Search results

Very clear: I'm not Nestorian.

I get that people (and apparently Chatgpt) 'think' it looks like a heresy. Note that even Chat GPT could not mention the supposed heresy! There is no name for it supposedly. My point (and only this far): God 'made' man. Chat GPT is interestingly, Open Theist! Who knew? If God is...

As I said, as a non-omniscient teacher, I know how all my students are going to do (I'm a good teacher). The test rather shows what I already know "to the student" (and their parents). Because even in failure, they learn. I'm a very good teacher. Isn't God much much much (exceedingly...

It is a packed question: here is the answer. Did you know most of Mariology in the RC was from the congregation, not the priests? They allowed heresy to enter when they began worshipping her (not just revere her). In your question, you 'intimate' that idolatry, raising her very high in...

Not that they are sinless. The Pelagian-like/concerned on TOL on the first page said the same thing: They are innocent. The scriptures rather intimate they just aren't developmentally able to be responsible for that nature "before the child knew right from wrong." He eschews Pelagianism...

Hypostatic Union, Both God and man, one being.

There is agreement on point. We 'die' because we act upon sin. That isn't the point of the contention but worth some time to talk about here. It is rather that you aren't responsible for your nature until you 'act' upon it. Romans 7:17-25 As ▲ with just above▲ to Derf. What if we...

See here (gist is that the RC got it wrong in accusation on many points). It has little to do with Mary, but rather is dealing with the nature of Christ as God and man. On either side you have Monophysitism (Only one nature) and Nestorian (probably misnomer) which stated that Christ had two...

Because full-blown pelagianism says children are born sinless. Augustine vs. Pelagius was where the controversy began, so you are correct on that assessment. It went to councils specifically because it has everything to do with Jesus' sacrifice and whether it was needed for 'all' men. In...

Posterity: I do not, in fact, hold to a heresy * needs to be addressed against the accusation. I think it a red herring to this Open vs the rest of theology rather. What is actual heresy, Pelagianism,(not heterodoxy). For the record. Apparently from one 'heretic' to another -Lon

If Pelagian were correct, we'd see more than Jesus perfect. That is why those without the Son 'are condemned already.' Most who espouse this are concerned with their own freewill against scripture that is express that all men, all, need a Savior. John 3 is clear on this.

Easy: 1) Tired of the same 'ol arguments, don't want to do it anymore (has nothing to do with you other being member #289 for the #290th time). 2) Disdain. Doesn't want to continue the conversation so a good insult will end it (but you and I are made of different stuff with long suffering...

Teacher/student consideration: Who are tests for? Not 'for' the teacher. When I test students, I already know, from previous, how they are going to do. God is the test-giver. Anybody who switches that around 'for God to know' is checking on the teacher, not the student and questioning His...

It is the difference between omniscience vs. a new song, right? It is also about whether He walked the earth with Shadrach Meshack and Abednego. How strong am I in Christology doctrine? Is even suggesting scripture may have this in mind, heretical? Can you name the heresy? How can...

(y) How? He is one being, two natures. One nature He Himself created (human), the other He always was, and all of Who He is. He became that which was from Mary whom He created and through the general avenue of human nature He had made, became flesh. The Word became, part of His...

Next "heresy." "Open View and nobody else: God didn't know what it was like to be a man." :sigh: I'm not a heretic! Rather I'm saying what Jesus 'became' was what he 'made' and sustains already! Didn't He walk with Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego in the fiery furnace? Daniel...

Doesn't matter, I'm not the only theist that believes it or says it. You can ask 'why' but all my conversations in this thread are the weight of why with many instances of Open View problems. More than that, it has God inept. Who in their 'right' mind would go Open Theism when it means...

🆙 Enyart and I talked about this on forum. He agreed 'sparingly.' For me, usually never. I've tried it a couple of times, it is always a conversation ender. The problem is we lose at that venture. All of us. If, in good faith something is exasperating, it isn't our best foot...

Meh, after 11 years I still think I do it better than most and always with a lot of love, even if you don't see it :p

All true, just get rid of the stupidity comment. "If" one is stupid, it doesn't make a whit if you say it, they'll never get it. It is dismissive and it doesn't matter intent: always an insult. If not stupid? Then you've yet started shutting down conversation with a value statement...