Ask Mr. Religion

:thumb: But the fellow in question wouldn't understand the point if I pointed it out.

:up: Thank you

Thinking of you and yours and sending prayers that all is and will remain well for you. :cheers:

You do what you can. I wondered if he'd have the teeth for it.

I assumed as much. . . he's raised the passive-aggressive supercilious approach to a near art form. :e4e:

Chrys put me in your company for one of his ridiculous awards, which at least made me feel better...but then he asked about unconditional election and suggested that you might have him on ignore. Not knowing if you did I said I'd ask and deferred speaking to the subject before nudging you on point. His goofery and invitation are found here: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?119001-chrysostom%92s-2016-annual-awards&p=4785150&viewfull=1#post4785150

Doing well, my friend and the same to you. :cheers:

I responded on the Out Of Bounds blog as PistisElpisAgapeCharisEleos. The entire discussion is being framed up via English concepts rather than exegetical and lexical content. It needs to be taken back to the dirt and the foundation examined; and from the perspective of ancient terms and applications. All of this ESS nonsense is the result of few comprehending eternity relative to aeviternity and temporality. The hypostases aren't individuals like created humanity.

My personal email is wyd-opn AT hotmail DOT com.

Thank you for the heads up on which MADs are Open Theists. I thought more were on the list.

I've begun to figure out how to begin responding, and have obtained a complete and up-to-date listing of the blogs and articles related to the debate (debacle, more appropriately).

This is exactly the kind of thing I've always been concerned about, even though I positioned myself incorrectly. The reconciliation I've been blessed to have via exegesis would completely eliminate this nonsense while maintaining the Unity and Simplicity of God.

In formulaic, if there are three hypostases (and there need not be), then it is their Multi-Phenomenality that is the central focus of distinction. Grudem et al disparage the Son as the eternal Logos. It's blasphemous, as far as I'm concerned. They are not Trinitarians.

Still praying for your beloved.

Thank you, sir. I'll give them a read. Chandler? Nice place. My ex wife and daughters live in Chandler.

I did struggle through the two topics and would describe them as challenging and more in depth than anything I write. It was good to see this level of scholarship and I was glad that you mentioned the Apologetics Study Bible, Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007 since I have a copy. I especially like your comment: "To be clear, we have absolutely no warrant to elevate any one of God’s attributes above another. Nor do we have a warrant to fixate, as do unsettled theist’s, upon one attribute at the expense of all of the others.” and totally agree with this approach.

So are you saying my IP address pulled as the same IP address of dialm? I know it's remotely possible, but I thought it was nearly impossible. I only know what others have told me, so I have no idea how likely it is to randomly happen. Evidently not seldom enough if mine pulled as the same.

As for the TOL junk, I just let myself get too caught up in it because all those false doctrines are what left me lost for nearly three decades. I'm not going on any anti-Trinity tyrades any longer; only standing against Tritheistic assertions and conceptualizations that assail the incommunicable attributes of God and the historical Trinity doctrine. I'm reserving my challenges for a very positive presentation in dissertation form for academia and peer review. It's where I should have focused my efforts all along, but I just couldn't. A series of events interacting with UPC Modalists and a NAR group helped me return to within the strict boundaries of the Reformed tradition. I just despise Dispensationalism, Kenoticism, Universal Atonement, Open Theism, and Arminianism. When they're all packaged together and represented by a group of ravening wolves, I kinda lose it. I need a nice long fast. It always helps significantly.

Yes, I loved the paper. I'm rereading it several times. It gives a bit of perspective on how to both challenge a few things still omitted or misstated, while being helpful with some means of expression.

Meh. I'm just uber-incensed over how the Dispies disparage God's incommunicable attributes and then condescend to others in their abject ignorant arrogance. And I despise false accusations, especially when they're a combination of paranoia, agenda, and logical fallacy. I need to take a break and chill out. The synergy thing just took me over the edge, and I'm not shedding it quickly enough. Then this claim that I have multiple accounts and the constant extreme Mod bias.

It would be great if you might take another minute to return to the Spammer's Wasteland thread for clarification, because your response was perceived as support for Tambora's horrific theological assertions. Specifically, she has insisted that Synergy is applied to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; denying God's Necessity and Simplicity, etc. She's been corrected that such circumincession is referred to as perichoresis. And of course it devolved into the typical MAD circus where subject matter is not even an issue. They did this as a smoke screen for Tam. But she presumes you were the voice of common sense and affirmed her position.

I will. I'll just have to begin to navigate the blog environment, which is not familiar to me. As egregious as ESS is, it's the impetus behind the rise of the controversy that is even more disturbing. Theology Proper should never be to conform God to man by an agenda; but especially an agenda that is socio-political at its foundation.

Do you disagree with my assessments and observations?

Further, it is vital to distinguish ontology and economy. The perichoretic is the pattern of functional joining for Believers and their Lord. Hyposatic Union is the pattern of functional joining for marriage of husband wife. And since there is no male nor female in Christ, then the tact of Grudem and others is fallacious and result-driven. It's an attempt to equate the created to the uncreated, the aeviternal to the eternal. I've never been a fan of Grudem anyway, but this really seals the deal for me on him. This is in the pattern of setting one's throne above the Most High. It's no small matter to subordinate the Son to the Father, especially from this politicized foundation. This is an economy-based assault upon the ontology of both Father and Son, as I see it. It grieves me to the point of an indignant righteous anger.