Lon

My ban was for daring to call heir "weaker vessel" when validly correcting her blatantly fallacious proof-texting for Arminian obfuscation. I was informed it was treating women as trash. But the Dispies, Open Theists, Kenoticists, and Universalists can say whatever, of course.

Yes, I grieve for those caught up in the modern NAR nonsense and its extreme Hegelian Kenoticism lies denying the innate and intrinsic eternal uncreated uninterrupted continual ontological divinity of our Lord during the Incarnation.

RE Biblical literacy;

Of course we do but I desire for the right reason, i.e., better understand what God is after IN us, born again from above. The academic takes second place and only if it contributes to Spiritual understanding as exampled by Gal 2:20 KJV vs any otherTranslation. That is but one of the important ones for me.

I am not familiar with Greek words like Kenosus, and don't possess a Greek lexicon. Again, sorry.

And then the Trinity is not three divine siamese-triplets as functional Tritheism.

Further on kenosis (after reading AMR below)... Epistemologically, the will is the directive of the mind "stretching forth 'in tension' toward object as subject" (hence "intention"). There could be no applied volition to "not know" something, for it is the mind directing the application of the will (whether sub-cognitively or cognitively).

This is, of course, why "free" will is a misnomer. The will is contingent upon the mind; and an unregenerate heart and unrenewed mind cannot have "free" will for any intentions whatsoever. There is only a range of perceieved freedom as boule/boulomai that cannot know or accomplish thelo/thelema. Hence... Monergism.

1Mind1Spirit has always been an odd confluence of Arian/Unitarian/Adoptionist/Binitarian/Sabellian/Pneumatomachian. It does seem he's moved to a greater embrace of the divinity of Christ, and has moved somewhat closer to my Triune position in ways. It's hard to tell.

In dealing with Kenoticism, it's important to emphasize morphe versus schema. But the real issue includes one of my primary criticisms of a long-running debate about the alleged multiple hypostases. God does NOT have multiple centers of sentient consciousness. This is relative to understanding the constitutional structure of hypostasis/ousia/physis/prosopon of both God and man in His image. Multiple minds/wills presents a conundrum of God having multiple "souls", by both internal faculty and functionality of minds/wills/emotions/desires. The balance between hypostatic union, perichoresis, and authentic kenosis is not difficult once one is on the other side of that appropriate understanding.

You have a wonderful spirit, Lon. I prefer to not weigh in when one is working hard at leading another to more edification. No matter how carefully it could be done, it will be seen as poisoning the well by some or a potential stumbling block. You are in no need of "help" from me, brother. I am just trying to avoid wooden lliteralism that will lead to this nonsense:

http://goo.gl/yMLShc
http://goo.gl/Mr1fDl
http://goo.gl/iNFvvi
http://goo.gl/RKJNwp

To say the divine chooses not to know is to imply an ontological conundrum requiring the objects of the divine's knowledge to not actually exist or be possible to exist, for if they exist or are possible, they must be genuinely known by the omniscient God. See also: http://goo.gl/dviGaO

http://goo.gl/ygWl5l

That He did not know the day or the hour is said from the Son in his estate of humiliation. In his state of humiliation, he acts entirely according what is natural to his humanity. The fact that the divine power by which he acted in wondrous ways was also his own divine power, is manifest only through the success of his mission, and the declaration that he is the Son of God with power by his resurrection. When He declares his Father's holden knowledge, he speaks in the state of humiliation; he speaks within the limits imposed on him in this mission. He could not inform the disciples of that specific which they had asked of him. Having ascended to take his proper place, he is no more humiliated. He is glorified, and fully possessed of his own divine knowledge of these and all other things.

Encouraging to see. It's been a slow month until late. Schools winding toward the break so I was goofing around and looking at the numbers. 3,666 views in January, 4,205 views for Feb, 5,170 views in Mar, but only 2,864 so far this month. Of course, there haven't been as many Gazettes this month. Until today I was at five for April. That seems to control as traffic goes...though everything has been a little slower this month. Getting close to summer, maybe.

Holy...I never check, but today I looked down at the bottom after I published the Gazette and there was me and 38 guests looking in. :shocked: So that's where the numbers come from. :think:

Right after that I looked in and you were gone, but eight guests and two regulars were milling about. :shocked:

That's totally fine :thumb: - I had a pretty formal religious upbringing and learned respect, decency, cleanliness, proper behavior, etc......I still cringe over hearing someone take God's name in vain, or saying 'Jesus Christ' in a 'swearing' manner....it offends my spirit. ALso, my spiritual sensitivity comes from my connection with God, and my soul's experience (from here and beyond),.....so my religious journey and studies are just a panorama as it were. Remember I've not posted any expressly lewd material from Prince (another poster did on our music-video thread)...but that was part of the name of the song, so it obviously would have an overt emphasis on 'sex', etc. Otherwise I'm with you about protecting children from anything negative or obscene.

Thanks for bringing dialogue away from his more explicit lyrics and lifting up what "I believe" is more appropriate discussion for TOL concerning him.

You're welcome Lon, notice most all my contributions to this thread are on the positive. Prince did have a very sensual/erotic side that he expressed in his music, but not all of his songs are lewd, and he has tons of songs. I was researching some of his more 'spiritual' or 'gospel' type songs, so have to give those a listen. I respect artistry/creativity and thank 'God' for it when I see it being expressed, no matter what 'artist' its being channeled thru. We are just the vessels or vehicles

Yes, it's exactly the same for metanoia and metanoeo as noun forms and verb; not to mention the epidemic of metamellomai as regret/remorse for ineffective repentance unto salvation with no change of heart and mind condition. And of course the other epidemic of constant repentance (verb) when its the repentance (noun) from with we profess/confess. Lots of jacked up concepts for all the self-taught autocentrists who are popes unto themselves.

Did you take that test ? What denomination did it pull up for you ?

I'm unsure of Cross Reference's theology. I posted a multiple choice question to inquire further. I do know he's a modern Pentecostal of some persuasion; likely full-on Third Wave Charismatic. His Christology is false, whatever the other subtle heresies may be. Likely a Barthian Universal Atonement (slightly distinguished from an all-out Universal Salvation, though functionally the same) proponent, but unsure. Arian, Unitarian, Adoptionist, or Hegelian Kenoticist. Makes no difference in the end, really. All deny Theanthropos to whatever degree in whatever manner.

Same username?

I'm good...how about you?
Thank you, BTW, for the rep. You at RTI?

Haven't had an acrimonious relationship with fzp. No idea why he went on that path, but I know that grammar only really interests me when someone is riding the ol horse. So...:idunno: I'm editing it back in light of our prior. He may simply have read something, thought more of it and habitualized it without recognizing the error...maybe he just doesn't realize the irony of his "big boy" remark and took what was a smiling, if wary, return shove as evidence that confirmed the initial error. :think: Who knows?