Spammers wasteland

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

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..

Duh. Tambora = no clue whatsoever. Making it up as she goes along.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

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



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




Are you saying you believe God has three natures?



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?




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

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

More continuing evidence of the utter ignorance of alleged Christians regarding Theology Proper and Cosmogony/Cosmology about the Creator and His creation, including time and space.

THIS is why the Christian faith is so jacked. And it's not just the core heresy of Dispensationalism. It's everything from beginning to end of their wack systems of anti-doctrine.

And they argue and condescend incessantly. Maddening.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Methinks you might have spoken a bit prematurely.

No, it's still not valid subject matter. Just more intricate nothingness.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

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


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?


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

God IS love. Love is a noun. God doesn't have to DO love to BE love.

Yet another Tritheist professing to be a Trinitarian.

 

[musterion]

Which fruit of which spirit have you been bringing forth this morning, PePe?

We're all unregenerate here, so you say, so that's our excuse.

What's yours?

 

[musterion]

For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord

 

[patrick jane]

PPS struggles with his own faith, he doesn't have it. He can define faith for everybody but he can't muster any faith himself

 

[Right Divider]

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

Are you really this dense? It's simply a way of describing what was before creation.

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

Indeed you are, but you're also making claims about God's nature.

Are you saying you believe God has three natures?

No, I did NOT say that. More stupid rhetoric from someone that cannot understand much.

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?

How can someone love without someone else? Please go into great detail, so that we may all understand.

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

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

I did NOT says that the Epistle to the Colassians was fluffy, just YOUR using a couple of verses that DO NOT support your bogus claim. Just more stupid rhetoric tricks on your part, since you cannot support your claims with scripture.

 

[Right Divider]

Non-Divider,

What an INCREDIBLE wit!!! How long did you labor on that gem?

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

You're amazing!!! How can TOL thank enough for you bringing your immense intellect to this site? The value is incalculable!

 

[Right Divider]

God IS love. Love is a noun. God doesn't have to DO love to BE love.

Yet another Tritheist professing to be a Trinitarian.

God describes HIMSELF as THREE PERSONS. It's right there in the Bible.

Too bad that your swollen ego gets in your way.

So you're a Unitarian?

 

[Tambora]

Duh. Tambora = no clue whatsoever. Making it up as she goes along.

Neither you nor Nang want to say whether GOD (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) acted alone or acted together.
Why is that?

 

[Nang]

Neither you nor Nang want to say whether GOD (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) acted alone or acted together.
Why is that?

Because the question is wrong.

There is no such thing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit acting independently for God is One.

There is no concept of either "alone" or "togetherness" within the Godhead. "Alone" would deny Triune God, and "togetherness" depicts Tritheism.

 

[Tambora]

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.

Monergistic (acting alone).
Synergistic (acting together).

Does GOD (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) act alone or act together?

It's inexcusable. These shouldn't be allowed to speak or write.

It's been entertaining to watch you think you have all the correct words about GOD all bottled up.
Keep up the laughs!

 

[Nang]

A human Monergist believes God sovereignly works all of salvation, and human Synergists believe man co-operates in attaining salvation.

These terms define the finite, not the Infinite.

 

[musterion]

It's inexcusable. These shouldn't be allowed to speak or write.

It's been entertaining to watch you think you have all the correct words about GOD all bottled up.
Keep up the laughs!

The Catholic offshoots known as the Reformed like to get all authoritarian like that when someone ticks them off. They can't help it, it's in the blood. It's the same spirit that was in Calvin which consented to Servetus' bonfire.

 

[Right Divider]

A human Monergist believes God sovereignly works all of salvation, and human Synergists believe man co-operates in attaining salvation.

These terms define the finite, not the Infinite.

The the infinite interact with the finite or is the finite just a passive bystander?

 

[Tambora]

Because the question is wrong.

It's not a wrong question.
It just makes you uncomfortable because picking only one of the options could be correct at one time but incorrect at another time.
GOD (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) act together in creation.
At other times they do things independently, as when the Father sends the Son. (The Son did not send the Father, only one was doing the sending.)

It's not that difficult unless you are one of the bozos that thinks they need a bottled up limited list of words that can only be used.

 

[Nang]

It's not a wrong question.
It just makes you uncomfortable because picking only one of the options could be correct at one time but incorrect at another time.
GOD (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) act together in creation.
At other times they do things independently, as when the Father sends the Son. (The Son did not send the Father, only one was doing the sending.)

It's not that difficult unless you are one of the bozos that thinks they need a bottled up limited list of words that can only be used.

C'mon Tam . . You have enjoyed investigating the Greek with all of TOL on many occasions and taken pride of your said knowledge of the language. Does that make you a "bozo" too?

Or are you just refusing to learn from another who has studied further than yourself?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Which fruit of which spirit have you been bringing forth this morning, PePe?

We're all unregenerate here, so you say, so that's our excuse.

What's yours?

Double standard again. All you MADists insist everyone else has the spirit of Cain if they dare address personal behavior in any way. You want to cry fruit of the Spirit against others, and then never have to demonstrate any.

And there's nothing wrong with my behavior anyway. At least I didn't use the whip to cleanse the temple this time, just like Jesus on the second cleansing of the temple. Exposing 19-century heresy is a good thing.

And you STILL can't and won't address the basic questions that I asked to begin. You'll do anything not to have to defend your narcigesis and hallucinogesis and speculagesis and presumptogesis and conceptogesis to replace actual exegesis.

Feel free to actually converse and address what words means. Faith is still on the table, but you won't touch it. You know you'll get owned and exposed.

What fruit of which spirit is 19-century heresy? The same era that gave us Dispensational cultism also gave us Darwinism, Marxism, the JWs, the LDSers, the SDAs, and much more leading into abusive and emergent false Pentecostalism of the 20th century that has devolved into many cultic groups.

One of you prized peers in THIS thread a few posts back even contended for an explicit Tritheism, without even knowing the implications of her statements.

I'm not the one who is rogue and maverick with historically false doctrines. What you perceive as arrogance is me standing on the shoulders of the greatest theologians and historians of the Christian faith for its two millennia of existence while you and your peers throw authentic Christianity under the bus for your modern innovations of doctrine.

It's a miracle of God that He established salvation to NOT be subject to the gnostic errors of men, or you would definitely be unsaved. And that was a Monergistic provision that you know nothing about.

Maybe you could ask Tambora, since she contends that God is somehow internally both Monergistic AND Synergistic. But that would be double-downing on Monergism, because those refer directly to God and man's relationship.

The problem comes when someone take a staunch adamant position on opposing doctrines, but they don't have any idea what either one is. But off they go on their pride-backed futile nothingness trip down ignorant preference lane.

Your provocation, obfuscation, condemnation, and condescension are not apologetics. They're rantings, and from massive double standards.

Oh... And you still haven't simply defined faith or EXACTLY what it means to be "in Christ". That was the launching point for your refusal to display your ignorance of your own English language AND the original languages for the inspired text of scripture.

All of that is on you. You're the Escalator.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

No, you preach a 19th-century heresy and apply it's false eschatology to read into the text based on the teaching of men that you disclaim because the false doctrines have pervaded the very air we breathe after the last century of corrupted belief systems from it.

You preach "me". Me, me, me, me, me, me. My, my, my, my, my, my. You don't preach Christ and Him crucified. You preach another gospel because you don't know the Ontological Gospel, and mock it at every opportunity.