on one. Why did he feel the need to try to elaborate further here? The answer is plain. Ego.

Now that it's over; I'm glad you joined in the discussion.

graceandpeace
March 15th, 2011, 08:27 AM
I agree with much of what you said here. But I do not agree that a person is only to repent one time. Sure, maybe the repentance of unbelief is a one time thing as it pertains to salvation; but to say that one never needs to repent again after that is entirely unBiblical. It's so clear, I don't see how anyone would view it any other way.

PM me if you want some scriptural support for that statement.

As far as Christianity being a religion of love, you are on the money. That's exactly what it is. We love Him because He first loved us. And, we are to love our brothers - that's pure Bible.

I once thought repentance was an ongoing thing, too..brother.

What changed my mind was the understanding that in the area of sin; 'it is finished'.

Learning about what it says in hebrews about the conscience being cleansed helped me...too.

I am not trying to argue with you, just explaining why I was led to a different opinion on it.

I know the verses that speak of repenting, but as I view it; it is speaking of the 'one time event'.

Yes; love is the key..it covers all our errors, that we hold to, outside of the basic gospel, and God knows our hearts whether they be sincere or not...in mho..that is why Paul said for example, 'that one man esteems one day above another, and another man every day alike'..things outside of the basic gospel, are not to be judged by men...for we all are judged on our own conscience....my conscience tells me that sin is no longer imputed; so why would you need to repent over and over?

These things come with time, and growth....;)

Grace really does have the tendancy to teach us over time.

Thanks for your warm example.....of what love is.

andyc
March 15th, 2011, 01:38 PM
The one-on-one thread is now officially closed, so my self-imposed moratorium of participating in this thread during the active debate can be lifted. I thought it best to not post here during the debate given the high tension between Ghost and myself.

I am obviously disappointed in how things ended. I have forgiven (dismissed the debt owed) Ghost's concluding vulgar epithets, and justice was handed out appropriately for them.

I hope Ghost will also forgive my own very direct assaults in the one-on-one. I could have adopted a more irenic approach, but I was often given over to my own anger and frustrations and did not hold back in showing the same. Unfortunately, the pre-debate chatbox discussion where some very ugly comments made therein determined my course in the debate. I should have let that whole discussion go by as but mere pre-show theatrics. ;)

I won't seek out Ghost (Dave) for another one another one-on-one debate format. Our approaches to theological discourse are simply too far apart and I don't think God would be fully glorified by either of us in such a venue.

My key objective in the one-on-one was to showcase what I believe are some grave misunderstandings by some, Ghost in particular, related to Christology. I think I met my objective, albeit in part, and hopefully set some on a path of deeper study, prayer, and reflection on the topic. If this happens, then the discussion was successful.

As TH and others have said eloquently, Ghost needs our prayers. I lift them up on his behalf often. He obviously struggles with how he is perceived and this sensitivity often seems to rule his tongue, contra James 3. My prayers are that it be the will of God that Ghost's passion for what he holds dear be moderated by a kinder spirit in his witness. I pray that same prayer for myself daily.

AMR

I've been so busy lately that I forgot the one on one exchange. I see it went as expected. Another ghost meltdown.

andyc
March 15th, 2011, 01:43 PM
Dave's main "fault" is that he cares too much about the gospel,

How can it be a fault in a man to care too much about the gospel?


and doesn't want to see anyone go to hell. I admire that in the man.

If he had a clearer understanding of the gospel he'd realize that most of the people he condemns to hell are saved. His fault is that he is immature and narrow minded thinking that only he can be right about everything.

Guyver
March 15th, 2011, 08:13 PM
Yes; love is the key..it covers all our errors, that we hold to, outside of the basic gospel, and God knows our hearts whether they be sincere or not...in mho..that is why Paul said for example, 'that one man esteems one day above another, and another man every day alike'..things outside of the basic gospel, are not to be judged by men...for we all are judged on our own conscience....my conscience tells me that sin is no longer imputed; so why would you need to repent over and over?


Let's not argue; but let's discuss. You're right that love is the key point. It's like starting with the number 1. You can perform any number of complex mathematical equations, functions, whatever to it; but if you multiply by the reciprocal of what you did, you're right back to 1.

We know that a man cannot be justified by keeping the law (OT) because it cannot be kept. But, Jesus' work on the cross (it is finished) completed that work.

Galations 2:16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus "

Yet, that doesn't mean the law is done away with. Jesus gave a new commandment; the commandment of love. John 15:10-12

Now, this commandment is reiterated and established for all believers in Romans 12 - 13. This is the law that true believers keep because it fulfills all other laws. For the whole law is summed up in Romans 13:10.

"Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

So, the question then is......"What do you do if you harm your neighbor? What do you do if you violate the commandment of love? Speaking to a generic you; meaning anyone - Do you just pretend that you haven't done anything wrong and just continue on?

The answer is an obvious no. You can't violate the law without some consequences.

Luke 17 speaks to this. In verse 1 and 2 Jesus gives a stern warning about offenses; doesn't he?

Then he says, "Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day return to you, saying, 'I repent,' you shall forgive him."

Jesus is talking about forgiving your brother here.

TBC

Guyver
March 15th, 2011, 08:19 PM
So, the point of the above post is that there are several points.

1. Jesus doesn't take too kindly to people offending his children.

2. A brother who sins is instructed to repent and ask forgiveness.

3. If one repents, and asks forgiveness, a Christian is to forgive.

4. If one is not walking in love toward his brother; he is harming his brother and violating both the spirit and letter of the entire Bible (OT + NT).

So, if we take Ghosts actions as an example. He has offended people. He has told me to kill myself, go to hell, or wishes that I fry in the lake of fire; and that my family is also without Christ.

This is an offense. According to the Bible, he is to repent. He is to ask forgiveness from not only me and my family for his lies and blasphemies; but from everyone on this site that he has offended with this type of reprehensible action.

Now, how can you view these teachings from scripture and this one particular example, as anything other than a clear teaching that one who claims to be in Christ; does indeed need to repent when they have done wrong?

tetelestai
March 16th, 2011, 09:07 AM
Dave's main "fault" is that he cares too much about the gospel, and doesn't want to see anyone go to hell. I admire that in the man.

Ya right.

Why then has he told me over and over again that he HOPED me and my family would go to hell?

graceandpeace
March 16th, 2011, 09:37 AM
Let's not argue; but let's discuss. You're right that love is the key point. It's like starting with the number 1. You can perform any number of complex mathematical equations, functions, whatever to it; but if you multiply by the reciprocal of what you did, you're right back to 1.

We know that a man cannot be justified by keeping the law (OT) because it cannot be kept. But, Jesus' work on the cross (it is finished) completed that work.

Galations 2:16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus "


Yet, that doesn't mean the law is done away with. Jesus gave a new commandment; the commandment of love. John 15:10-12

Now, this commandment is reiterated and established for all believers in Romans 12 - 13. This is the law that true believers keep because it fulfills all other laws. For the whole law is summed up in Romans 13:10.

"Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

So, the question then is......"What do you do if you harm your neighbor? What do you do if you violate the commandment of love? Speaking to a generic you; meaning anyone - Do you just pretend that you haven't done anything wrong and just continue on?

The answer is an obvious no. You can't violate the law without some consequences.

Luke 17 speaks to this. In verse 1 and 2 Jesus gives a stern warning about offenses; doesn't he?

Then he says, "Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day return to you, saying, 'I repent,' you shall forgive him."

Jesus is talking about forgiving your brother here.

TBC


Yes, (first yellow):

Rom 4:8 Blessed [is] the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

So, we see that as sin is not attributed to the redeemed man, (the inner man, that we are, once born again).....and, that the bible says that it is the spirit that God came to redeem...not the flesh, for the flesh never profited anything anyway, and that is why it still dies....etc...We know that sin has no real purpose for what we are NOW in Christ. That is why there is no more condemnation for those whom are IN Christ.

The outer man is dying daily....sin is going to show up there, but, as already mentioned..the flesh is not what God came to redeem.

Bold: The flesh will still have to deal with sin..we reap what we sow in the physical...for example, to use "ghost" as our example..he was banned. To use another example...if a man/woman commits adultery; their physical family is hurt...etc.

We are to confess our sins ONE to ANOTHER; as written..this is for the purpose of keeping us in remembrance of what Christ has done for us...and, for us to help not only ourselves, but others to learn how sin 'harms' the natural, or fleshly man.We are not commanded to confess our sins to God; however, but only the once.

That is how I view it; and we...the 'inner' man is no longer under the law; no longer is sin imputed...but, our flesh will see it's results.

graceandpeace
March 16th, 2011, 09:42 AM
So, the point of the above post is that there are several points.

1. Jesus doesn't take too kindly to people offending his children.

2. A brother who sins is instructed to repent and ask forgiveness.

3. If one repents, and asks forgiveness, a Christian is to forgive.

4. If one is not walking in love toward his brother; he is harming his brother and violating both the spirit and letter of the entire Bible (OT + NT).

So, if we take Ghosts actions as an example. He has offended people. He has told me to kill myself, go to hell, or wishes that I fry in the lake of fire; and that my family is also without Christ.

This is an offense. According to the Bible, he is to repent. He is to ask forgiveness from not only me and my family for his lies and blasphemies; but from everyone on this site that he has offended with this type of reprehensible action.

Now, how can you view these teachings from scripture and this one particular example, as anything other than a clear teaching that one who claims to be in Christ; does indeed need to repent when they have done wrong?


Ghost's sin's are not imputed to his inner man....for he is no more under the law than you or I...but, he should do as what is written concerning the natural man; and confess his sin to those whom he has offended...it does not effect his salvation; however...just as our sins do not effect ours.