What About Progressive Sanctification?

[JAL]

Why is Incarnation in need of a solution.

I define a cult as an organization (A) committed to at least one belief that is unwarranted, ie., a belief that seems contrary to the available data, or logically inconsistent, or devoid of any clear rational foundation AND (B) generally unwilling to admit that this belief at least SEEMS unwarranted and/or irrational.

(Cults are more often associated with an unwarranted degree of allegiance to a cult-leader but my definition covers that mistake as well).

The church is theologically irresponsible if they behave in a way that falls into that category. This puts an onus on her to resolve the issues mentioned. Consider for example her claims about the Incarnation. The general problem is this:
(1) God is immutable
(2) God became man
Huh?

A specific example is this:
(1) God is immutably holy
(2) As Christ, God suffered real temptation in the wildnerness
Huh?

Again:
(1) God's knowledge is innate, infinite, and immutable.
(2) As Christ, God appeared as an ignorant babe in the womb who had to learn Hebrew.
Huh?

(1) God is indefatigable and impassible - immutably so.
(2) As Christ, God experienced both fatigue and suffering on earth.
Huh?

And again, don't try to tell me that the hypostatic union "solves" these problems - because that doctrine is humanly incomprehensible. Or if you try to stand in denial that these are real problems, let me remind you that these issues are fully resolved in MY Christology - they don't even exist as TENSIONS, much less contradictions. Because:
(1) I categorically reject immutability
(2) I substitute instead a theory of acquired holiness now irreversible.
Here again, I don't care if you disagree with MY solution. What is of essence is that the church still doesn't have one.

 

[RickReads]

I define a cult as an organization (A) committed to at least one belief that is unwarranted, ie., a belief that seems contrary to the available data, or logically inconsistent, or devoid of any clear rational foundation AND (B) generally unwilling to admit that this belief at least SEEMS unwarranted and/or irrational.

(Cults are more often associated with an unwarranted degree of allegiance to a cult-leader but my definition covers that mistake as well).

The church is theologically irresponsible if they behave in a way that falls into that category. This puts an onus on her to resolve the issues mentioned. Consider for example her claims about the Incarnation. The general problem is this:
(1) God is immutable
(2) God became man
Huh?

A specific example is this:
(1) God is immutably holy
(2) As Christ, God suffered real temptation in the wildnerness
Huh?

Again:
(1) God's knowledge is innate, infinite, and immutable.
(2) As Christ, God appeared as an ignorant babe in the womb who had to learn Hebrew.
Huh?

(1) God is indefatigable and impassible - immutably so.

(2) As Christ, God experienced both fatigue and suffering on earth.
Huh?

And again, don't try to tell me that the hypostatic union "solves" these problems - because that doctrine is humanly incomprehensible. Or if you try to stand in denial that these are real problems, let me remind you that these issues are fully resolved in MY Christology - they don't even exist as TENSIONS, much less contradictions. Because:
(1) I categorically reject immutability
(2) I substitute instead a theory of acquired holiness now irreversible.
Here again, I don't care if you disagree with MY solution. What is of essence is that the church still doesn't have one.

I would agree that the church doesn`t have an answer for your unorthodox. No reason for it too.

 

[JAL]

I would agree that the church doesn`t have an answer for your unorthodox. No reason for it too.

You just keep the ignoring the contradictions, instead of resolving them.

With that attitude, how am I supposed to take any of your posts seriously?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I define a cult as an organization (A) committed to at least one belief that is unwarranted, ie., a belief that seems contrary to the available data, or logically inconsistent, or devoid of any clear rational foundation AND (B) generally unwilling to admit that this belief at least SEEMS unwarranted and/or irrational.

(Cults are more often associated with an unwarranted degree of allegiance to a cult-leader but my definition covers that mistake as well).

The church is theologically irresponsible if they behave in a way that falls into that category. This puts an onus on her to resolve the issues mentioned. Consider for example her claims about the Incarnation. The general problem is this:
(1) God is immutable
(2) God became man
Huh?

A specific example is this:
(1) God is immutably holy
(2) As Christ, God suffered real temptation in the wildnerness
Huh?

Again:
(1) God's knowledge is innate, infinite, and immutable.
(2) As Christ, God appeared as an ignorant babe in the womb who had to learn Hebrew.
Huh?

(1) God is indefatigable and impassible - immutably so.
(2) As Christ, God experienced both fatigue and suffering on earth.
Huh?

And again, don't try to tell me that the hypostatic union "solves" these problems - because that doctrine is humanly incomprehensible. Or if you try to stand in denial that these are real problems, let me remind you that these issues are fully resolved in MY Christology - they don't even exist as TENSIONS, much less contradictions. Because:
(1) I categorically reject immutability
(2) I substitute instead a theory of acquired holiness now irreversible.
Here again, I don't care if you disagree with MY solution. What is of essence is that the church still doesn't have one.

Then you categorically reject the God of the Bible who is Immutable. Nothing "changed" with the Deity of the Son with the Incarnation. That is your own faulty human reasoning and understanding. The fact is the Son who is God became man which is taught in numerous places in both testaments. There is no change or contradiction since the bible declares Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. God does not change and the Son who is God is Immutable whether or not you accept that truth is irrelevant.

God created ex nihilo and regardless if you understand it or not does not nullify that truth no more that not understanding gravity makes it true or not. Just because you cannot understand something does not make it untrue. The same goes with the Godhead.

You indeed have a Christological error in your thinking. The 2 natures in Christ explain your " apparent " contradictions just fine.

Does God get tired ?
Does God sleep ?
Does God hunger ?
Does God thirst ?
Does God not know something ?

You see those are human conditions and Christ was human so experiences those things in His humanity but not in His Divinity. The 2 natures in Christ answer those objections just fine jal.

hope this helps !!!

 

[JAL]

I promise that you will feel like a fool on judgment day when Christ asks you, "Why did you blindly accept a bunch of nonsense, a bunch of blatant contradictions?"

And the REASON that He will ask you this is that the church's Doctrine of God is (inadvertently) insulting to Him as it literally denies Him about 99.9999999% of the glory merited by Him. Basically it's tantamount to denying, or spitting upon, the cross. For example when the church cries out, "I praise you God because you are holy," they are RADICALLY INSULTING Him. Don't the angels use the same words? Yes. But what the angels mean by those words is virtually the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what the church means, due to her convoluted doctrines.

 

[JAL]

Then you categorically reject the God of the Bible who is Immutable.

You can't just post a bunch of irrational statements and expect me to take you seriously. Assume, for example,
(1) Today I don't know Hebrew.
(2) Over the next couple of years I take the time to learn it.

Is my knowledge classifiable as immutable? Or did it undergo change?

 

[RickReads]

You just keep the ignoring the contradictions, instead of resolving them.

With that attitude, how am I supposed to take any of your posts seriously?

I responded to a couple of your posts in detail, no response so far, but we`ll see what you do.
The one in question is very strange IMO.

 

[RickReads]

I promise that you will feel like a fool on judgment day when Christ asks you, "Why did you blindly accept a bunch of nonsense, a bunch of blatant contradictions?"

And the REASON that He will ask you this is that the church's Doctrine of God is (inadvertently) insulting to Him as it literally denies Him about 99.9999999% of the glory merited by Him. Basically it's tantamount to denying, or spitting upon, the cross. For example when the church cries out, "I praise you God because you are holy," they are RADICALLY INSULTING Him. Don't the angels use the same words? Yes. But what the angels mean by those words is virtually the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what the church means, due to her convoluted doctrines.

Do you have any scripture that supports this rant?

 

[JAL]

Do you have any scripture that supports this rant?

Yes. Every verse in the Bible that depicts God as worthy of praise logically contradicts what the church (inadvertently) IMPLIES about Him, if you fully extrapolate the traditional doctrines.

Do I really need to find you a list of verses that declare God worthy of praise? Are we not already in agreement on that point?

 

[RickReads]

Yes. Every verse in the Bible that depicts God as worthy of praise logically contradicts what the church (inadvertently) IMPLIES about Him, if you fully extrapolate the traditional doctrines.

Do I really need to find you a list of verses that declare God worthy of praise? Are we not already in agreement on that point?

That isn`t what you said though. When you start getting really carried away you sound like you have the antichrist spirit which doesn`t appear to make for very meaningful discussion.

 

[JAL]

Then you categorically reject the God of the Bible who is Immutable. Nothing "changed" with the Deity of the Son with the Incarnation. That is your own faulty human reasoning and understanding. The fact is the Son who is God became man which is taught in numerous places in both testaments. There is no change or contradiction since the bible declares Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. God does not change and the Son who is God is Immutable whether or not you accept that truth is irrelevant.

You are confusing practicality with philosophy - you and the rest of the church. I'll give you an example. Bob Seger wrote a popular song about a gambler whose perpetual success caused him to make a lifelong career out of gambling. Bob himself didn't agree with this career choice and thus the meaning of the lyrics is, "I'd like to hold you in esteem, but I really cannot do so because you haven't changed - you're still the same." Here's a sample:

And you're still the same
I caught up with you yesterday
Moving game to game

Bob is saying, "You NEVER change." Now a simple question for you. What does Bob mean by this. Is it A or B?
(A) Bob is making the PHILOSOPHICAL claim that his old friend is IMMUTABLE.
(B) Bob is making the PRACTICAL statement that the GENERAL CHARACTER of his friend has not, and will not, ever change.

This is why I tell people, "Exegesis is difficult. Verses often have several possible interpretations. Therefore your best friend, during exegesis, is the law of non-contradiction. If your conclusions seem blatantly self-contradictory, look for another interpretation of those verses!"

But the church has been unwilling to do so, historically.

 

[JAL]

I responded to a couple of your posts in detail...

Responded? I still don't see where you've resolved the problematic claim that a monergistically holy human heart continues to sin.

 

[RickReads]

You are confusing practicality with philosophy - you and the rest of the church. I'll give you an example. Bob Seger wrote a popular song about a gambler whose perpetual success caused him to make a lifelong career out of gambling. Bob himself didn't agree with this career choice and thus the meaning of the lyrics is, "I'd like to hold you in esteem, but I really cannot do so because you haven't changed - you're still the same." Here's a sample:

And you're still the same
I caught up with you yesterday
Moving game to game

Bob is saying, "You NEVER change." Now a simple question for you. What does Bob mean by this. Is it A or B?
(A) Bob is making the PHILOSOPHICAL claim that his old friend is IMMUTABLE.
(B) Bob is making the PRACTICAL statement that the GENERAL CHARACTER of his friend has not, and will not, ever change.

This is why I tell people, "Exegesis is difficult. Verses often have several possible interpretations. Therefore your best friend, during exegesis, is the law of non-contradiction. If your conclusions seem blatantly self-contradictory, look for another interpretation of those verses!"

But the church has been unwilling to do so, historically.

Now you are getting your Bob Segar songs mixed up. LOL! Perhaps you reinterpret all literature to suit your own purposes.

 

[JAL]

Now you are getting your Bob Segar songs mixed up. LOL! Perhaps you reinterpret all literature to suit your own purposes.

As usual, nothing of substance in your response.

 

[RickReads]

Responded? I still don't see where you've resolved the problematic claim that a monergistically holy human heart continues to sin.

Whatever, you more or less accused me of not being serious with you so I gave you serious and you ignore it. If that`s how it is then I`m done with you.

 

[RickReads]

As usual, nothing of substance in your response.

You capable of getting your Bob Segar quotes right? Tells me a lot if you can`t.

 

[JAL]

Whatever, you more or less accused me of not being serious with you so I gave you serious and you ignore it. If that`s how it is then I`m done with you.

Then be done with me! You've blatantly ignored all the charges of contradiction! Why should I have any particularly compelling desire to continue a discussion with you?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

You can't just post a bunch of irrational statements and expect me to take you seriously. Assume, for example,
(1) Today I don't know Hebrew.
(2) Over the next couple of years I take the time to learn it.

Is my knowledge classifiable as immutable? Or did it undergo change?

and you are not God,

next...................

 

[JAL]

You capable of getting your Bob Segar quotes right? Tells me a lot if you can`t.

It doesn't matter. Your words are of no substance, because the point of my statement was clear enough. I don't need to be a Bob Seger expert for that - and by the way, Mr. Bob Seger expert, I don't think you're even spelling his name correctly, nor am I sure why you think I misquoted him.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

You are confusing practicality with philosophy - you and the rest of the church. I'll give you an example. Bob Seger wrote a popular song about a gambler whose perpetual success caused him to make a lifelong career out of gambling. Bob himself didn't agree with this career choice and thus the meaning of the lyrics is, "I'd like to hold you in esteem, but I really cannot do so because you haven't changed - you're still the same." Here's a sample:

And you're still the same
I caught up with you yesterday
Moving game to game

Bob is saying, "You NEVER change." Now a simple question for you. What does Bob mean by this. Is it A or B?
(A) Bob is making the PHILOSOPHICAL claim that his old friend is IMMUTABLE.
(B) Bob is making the PRACTICAL statement that the GENERAL CHARACTER of his friend has not, and will not, ever change.

This is why I tell people, "Exegesis is difficult. Verses often have several possible interpretations. Therefore your best friend, during exegesis, is the law of non-contradiction. If your conclusions seem blatantly self-contradictory, look for another interpretation of those verses!"

But the church has been unwilling to do so, historically.

This is just a bunch of irrelevant and random thoughts that have nothing to do with the Attributes of God.

Speak for your self about exegesis being difficult, its not for me.