What About Progressive Sanctification?

[JAL]

Anyone who knows their Bible knows Jesus didn`t claim to be omniscient when He was in the flesh. You like gobbledygook so much that you should get a job running the Nickelodeon green slime machine.

Strawman. I have said probably three times now that Jesus was ignorant. Earlier you showed yourself unable to comprehend the word immutable. Now you can't seem to understand the word ignorant.

 

[JAL]

I don`t even know what a hypostatic union is. I don`t see it in the creed I had to recite.

Dictionary:

hy·po·stat·ic un·ion
/ˈˌhīpəˈˌstadik ˈyo͞onyən/

noun
THEOLOGY

1. the combination of divine and human natures in the single person of Christ.

Basically:
1. Hypostasis. From a Greek word meaning substance, or nature, or person
2. Union. The joining of elements.

Thus the hypostatic union is the union of 2 natures, divine and human, constituting Christ.

 

[RickReads]

Strawman. I have said probably three times now that Jesus was ignorant. Earlier you showed yourself unable to comprehend the word immutable. Now you can't seem to understand the word ignorant.

The next time you refer to God in a derogatory way will be the last time I talk to you. I`m surprised you haven`t been banned.

 

[RickReads]

Dictionary:

hy·po·stat·ic un·ion
/ˈˌhīpəˈˌstadik ˈyo͞onyən/

noun
THEOLOGY

1. the combination of divine and human natures in the single person of Christ.

Basically:
1. Hypostasis. From a Greek word meaning substance, or nature, or person
2. Union. The joining of elements.

Thus the hypostatic union is the union of 2 natures, divine and human, constituting Christ.

I was kidding you dolt but I nearly always reject terms that aren`t in the Bible.

 

[JAL]

The next time you refer to God in a derogatory way will be the last time I talk to you. I`m surprised you haven`t been banned.

Enough with the sanctimonious nonsense. Being an infant is by definition a state of ignorance, especially when considered RELATIVE to the state of infinite knowledge.

When I refer to an infant as ignorant of many things, I'm not insulting him. I'm simply making a statement of fact.

If you want to use that sham of an excuse to bow of out of a debate with me, don't pretend you're fooling anyone.

 

[RickReads]

Enough with the sanctimonious nonsense. Being an infant is by definition a state of ignorance, especially when considered RELATIVE to the state of infinite knowledge.

When I refer to an infant as ignorant of many things, I'm not insulting him. I'm simply making a statement of fact.

If you want to use that sham of an excuse to bow of out of a debate with me, don't pretend you're fooling anyone.

There is apocrypha that says Jesus talked when He was an infant

 

[JAL]

The next time you refer to God in a derogatory way will be the last time I talk to you. I`m surprised you haven`t been banned.

And by the way, as I noted earlier, the whole mainstream Doctrine of God, when fully extrapolated, is tantamount to a derogatory statement about God. I have demonstrated that fact on other threads, perhaps I might take the time to do it here as well.

 

[JAL]

There is apocrypha that says Jesus talked when He was an infant

Look, compared to infinite knowledge, it's still a relatively ignorant state. Spare me the sanctimony. On a debate forum, we use language that is clear and convenient to save time. I don't think God is offended by that.

 

[RickReads]

And by the way, as I noted earlier, the whole mainstream Doctrine of God, when fully extrapolated, is tantamount to a derogatory statement about God. I have demonstrated that fact on other threads, perhaps I might take the time to do it here as well.

Will anyone read it?

 

[RickReads]

Look, compared to infinite knowledge, it's still a relatively ignorant state. Spare me the sanctimony. On a debate forum, we use language that is clear and convenient to save time. I don't think God is offended by that.

For your sake I hope not, I would never do it.

 

[JAL]

Will anyone read it?

Probably not. The attitude around here seems to be, "I'm already convinced of my position. Don't confuse me with the facts!"

 

[JAL]

For your sake I hope not, I would never do it.

Have fun explaining to God why you insulted Him your entire Christian life. Nobody forced you to accept the doctrines of men. That was YOUR decision.

 

[RickReads]

Have fun explaining to God why you insulted Him your entire Christian life. Nobody forced you to accept the doctrines of men. That was YOUR decision.

Can you explain what that means?

 

[RickReads]

Probably not. The attitude around here seems to be, "I'm already convinced of my position. Don't confuse me with the facts!"

Right. You would never do that?

 

[JAL]

Right. You would never do that?

I'm certainly not aware of having done so.

 

[JAL]

Can you explain what that means?

A moment ago you seemed to insinuate that you wouldn't even bother to read it!

And even if you did read it, what's the predictable outcome? I haven't yet seen a degree of intellectual honesty on this thread that would AT LEAST admit that some of the traditional doctrines are PROBLEMATICAL. All I've seen is a 100% state of denial up to this point.

So why bother?

 

[RickReads]

I'm certainly not aware of having done so.

I`ve often observed that people don`t realize what they do.

 

[RickReads]

A moment ago you seemed to insinuate that you wouldn't even bother to read it!

And even if you did read it, what's the predictable outcome? I haven't yet seen a degree of intellectual honesty on this thread that would AT LEAST admit that some of the traditional doctrines are PROBLEMATICAL. All I've seen is a 100% state of denial up to this point.

So why bother?

I asked you if you thought anyone would read it. Me, I read every post on my threads, even yours.

 

[JAL]

I asked you if you thought anyone would read it. Me, I read every post on my threads, even yours.

And then you remain in a state of denial. Let's contrast this with my approach. A while back Bible Highlighter made an excellent argument about a parent infecting their child with a drug-addiction. I immediately acknowledged that it was a significant objection - I at least admitted it was a real PROBLEM that MERITS attention and resolution.

 

[RickReads]

And then you remain in a state of denial. Let's contrast this with my approach. A while back Bible Highlighter made an excellent argument about a parent infecting their child with a drug-addiction. I immediately acknowledged that it was a significant objection - I at least admitted it was a real PROBLEM that MERITS attention and resolution.

I don`t think I have any major problems from a doctrine standpoint.