Spammers wasteland

Tambora · Jun 17, 2016

Nang said:
Tam:

One cannot be a Monergist and a Synergist at the same time.

I agree.

There is no middle position to take; one is either or.

I agree.

However, I do not think one has to be one only for all situations and for all time.

The trinity being an example.
Was it one (acting alone - Monorgist) that assured our salvation, or three (acting together - Synergist)?

Nang · Jun 17, 2016

Tambora said:
I agree.

I agree.

However, I do not think one has to be one only for all situations and for all time.

The trinity being an example.
Was it one (acting alone - Monorgist) that assured our salvation, or three (acting together - Synergist)?

God is immutable. He never changes from One to Three.

Man is mutable and can toss around between one doctrine to another, but a Christian's faith founded IN Christ will prove to be immutable as He is immutable.

Tambora · Jun 17, 2016

Nang said:
God is immutable. He never changes from One to Three.

Man is mutable and can toss around between one doctrine to another, but a Christian's faith founded IN Christ will prove to be immutable as He is immutable.

I didn't say GOD changes.

I asked you if GOD (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is Monorgist [acting alone] or Synergist [acting together].

Nang · Jun 17, 2016

Tambora said:
I didn't say GOD changes.

I asked you if GOD (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is Monorgist [acting alone] or Synergist [acting together].

God is immutably One.

The terms monergistic/synergistic describe human actions and beliefs. Immutability defines God..

Right Divider · Jun 17, 2016

Nang said:
God is immutable. He never changes from One to Three.

Man is mutable and can toss around between one doctrine to another, but a Christian's faith founded IN Christ will prove to be immutable as He is immutable.

More false accusations. Was God all alone in eternity past? How can someone that is ALONE express love?

Nang · Jun 17, 2016

Right Divider said:
More false accusations. Was God all alone in eternity past? How can someone that is ALONE express love?

What is "eternity past?"

What makes you think God is "alone?" God is All in All, is He not?

Colossians 1:16-17

Right Divider · Jun 17, 2016

Nang said:
What is "eternity past?"

Before the creation of time and space. I'm shocked that the great theologian Nang would not understand this simple thing.

Nang said:
What makes you think God is "alone?" God is All in All, is He not?

I was YOU what was claiming God's ONE and ONLY ONE nature.

If there was only ONE PERSON (God), who did He love? Who loved Him?

Nang said:
Colossians 1:16-17

That scripture does NOT support your argument. Typical of the fluff you and too many post here.

Nang · Jun 17, 2016

Right Divider said:
Before the creation of time and space.

How can what is defined as "eternal," without a beginning or end, be spoken of as either past or future?

I'm shocked that the great theologian Nang would not understand this simple thing.

I'm not a theologian. I am a grandmother.

I was YOU what was claiming God's ONE and ONLY ONE nature.

Are you saying you believe God has three natures?

If there was only ONE PERSON (God), who did He love? Who loved Him?

I did not speak of God as a person; I only defined Him as God. Do you believe it is necessary for God to have persons to love, in order to be God?

That scripture does NOT support your argument. Typical of the fluff you and too many post here.

It seems you did not grasp my questions . . . and,

There is nothing "fluffy" about the Epistle to the Colossians. Rather, it is quite profound.

fzappa13 · Jun 17, 2016

Quote Originally Posted by fzappa13 View Post
You just never know when or where an actual conversation is going to break out around this joint.

PneumaPsucheSoma said:
Much better than all the drive-bys from the Dispensationalists and others, yes? Actual subject matter.

Methinks you might have spoken a bit prematurely.

PneumaPsucheSoma · Jun 18, 2016

john w said:
The above "post"-reminds me of the 3rd step of AA.

And thanks, Pnemonia! You not approving of me, means I am correct! Thanks again, puffed up bullfrog, who just loves the admiration of the crowd, from all those fancy words, this occult language of academia, obscure language of the theological laboratory, you employ, which, of course, is needed, since we have a bumbling, fumbling, incompetent, impotent God/"god," like yourself, who is beholden, helpless, without you "scholarly" types, to "hep" him out, and since He just could not communicate His masterpiece, in simple English. What would He do without you, Hop Sing?

You are not in the least honoring the LORD God, as your prime objective is to "show off," and lord over the sheep, to satisfy your drive/addiction, to elevate yourself as an important player, such as I am, and others are, on this, w/o reservation, board, that takes a dispensational stance.Keep shooting off your foolish mouth, and bray, like a jacka__, roar like satan, the roaring lion, does. You are loaded with "arguments" that reduces saved souls to remain forever malnourished babes, in the dark, unless, of course, they sit at your feet, and lick your boots, right after you kick dirt in their face, as you speak.....

2 Peter 2:18 KJV

18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.

Stuff your alleged "scholarship," this slick as a serpent, smooth "scholarly" vocabularly, and the adoption and use of words that aren't in the book's vocabulary,but are in university vocabularies of the day in which we live. And these same "enlightened" bastions of alleged knowledge(not wisdom), also gave us evolution. Well done.

Have a nice day, Hop Sing....And, remember.....God loves you, and so does "Misser Kot-white."

Take your seat.

More gibberish garbage from one of the gnostic cultists.

PneumaPsucheSoma · Jun 18, 2016

SaulToPaul said:
What does Gal 3:22 (KJV) really mean?

If you knew what the difference was between a noun and a verb and a participle in your OWN native English language, you could be told and understand. You think you can just gloss every passage and presume that's what ANY English translation says.

PneumaPsucheSoma · Jun 18, 2016

musterion said:
No, you are the gnostic.

The Word of God is not bound. His Word is spirit and it is life. That is how the Gospel itself can be the power of God unto salvation.

I'm not KJO by any stretch -- whatever language His Word is translated into, assuming it's done accurately, that IS the Word of God.

Yet you deny this and so deny His Word.

musterion said:
He bailed on that one. Wonder why.

He's tried to set up a can't-lose conundrum for everyone who disagrees with him. We don't know Greek (strike one), and we can't trust our perceptions of English because...we speak English (strike two). So we gotta have a guru to explain both to us because God...well..."the Bible Can be trusted" but...we can't.

So he's here to help us get our minds right. Gnostic.

But we're not having any of it, so he took a powder.

musterion said:
Unbelievable. He complains about being condescended to, then posts that. If that right there ain't the hissy of some passive-aggressive, little girl panties-wearing wannabee Jim Jones gnostic cultboy what got stood up on Friday night, I don't know what is.

Dammit, TOL, he's got people coming from HUNNERTS of miles away to hear him teach! And here he is offering it to you all for FREE! What is wrong with you people? (a little PPP subtext there)

He's wanting you to BEG him for an explanation, STP. He believes he deserves it.

"Kneel before Zod!"

Yes, yes, yes. Let the seething of the ignorant arrogant hatred burn in you. Stoke it, gnostic, stoke it. Flip that script. Invert those truths. Keep on keepin' on.

If you'd ever learn the difference between nouns and verbs and participles in your own language, you might actually be able to make a cogent point.

In the meantime, just let that hate ooze. Cognitive dissonance and arrogance are the hallmarks of your type of gnostic beliefs.

Instead of your gnosis, I'll stick to oida and epignosis knowledge. The first is only by the Spirit, and the second is a synonym for faith and which love abounds in.

But you already knew that, cuz English an' ever'thang. Keep posin'. Maybe at least learn your own native language.

PneumaPsucheSoma · Jun 18, 2016

SaulToPaul said:
Yes, but I probably still would not understand. Like 99% of the population, I am inferior to him in intelligence.

No. Like 99% of the population, you trust your own unrenewed mind.

PneumaPsucheSoma · Jun 18, 2016

musterion said:
He a unskilled handler of the Word of God, that fo sho.

Would that be Rhema (Word) or Logos (Word) of God, genius spiritual icon? Tell us all the difference.

You have no clue, just like everything else.

And no definition of faith from you, either. Even after I met your childish demands. That's your MO. Duck and cover, then run 'em into the ground without ever addressing subject matter or scripture. Because you can't.

Same ol' same ol'.

PneumaPsucheSoma · Jun 18, 2016

musterion said:
But in reality they were effectively saved (as in safe) from eternity past by virtue of election which cannot be thwarted by man nor demon. Making faith moot, as Tam pointed out.

There's no such thing as "eternity past", Apostle Musterion.

You can't render moot something you can't even define.

PneumaPsucheSoma · Jun 18, 2016

john w said:
Oh, now you are a modern day "god"rulz, aren't you, Mayor, a member of the Scholar's Union of Academic Vanity ? Why don't you have your own "the Greek" course, Professor Demas, on the University of Phoenix "credible" web site, and impress all your cigar smoking, brandy sipping, country club/chat room friends, and use such impressive jazz, such as this lecture:

Most of you rookies are out of step with mainline, orhodox prooftexting, in the context of sound, Biblical hermeneutics. You are mudding the waters, and your exegesis/eisegesis is based on faulty constructs, and your cult is a modern sect, not accepted by most credible biblical scolars, and has been rejected by most credible biblical commentaries. Zeal without knowledge is not good. Sincerity does not create truth. Are you sure you are not a closet Calvinist? Your traditions of men has blinded you to balanced truth, as you cannot see the baby through the trees. You should not throw out the trees with the bath water.Within the evangelical, biblical tradition are a variety of non-essential views that can cause division, but few are as presumptious as you to attack our exegesis over controversial issues or nuances of articulation/understanding. Not uncritically accepting your personal, subjective views of some proof texts is indefensible, and does not shed light on your proof texts, as you filter it through your preconceived Penty presuppositions, which is inconsistent with orthodox Christianity, and is problematic. . . I will continue to clarify my beliefs in the face of Ad Hominem attacks, misrepresentation , and sweeping/hasty/broad generalizations(even as Paul and the Jesus Christ did), in the broader context of other relevant passages. Rejecting your proof texting out of context is not the same thing as rejecting the truth of the Lord Jesus' words in light of the rest of the word of God, as that is substantial, not presumption.A wrong assumption leads to wrong conclusions. It is a challenge to not retain preconceived ideas that cloud our understanding of all the relevant verses, not just proof texts.Doctrinal truths are often couched in historical settings. We need to find out what the passage means to the original audience, in light of church history, and mainline, orhodox theology. In sum, we should not allow cultural biases, preconceived notions,and figures of speech/wooden theological literalisms,subjective opinions, etc., blind us to diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive views, and morsels of balanced Bible truth, as the challenge is to not let our preconceived eisegeses distort our exegesis.

Hmmmphh, Mayor...Leave the heavy lifting to those of us that have had a 3 week summer "the" Greek course, from a hermeneutically approved, balanced, credible source.

Your narcigesis and hallucinogesis are desperately attempting to reach up to be eisegsis.

Good try at being God, though. Gnosticism suits you well.

PneumaPsucheSoma · Jun 18, 2016

john w said:
Breenism is unbiblical and illogical. Your argument is vapid and fails to read “Peter, Paul, and Mary” closely. Your unbalanced view is a works based caste system in the early church for some vs all, etc. The anti-intellectualism of your in a hurry sect also shows when you reject “The Modern English” evidence that contradicts your Breen-ite proof texts. Context is also abused in your proof texting. Your arrogant personality is also grating.The key is proper exegesis in context, not importing Breenistic paradigms into proof texts. The key is to translate/interpret/apply properly.

The vast majority of godly Christians have not heard of Breenism. The best of conservative, biblical, evangelical scholarship rejects it if they have heard of it. You are like Paul Crouch, who turns sowing a seed for a love gift into the gospel and makes Breenism a cult (except you substitute hyper Breenism).You must have a defective Acts passage in your Bible to not see this. You wrongly assume that ultraBreenism hyper-in a hurry-ism is the only one that understands biblical grace or experiences the freedom and grace of God in Christ. We are not under your so-called one pace theory so it is a moot point. It is an insult to the majority of true believers and to the Holy Spirit to say only a handful of modern Breen-types understand the ark and the annointing or experience true liberty. My experience is that you guys are sectish and more legalistic than the rest of us.

And just what site is this?

Your asylum ward.

PneumaPsucheSoma · Jun 18, 2016

Right Divider said:
So what you're saying is that God created some people with the explicit intent to condemn them to hell?

Non-Divider, if you knew the difference between Supralapsarians and Infralapsarians, you might be able to converse with Calvinists in some future century of human history.

PneumaPsucheSoma · Jun 18, 2016

Tambora said:
I agree.

I agree.

However, I do not think one has to be one only for all situations and for all time.

The trinity being an example.
Was it one (acting alone - Monorgist) that assured our salvation, or three (acting together - Synergist)?

And..... THIS is why you're not an authentic Trinitarian, like most moderns and virtually all Dispensationalists.

Those three guys and their differing clash of Monergism and Synergism. Tritheism, veiled with lingo and jargon to cover the error.

The three gorilla-glued God-guys, with God having a Monergism versus Synergism battle within Himself.

Utter heresy, just like the 19th-century eschatology and its accompanying heretical hermeneutics; having never been the Christian faith for 1800 years, and still isn't.

PneumaPsucheSoma · Jun 18, 2016

Nang said:
God is immutable. He never changes from One to Three.

Man is mutable and can toss around between one doctrine to another, but a Christian's faith founded IN Christ will prove to be immutable as He is immutable.

THIS mess you're responding to is exactly why I took such a staunch position against most professing Trinitarians for years. They're Tritheists. Three conjoined beings, discreetly functional.

God as both Monergistic and Synergistic? God in a contingent relationship to/with Himself between the alleged "persons"?

THIS is why ignorant people need to learn what words mean, at least in their own language and preferably in the original language from which they were drawn in translation.

It's inexcusable. These shouldn't be allowed to speak or write. (Not ranting at you.)

Spammers wasteland

Spammers wasteland

delete

delete

Get your armor ready!

TOL Subscriber

Get your armor ready!

TOL Subscriber

Body part

TOL Subscriber

Body part

TOL Subscriber

Well-known member

TOL Subscriber

TOL Subscriber

TOL Subscriber

TOL Subscriber

TOL Subscriber

TOL Subscriber

TOL Subscriber

TOL Subscriber

TOL Subscriber

TOL Subscriber

TOL Subscriber