What About Progressive Sanctification?

[JAL]

I believe God is perfect in his justice which is why I cannot determine what He will do. The guilty will be punished. What that means is a ?

Then the charge made at post 295 stands unresolved. You might not refer to that punishment specifically as "hell" but the concept is there.

 

[RickReads]

So a perfectly loving Father has 100 billion (innocent) people born into depravity and a world of suffering. Not acceptable.

It wasn`t His fault. Adam was a real dumb guy. You put the blame in the wrong place.

 

[RickReads]

Then the charge made at post 295 stands unresolved. You might not refer to that punishment specifically as "hell" but the concept is there.

Why wouldn`t God punish the wicked?

 

[JAL]

I know it very well. I have over 20 books in my library of the subject.

Then you are in denial about the incomprehensibility. For now I'll stick with this evaluation, "No sane study of Christology even pretends to fathom it" (Charles Lee Feinberg, "The Hypostatic Union: Part 2," Bibliotheca Sacra, (1935), p. 412).

He's not saying that the majority of theologians are insane. He's saying that they admit it to be incomprehensible. And he's calling you insane for claiming otherwise.

(1) I think he's a better expert on the topic than you are.
(2) My own analysis of the topic reached the same conclusion.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But let me say this, in all OTHER fields of knowledge, the concept of 2 natures - even as a hypothetical, not as something possible - is immediately dismissed as a contradiction terms.

 

[JAL]

Why wouldn`t God punish the wicked?

Wicked by foreordination prior to the foundation of the world?

 

[RickReads]

Then you are in denial about the incomprehensibility. For now I'll stick with this evaluation, "No sane study of Christology even pretends to fathom it" (Charles Lee Feinberg, "The Hypostatic Union: Part 2," Bibliotheca Sacra, (1935), p. 412).

He's not saying that the majority of theologians are insane. He's saying that they admit it to be incomprehensible. And he's calling you insane for claiming otherwise.

(1) I think he's a better expert on the topic than you are.
(2) My own analysis of the topic reached the same conclusion.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But let me say this, in all OTHER fields of knowledge, the concept of 2 natures - even as a hypothetical, not as something possible - is immediately dismissed as a contradiction terms.

Sorry about the smiley, you made me lose the willpower to not use it.

 

[RickReads]

Wicked by foreordination prior to the foundation of the world?

God`s Omniscience doesn`t excuse people`s accountability for their words and their deeds.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Then you are in denial about the incomprehensibility. For now I'll stick with this evaluation, "No sane study of Christology even pretends to fathom it" (Charles Lee Feinberg, "The Hypostatic Union: Part 2," Bibliotheca Sacra, (1935), p. 412).

He's not saying that the majority of theologians are insane. He's saying that they admit it to be incomprehensible. And he's calling you insane for claiming otherwise.

(1) I think he's a better expert on the topic than you are.
(2) My own analysis of the topic reached the same conclusion.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But let me say this, in all OTHER fields of knowledge, the concept of 2 natures - even as a hypothetical, not as something possible - is immediately dismissed as a contradiction terms.

I don't care about your " appeal to authority" fallacy. I can defend my position from the bible.

 

[JAL]

Sorry about the smiley, you made me lose the willpower to not use it.

All I can say is I don't understand someone who relies on gratuitous gestures instead of appeals to reasoning, and doesn't resolve alleged contradictions.

 

[RickReads]

I don't care about your " appeal to authority" fallacy. I can defend my position from the bible.

Have we silenced him? That would disappoint me.

 

[RickReads]

All I can say is I don't understand someone who relies on gratuitous gestures instead of appeals to reasoning, and doesn't resolve alleged contradictions.

I think we speak different languages. I sincerely wish I could understand you better. You are a lot of fun.

 

[JAL]

I don't care about your " appeal to authority" fallacy. I can defend my position from the bible.

Show me where I relied exclusively on an appeal to authority.

But it is significant when the PROPONENTS of a view admit the CONS of that view. That's a heck of a lot more weighty than a mere appeal to authority.

 

[JAL]

God`s Omniscience doesn`t excuse people`s accountability for their words and their deeds.

Accountable for what? A sinful nature that they were born into without their volitional consent? As Calvinists maintain? You said you hold to Calvinistic depravity.

 

[RickReads]

Show me where I relied exclusively on an appeal to authority.

But it is significant when the PROPONENTS of a view admit the CONS of that view. That's a heck of a lot more weighty than a mere appeal to authority.

Anybody know what this means? I`m whacko to understand.

 

[RickReads]

Accountable for what? A sinful nature that they were born into without their volitional consent? As Calvinists maintain? You said you hold to Calvinistic depravity.

I don`t think Calvinism is your issue. You have issues with God over Adam`s mistake.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Then you are in denial about the incomprehensibility. For now I'll stick with this evaluation, "No sane study of Christology even pretends to fathom it" (Charles Lee Feinberg, "The Hypostatic Union: Part 2," Bibliotheca Sacra, (1935), p. 412).

He's not saying that the majority of theologians are insane. He's saying that they admit it to be incomprehensible. And he's calling you insane for claiming otherwise.

(1) I think he's a better expert on the topic than you are.
(2) My own analysis of the topic reached the same conclusion.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But let me say this, in all OTHER fields of knowledge, the concept of 2 natures - even as a hypothetical, not as something possible - is immediately dismissed as a contradiction terms.

And Creation ex nihilo is impossible according to human wisdom and reasoning as is God is One yet Three and the 2 natures in Christ. From a human perspective in the flesh its contradictory but not by Gods wisdom and by His Spirit its not. The same is true with God dwelling in man, that as individuals we are the Temple of God. The bible is full of such things the human mind on its own rejects.

hope this helps !!!

 

[JAL]

Anybody know what this means? I`m whacko to understand.

In a published, peer-reviewed theological journal - the oldest evangelical journal in the USA - a theologian admitted that the hypostatic union - his own position - is incomprehensible. And others like have made the same admission.

You won't find that problem in any of my views, by the way. Regeneration? Cinch to explain. Sanctification? Cinch. Virgin birth? Cinch. Incarnation? Cinch. Original Sin? Cinch.

 

[JAL]

I don`t think Calvinism is your issue. You have issues with God over Adam`s mistake.

No, I have issues with the Reformed God who would hold many accountable for one man's mistake. That is pure evil.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Show me where I relied exclusively on an appeal to authority.

But it is significant when the PROPONENTS of a view admit the CONS of that view. That's a heck of a lot more weighty than a mere appeal to authority.

You did with appealing to Theologians and quoting them. I'm with Paul in 1 Corinthians 2. He concludes with this: but we have the mind of Christ.

No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written:

“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—

10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”

But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[JAL]

You did with appealing to Theologians and quoting them. I'm with Paul in 1 Corinthians 2. He concludes with this: but we have the mind of Christ.

No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written:

“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—

10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”

But we have the mind of Christ.

Please don't tell lies. I do not rely exclusively on appeals to authority.