Mystery
New member
You accused me of teaching Arianism. That was a pretty jerky thing to do.
I've yet to see you prove that Jesus has two natures or prove the hypostatic union theory.
You accused me of teaching Arianism. That was a pretty jerky thing to do.
You accused me of teaching Arianism. That was a pretty jerky thing to do.
I've yet to see you prove that Jesus has two natures or prove the hypostatic union theory.
I was going to ask Knight if I could ban people who use words I don't understand. I decided against because he would most likely just tell me to look them up!
You accused me of teaching Arianism.
That was a pretty jerky thing to do.
I've yet to see you prove that Jesus has two natures or prove the hypostatic union theory.
Depends on whether you are in Christ or not.
If you are in Christ, you do not call other Christians "stupid."
Nang said:You do not have a clue as to what is decent and sound theology, nor do you seem to be aware that God is recording all your inanities in a book, from which you will be judged in the end.
You do not have a clue as to what is decent and sound theology, nor do you seem to be aware that God is recording all your inanities in a book, from which you will be judged in the end.
Where did I call you stupid? And BTW, if you are in Christ, you don't condemn a brother to hell. And PK is a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. So he is in Christ, yet you told him
So, it seems to me you call him and all open theists "unbelievers."
And since you have no problem saying a fellow brother is going to the judgement, which is unchristlike, take your own stinking advice. Stupid.
Denial that Jesus Christ had two natures; human and divine, or to deny the hypostatic union existent in the Person of the Son of God is heresy; whether you want to call it Arianism or not.
I posted the Chalcedonian Creed to give answer to both you and elect4ever regarding sound and orthodox doctrine on this subject.
"The Chalcedonian creed was written amid controversy between the western and eastern churches over the meaning of the Incarnation, the ecclesiastical influence of the emperor, and the supremacy of the Roman Pope".
Yes, they would be experts on heresy wouldn't they? :rotfl:
I reject the supremacy of the pope, and I reject the hypostatic union thoery.So you deny the Chalcedonian Creed, adopted by the ECF and all orthodox Christians (prior to the eventual and sorry degeneracy of later councils and papistry)?
Oh, and I also reject Calvinism's doctrine's of election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, and that God is a puppetmaster.
In fact, I view Calvinism as a far more dangerous cult than Catholicism or Islam.
I reject the supremacy of the pope, and I reject the hypostatic union thoery.
Jesus is God manifest in the flesh.
It looks to me like the responses your received were nothing but civil.I see that ad hominems, generalizations, and straw men are still running rampant in this thread. I very much enjoy this topic...reading and participating, but I find it hard to participate amongst such purposeful negativity. Can't we dispense with the unnecessary remarks in order to treat this topic with the respect it deserves?
Oh, and I also reject Calvinism's doctrine's of election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, and that God is a puppetmaster.
In fact, I view Calvinism as a far more dangerous cult than Catholicism or Islam.
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here but I don't believe this is so...That's an easy one.
At one time I was credited with being a sinner, even though I had not sinned in the likeness of Adam.
It is true that your righteousness is not your own, even though your sin was, but that does not change the fact that the righteousness which has been imputed is based on one man's righteous act and not merely His nature as your position would seem to suggest.Now I am credited with being righteous, even though I have not obeyed in the likeness of Jesus.
Perhaps nowhere. I clearly assumed more than I should have. Ignore the point I made based on that incorrect assumption.I do, where?
You are making an error of category here Mystery. No one has suggested that God can do that which He cannot do. That would be a contradiction. That however has nothing to do with the issue of God's righteousness. If God does not choose His actions then there is no righteous merit in them. If God is not volitional by nature, then He cannot be righteous by nature because righteousness is volitional by definition.Free will only extends as far as the nature. God does not send anyone to hell for their sins, and He does not receive anyone into heaven because of their righteousness.
You are free to act as far as your nature will allow you, just as God is only free to act as His nature allows. Regarding righteousness, the only free will you have is to accept His as a gift or to reject it. And, you would not even know about His righteousness if it were not for the gospel where it is revealed. The gospel alone is the power of God unto salvation. The gospel makes it possible for you to exchange your nature for His.
No one has suggested that we can fully comprehend any attribute of God but your position goes far beyond that. Your position removes all meaning from the term 'righteous' completely. So much so that you are at a loss for words to even explain what it is about God's nature that makes Him righteous.I did address this. The word "righteous" is from the word "right". God is right, and we are not. We cannot fully comprehend the rightness of God anymore than we can fully comprehend His light, or His holiness.
Therefore (if what you've said here is so) God deserves no credit, no admiration, no glory, no praise, for having not lied any more than an apple tree deserves credit for not producing oranges.It is impossible for God to lie because His nature will not allow it.
God's nature cannot lie
Therefore it is impossible for God to lie.
Where the Calvinist will tell the young child who was just raped by a priest, that it was in fact God's will for their life.Pick your arguments and friends, as you choose, but to deny the hypostatic union, is to deny that Jesus Christ was fully God while fully Man.
Which is not orthodox Christianity, but the basis of gross heresies; namely the Mormons and JW's, who will be happy to agree with you, and be most pleased to align themselves with you, in order to also call me a "jerk" for revealing your error.
Nang
Where the Calvinist will tell the young child who was just raped by a priest, that it was in fact God's will for their life.