PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I agree.
I agree.
However, I do not think one has to be one only for all situations and for all time.
The trinity being an example.
Was it one (acting alone - Monorgist) that assured our salvation, or three (acting together - Synergist)?
I routinely use the term 'interpenetration' and occassionly 'circuminsession' and once in a great while 'perichoresis', though I know that most of my listeners are not even going to hold those terms in their attention span for a split second.
I have found that the word 'Interpenetration/interpenetrating' spoken with the simultaneous demonstration of the slow meshing of the fingers together until they interlock has had the greatest success in communicating to my audience of the concept. Saying the word 'perichoresis' gets blank stares, though depending on my audience, if they allow the focus, I can explain that the word is derived from two Greek words 'peri-around' and 'chorein-contain', which, I have found, really doesn't help much.
'Circuminsession' isn't much better.
All of those terms are fine, if one is with a group who use the terms frequently with understanding, but from my perspective, as Francis Schaeffer said, "Christianity is becoming more and more an isolated language group talking among themselves inside the walls(not an exact quote, but from memory)". I, personally, find the need to be able to communicate with the average person on the street in order to effectually get across the fact that we all need a Savior and why there can be only one.
Regardless. Monergism and Synergism have nothing to do with this area of doctrine, so Tam's contentions are exposed as utter ignorance and stubbornness, etc. Then she tried to shift gears instead of admitting her horrific failure and error.
It's a huge deal.