Nang
TOL Subscriber
You would be more effective, Johnnie, if you ever managed to be more accurate.
Nang stands by these words posted. They are Truth.
What biblical argument can be brought against them?
Spammers wasteland
- Thread starter Delmar
- Start date
- Status
You would be more effective, Johnnie, if you ever managed to be more accurate.
Nang stands by these words posted. They are Truth.
What biblical argument can be brought against them?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Every time you post, the smell of burning rope starts coming out of my iPad speaker. You really need to cut down, there, Bongerificus.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
You sure don't. There are many who know what faith is. You and your Dispo hoard of false Literalizers just aren't among them, along with a general majority of nominal modern professing "Believers".
Go ahead. Define faith. It's not hard.
musterion
Well-known member
Notice two things, whomever is following this.
1. He still refuses to define simply and clearly what he thinks faith is, in order to start the real conversation he keeps saying he wants. I did so long ago, and he wasn't happy with what I said. I'm not going to bother repeating it now. No point. If he wants an honest conversation, he should take the first step. But he won't. He keeps making it about us. Okay, whatever, but get this...
2. That I've seen, he has not asked his new friend Nang to define faith. Now, Nang is a hard core Calvinist. Her definition of what faith is, is 180 degrees opposite of most of ours. She knows that. We know that. He should know that. And yet they are now best buds...apparently on the same page, as it were...allies...in agreement on the issue.
Given Nang's Calvinistic definition of faith, could his apparently unquestioned alliance with her be a clue to his definition of faith? That is, Calvinistic?
Could that tell us why he has not ever defined it simply and openly...because he knows the reaction it's bound to get from most of us, but because he loves the attention he's avoiding it?
Or is it that he simply doesn't know what he's talking about and so can't uncomplicate what is essentially borrowed gibberish?
Dunno, just asking.
PS
He may also be Orthodox or Catholic. These would also explain his reticence on simple questions in favor of his bloviant love of philosophy and obfuscation. So would Calvinism. They're all related. But my guess is, he's Orthodox or possibly some navel gazing strain of Catholic. If he is either, that's why he's never admitted it.
1. He still refuses to define simply and clearly what he thinks faith is, in order to start the real conversation he keeps saying he wants. I did so long ago, and he wasn't happy with what I said. I'm not going to bother repeating it now. No point. If he wants an honest conversation, he should take the first step. But he won't. He keeps making it about us. Okay, whatever, but get this...
2. That I've seen, he has not asked his new friend Nang to define faith. Now, Nang is a hard core Calvinist. Her definition of what faith is, is 180 degrees opposite of most of ours. She knows that. We know that. He should know that. And yet they are now best buds...apparently on the same page, as it were...allies...in agreement on the issue.
Given Nang's Calvinistic definition of faith, could his apparently unquestioned alliance with her be a clue to his definition of faith? That is, Calvinistic?
Could that tell us why he has not ever defined it simply and openly...because he knows the reaction it's bound to get from most of us, but because he loves the attention he's avoiding it?
Or is it that he simply doesn't know what he's talking about and so can't uncomplicate what is essentially borrowed gibberish?
Dunno, just asking.
PS
He may also be Orthodox or Catholic. These would also explain his reticence on simple questions in favor of his bloviant love of philosophy and obfuscation. So would Calvinism. They're all related. But my guess is, he's Orthodox or possibly some navel gazing strain of Catholic. If he is either, that's why he's never admitted it.
Last edited:
musterion
Well-known member
By the way, check out what you get when you google a few of his favorite words. He's got a lot from existing books.
https://www.google.com/search?q=put...droid-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Note this especially. Uncanny how familiar "Macarius, Progressive Orthodox Christian" sounds.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...of-christ-the-man-christ-jesus.7468510/page-7
https://www.google.com/search?q=put...droid-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Note this especially. Uncanny how familiar "Macarius, Progressive Orthodox Christian" sounds.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...of-christ-the-man-christ-jesus.7468510/page-7
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No. I've clearly stated I would reciprocate, instead giving you both the responsibility and privilege of "first serve". Big difference.
Before you keep making yourself look as stupid as possible, you might want to look at a few of the recent conversations in which I've clearly outlined what faith is, and more.
I'm a Monergist, but no, I'm not a Calvinist. Both Calvinism and Arminianism can be reconciled to the central truth, and I've done that just as I've reconciled ALL binaries and dichotomies of doctrine to the singular central absolute objective truth over the last 18 years.
The reason I wanted you to simply define faith is because it was I who asked first in this thread. I don't have the slightest recall of what you may have said or not said THREE YEARS AGO, which is when you're referring to.
I couldn't care less about conversing with you or your peers, but I will if it's about actual valid subject matter instead of inane juvenile playground material. You popped in within an ongoing conversation that had dwindled to nearly inactive. And my initial inquiry was about Dispensationalists' alleged "literal" views of scripture, which are actually figurative of the highest magnitude.
Nang and I know where we differ, and have had a long-standing relationship going back to before her one-year ban. We kept in touch casually via e-mail during that ban, including her husband and I sharing a serious interest in motorcycling. We don't have to completely agree to have fellowship, and Synergists like most Dispos don't understand Monergism enough to authentically reject it anyway.
Arminians may as well go back to Rome. Calvinists are at least founded upon the Reformation, so they're not just unhinged modern Teleological Rogue Mavericks presuming they're right because they're in a newer era that dismisses Christian history.
I'm not Roman. I have a great affinity for the East, but only if understood as "bridged" to the West (which you can't comprehend). I disaffirm a "full" Filioque clause for the Trinity, which encourages the potential for Tritheistic understanding, such as yours and most moderns who claim to be authentic Trinitarians. And the Papacy is an abomination. There's no Vicar but Christ. There's no priesthood save the Royal Priesthood of the Body of Believers.
Lutheranism is a good middle ground, from which to proceed. Evangelicalism is a recent innovation, and isn't evangelical at all. Charismaticism is Classic Pentecostalism run amok, and almost always promotes false Christology and Soteriology by works disguised as "gifts", etc. Denominationalism is turning to false Ecumenism, with few scattered exceptions.
You, and most others, have no idea what the current OR historical landscape of the Church looks like or has ever looked like. You're a Modernist, obsessed with you and you and you and you and yours as doctrine and practice.
If you want to converse, then read what I've posted in current threads and then reiterate however you defined faith THREE YEARS AGO, since I doubt I could search and find it myself.
You should realize that, just as in tennis or other sports, the serve is an advantage. I'm giving you the advantage and am willing to volley whatever you serve. Give it a shot, instead of expecting me to dig through the last three years of posts to find whatever you said back then.
It won't matter one whit to me if you go silent or meaningfully engage. Do what you will.
Last edited:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
LOL. I haven't read ANYTHING online or in books to come to my understanding of ontology. It came from years of examining scritpural lexicography. But this may actually be the time for me to read some, now that you've introduced this aspect.
I didn't take time to read much on that link, and I don't know what you're trying to imply (That I'm this Macarius guy? That I get all my words and info from online forums or googling, etc.?). Who knows. Maybe you could clarify your veiled accusations.
In any case, he doesn't accurately represent the vocab. And I'm not progressive in the least. I'm relentlessly ANTI-progressive in the liberal sense.
All this to avoid having to answer a simple question that you've answered before in "ancient" TOL history.
You're quivering in your socks that I will expose it as erroneous, so you're likely engaging in the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well". I really can't blame you, I suppose. It's a survival tactic of the flesh, which doesn't want to fully die and be resurrected into truth by the Gospel beyond mere hope to faith.
So now you're scrambling to google everything in a furor. If you don't already know what those words mean, you've been in deficit for a very long time.
musterion
Well-known member
You took the bait and boasted in self again. So predictable.
Know what else is predictable?
Nothing you have ever posted here has EVER pointed to Christ and Him crucified, much less the preaching of Christ according to the revelation of the mystery.
Rather, it always points to you and your desire that everyone esteem your claims to learning as much as you do. But you get really irritable and testy when they don't. You get personally insulted to the point of getting so vicious that you've been stepped on by the mods.
Which fruit of the spirit is that, rabbi?
We are saved and sealed and nothing can change that. PPs doesn't like that for some reason.
musterion
Well-known member
Ask him, see what he says.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No. You have to hide behind such accusations because you know you can't answer questions.
Your adolescent schoolyard antics and incessant one-upsmanship at any cost, incluing logical fallacies. That's the most predicatable of all.
Oh, and your rampant figurative doctrines that you insist are literal while lambasting the whole world with your double standards and other inequities.
Incorrect. But I'll let God judge that for both of us.
No, just to answer your accusations.
Only when I'm misrepresented and condescended to by cultists of various ilk. You're not even an authentic Trinitarian, and you think you synergistically helped God save yourself by your own actions. And you won't define faith or anything else that's merely a concept to you, just like God is merely a Tritheistic concept to you.
The "Mods" allow you and john w and many others of your peers get away with all manner of constant name calling and much more. If I say certain single non-coarse words, I get infracted. I validly call someone a weaker vessel and I get canned.
Is "weaker vessel" vicious"? I also sarcastically inserted the word "puke" in the middle of the word "Dispensational" to replace a syllable. If that's vicious, then you need to cry for trigger warnings and find a safe space with all the insane progressive Millennials. (They're even named after your 19th-century heretical eschatology and heremeneutics-destroying cultic beliefs.)
It's nothing compared to the constant bullying onslaught from you and the MAD gang. No other infractions for over a year. And two of those earlier four were from a misunderstanding and misrepresentation that was cleared up with the one who reported it. Two for the same incident.
Yeah, those are SO horrible, and that's such a real endictment. Especially from a heretical 19th-century false Zionist. But enjoy your oblivion.
Maybe you should know no man after the flesh. I do. In spite of your heresies, I know you're a Believer. You can't judge righteous judgment.
I thought that was the spirit of Cain to run around judging what people do? You're a bad Mid-Actser. All my sins are forgiven, so it shouldn't matter what it is you think I do that are sins.
And it's chrestotes (kindness). If you knew what it meant instead of what you think it means (like virtually every other term in scripture), you'd know that. You're thinking of an English term for outer behavior only. You have no idea what scripture says. You've had it all replaced in your heart and mind and actions by English semi-equivalents.
And stop being Cain.
Nice context lift and truncation. At least I shot down all your ridiculous notions. You somehow thought I was both a Calvinist and a Catholic or something. LOL.
You think you cooperated with God to save yourself in a mutually contingent relation, and you want to call me prideful? Hilarious. You insist your salvation was in some manner inclusive of your own work/s.
So much for having any discussion about actual subject matter. That never happens with MADers. Time for you to go back to your schoolyard tactics with your bully buddies. You obviously can't converse about theology.
musterion
Well-known member
Yeah but what do we know? We can't even define faith correctly.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
He will say that we do not understand what saved and sealed means, ontologically.
musterion
Well-known member
Hey slick, don't play victim. Remember that this is predominantly a MAD board, from the owner on down. You knew that when you got here and STILL you enjoyed tossing the gauntlet, even unto this very day.
So you going to tell us in one simple, non-technical sentence what faith is, or not?
PPS is a Monergist.
They believe, as Calvinist do, in OSAS.
The only difference is in how that salvation came about.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
It was SO obliging of you to synergistically assist God in saving yourself as your works. I'm sure God is pleased and blessed by that. He was probably very unsure about how to accomplish it without you and your responsive performance.
I'm sure it's load off of His eternal mind to know that He can now have that help from you for your salvation. Now the sacrifice of Christ can be effective. God thanks you for your assistance in His lack of sovereignty and power.
Good job, Pajamas. Gold star for your efforts of salvation.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Exactly. You won't even define it at all. (You know it will get shreadededededededededed.) LOL
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No. I'll say, and rightly so, that you don't understand what "ontologically" means.
- Status