Spammers wasteland

[john w]

You got to let him invite you first, JohnW.

"He switched it....He did it to them...."

...is what God the Father, and His Christ, His "Superman," The man, Christ Jesus, the great God and Saviour, did to satan, as pertaining to part of the mystery, musty, as you well know! The wisdom of God, in a mystery, as it is written:

1 Corinthians 2 KJV
7 but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

 

[john w]

My ontological is acting up. Think it's going to storm.

Put on your proposition.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

No, you trust the paychological phenomena of your own unrenewed mind that you think is the Holy Spirit.

Hey, quit misspellin' their name it and claim it fallacies, shorely they can make up that too caint they?

 

[musterion]

Put on your proposition.

Time to rub on some Prosopon cream with the fast deep heating action of camphor and cayenne. It does the trick! Available at Kresge, Rexall, Woolworths and finer stores everywhere. Ask for it by name. PROSOPON!

 

[Right Divider]

Give us chapter and verse where God "describes Himself as three hypostases". And now you're devolving the topic into an English-driven shallow look at Theology Proper.

When you can begin to address Purus Actus and Opera Ad Intra and Opera Ad Extra and procession and all the other minuatie of the authentic historical Trinity doctrine, THEN and only then should you open your mouth about Theology Proper in this kind of venue.

It's the inverse, as it is with your peers. I don't have to lean of three contrived sentences of mere English concept to speak of the Trinity. The ego is you attempting say anything about the Trinity when you don't know what it is beyond dumbed-down modern terms to give a few phrases of your indoctrination into a concept for God instead of knowing who He is.

No. I'm an authentic orthodox Trinitarian who recognizes the difficulties of the modern representation for the term "person/s" in the formulaic. You're likely a functional Tritheist, but you want to condescend to me.

Please define this "Trinitarian" thing of yours.

 

[Right Divider]

Desisting from your heresy and hearing the Gospel would be a start.

Please accuse me plainly. What heresy?

I believe the gospel of the grace of God. Is this NOT the gospel that I need to believe?

P.S. AMR and theo, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[Tambora]

[MENTION=14978]PneumaPsucheSoma[/MENTION]
Copy this one too.

noun: synergism The interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects. "The synergy between artist and record company."​ Synonyms: cooperative interaction, cooperation, combined effort, give and take Origin: Mid 19th century: from Greek sunergos ‘working together,’ from sun- ‘together’ + ergon - ‘work.’

The definition alone shows that the word itself is not ONLY used in relation to God and mankind.
So right off the bat we see that PPS's statement is false.

Monergism and Synergism are ONLY in reference to God's relation with man.

​

But let's not jump the gun on that.
PPS tries to insist that in the theology rings, it has a definite meaning that fits his view.

But as also shown within the very ring of the Reformed, it's not cut and dry
Some in the Reformed camp also believe that God acts both ways with mankind.

Some Calvinists teach that Monergism only applies to regeneration, and that sanctification is synergistic. Reformed Baptist Andrew Naselli expressed this view when he wrote: "A monergistic veiw of regeneration is biblical, but a monergistic view of sanctification is not."

Just because one theology ring uses the same word that other theology rings use does not mean that they both have the same view of the word.
In other words, the word's theological meaning is not universal among all theology rings.
That's what happens when you try to put so much limitation on a word as to force it to fit your own view.


By using the definition of the word as the dictionary states, it most certainly can be used of other groups working together, and is not limited to the relation between God and mankind only.
One family, of mankind (father, mother, child), can work together.
One family, of the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), can work together.
God and man can word together.

It is not limited to ONLY the relationship between God and mankind.
Making up your own theology meanings to words does not negate the actual meaning of the word, which is simply "working together".

 

[Nang]

Making up your own theology meanings to words does not negate the actual meaning of the word, which is simply "working together".

You are the one who is making up your own theology, premised upon a dictionary definition, no less.

Here is the historic church creed:

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

You are violating this, by thinking the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate (rather than distinct) and must necessarily co-operate. That defines Tritheism, not the Unity of Trinity.

20. "So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords."

Please prayerfully give this creed some careful thought . . .

 

[Tambora]

You are the one who is making up your own theology, premised upon a dictionary definition, no less.

The dictionary definition is correct.

 

[Nang]

The dictionary definition is correct.

But it does not apply to Triune God, Tam!

 

[john w]

Hey, quit misspellin' their name it and claim it fallacies, shorely they can make up that too caint they?

"quit misspellin' "-Jeff the junkie

vs.

"shorley...caint"-Spicolli, Jeff

Thanks for unpacking that for us, Jeff. Gots any papes?

 

[Tambora]

But it does not apply to Triune God, Tam!

It sure can.
We can clearly see Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) "working together".
The very definition of the word is "working together".

Only by your own theological view do you need to force a limited meaning that the very definition of the word itself does not do.
So, no, it is not me that is changing the definition of the word.

 

[Nang]

It sure can.
We can clearly see Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) "working together".
The very definition of the word is "working together".

There is no necessity existent within the Godhead for synergistic "working together," when there is only "one Lord."

That is the Unity of the Trinity, which it seems you do not understand.

Only by your own theological view do you need to force a limited meaning that the very definition of the word itself does not do.

That is why I provided you with a link to the Athanasian Creed to show you this is not my private theological view, but the historical view of the Church of Jesus Christ.

So, no, it is not me that is changing the definition of the word.

I do not attempt to change the definition. I am objecting to your application of the word and building a wrong theology off of it. That is very dangerous and non-scriptural.

 

[Tambora]

There is no necessity existent within the Godhead for synergistic "working together," when there is only "one Lord."

That is the Unity of the Trinity, which it seems you do not understand.

I understand that the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) do work together, which it seems you do not understand.

 

[Nang]

I understand that the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) do work together, which it seems you do not understand.

"Together" wrongly suggests a plurality that MUST co-operate in order to be united as One. And you are not offering any Scripture that uses this kind of language.

There are no such necessities nor contingencies within the Godhead. God does not have to do anything in order to be God. That is basic theology proper.

 

[Right Divider]

"Together" wrongly suggests a plurality that MUST co-operate in order to be united as One. And you are not offering any Scripture that uses this kind of language.

There are no such necessities nor contingencies within the Godhead. God does not have to do anything in order to be God. That is basic theology proper.

You told me that you were a grandmother and not a theologian..... so which is it?

So in your opinion, the Father is the Son?

 

[Tambora]

"Together" wrongly suggests a plurality that MUST co-operate in order to be united as One.

The word itself means "working together".
I plainly see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit working together as one.
If you don't like the definition of that word, pick another to use.

And you are not offering any Scripture that uses this kind of language.

Ha!
You sound like those that say the bible does not use the word "trinity" so it must not be true.

Are you trying to say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were not working together in creation?
"Let us make ...."
I say they were working together, which is the definition of the word.

God does not have to do anything in order to be God.

I didn't say He did.
Can you give an example of a time when GOD wasn't doing absolutely anything at all?

 

[Nang]

You told me that you were a grandmother and not a theologian..... so which is it?

Are you saying grandmothers cannot know theology?

So in your opinion, the Father is the Son?

IMO the Father and the Son are distinct, but the same Lord God.

 

[Nang]

The word itself means "working together".
I plainly see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit working together as one.
If you don't like the definition of that word, pick another to use.

Perichoresis

Are you trying to say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were not working together in creation?
"Let us make ...."
I say they were working together, which is the definition of the word.

"Perichoresis" means every act of God is worked in full unity & harmony, premised upon unchangeable and propositional Truth, Sovereign Will, and Covenant Purposes. (My words & understanding.)

A scriptural example would be John 15:26.

Can you give an example of a time when GOD wasn't doing absolutely anything at all?

No. But that is not what we discuss. You insist on using a term to describe the works of God that denies His attribute of Simplicity.

 

[Right Divider]

Are you saying grandmothers cannot know theology?

No, just you.

IMO the Father and the Son are distinct, but the same Lord God.

Which is exactly what Tambora and I believe. So where is the problem?