[討論] 懂神學不屬靈?
→ d86506: 所以呢 神學很棒就屬靈嗎? 11/18
20:00
→ d86506: 我管反不反神學嗎?不要抓到稻草人就狂打,只覺得好笑。 11/18
20:03
*[1;31m→ *[33md86506*[m*[33m: 是弟兄姊妹你也可以用你的言語攻擊。你神學懂再多
,
*[1;31m→ *[33md86506*[m*[33m: 間的信息再認識,都小過一個初信的基督徒
。
看見這種【不懂裝大師】的,真的很吐血!
D86啊!
「我們把所有的啟示、解釋,合在一起,分析清楚,來斷定一個真理,這就是神學。正規
的神學,就是要看見聖經裏的真理。這個可以叫作教義的神學。我們這樣去讀,就能對聖
經的真理有清楚的認識。」
講這段話的人,對神學做出了一個積極正面的評價,並且主張我們可以去讀【教義的神學
】。不知道,您認為講這段話的人【屬靈】嗎?
別擔心,我跟你的人格不一樣。在您用對待我的【同樣標準】回答完後,我會提供講這段
話的人的相應資料。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 180.217.129.63 (臺灣)
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Christianity/M.1574080858.A.E06.html
推
11/18 20:43,
4年前
, 1F
11/18 20:43, 1F
怎麼,你講的話,不敢負責哦!屬靈人=不敢為自己的話負責+雙重標準?
不好意思,這種態度不是地方召會的家風!
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.129.63 臺灣), 11/18/2019 20:44:32
有種?回答啊!
我可以告訴你,這是個預備【活埋你的大坑】。別怪我,要怪?怪你自己不學無術,不動大腦,在加上品格有問題!
建議回去好好讀讀【性格30點】——不會【又】不知道這本書吧?!
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.129.63 臺灣), 11/18/2019 20:45:56
→
11/18 20:45,
4年前
, 2F
11/18 20:45, 2F
→
11/18 20:47,
4年前
, 3F
11/18 20:47, 3F
→
11/18 20:47,
4年前
, 4F
11/18 20:47, 4F
→
11/18 20:47,
4年前
, 5F
11/18 20:47, 5F
又開始【轉移話題】了!現在跟你談神學屬不屬靈?——這是你批判我點。【扯】別的幹嘛。
人格哦!
算了,不羅嗦了!
上面那段話摘錄自:倪柝聲,倪柝聲文集第三輯第八冊——讀經之路、人的破碎與靈的出來(臺灣福音書房:
臺北 1992年12月臺灣初版),180頁。
所以,根據這位香港廢青的標準,中國基督教的屬靈人——倪柝聲是不屬靈的,而且比她還小!
阿門!
哈哈!
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.129.63 臺灣), 11/18/2019 20:50:18
→
11/18 20:51,
4年前
, 6F
11/18 20:51, 6F
→
11/18 20:51,
4年前
, 7F
11/18 20:51, 7F
哈!【雙重標準】。
不過,事實擺在這裡:我比你了解倪=我比你了解地方召會=我對香港聲明的理解肯定比你正確。
好奇問:您初中畢業了沒?!怎麼看起來,您的邏輯#!¥!¥¥#%#……¥%%
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.129.63 臺灣), 11/18/2019 20:53:09
推
11/18 20:53,
4年前
, 8F
11/18 20:53, 8F
哈!你真的很【天真】誒!
隨便舉個例子吧!
【素質三一】-【經論三一】聽過吧?!
邏輯不好,搞不出來的。不然CRI怎麼會承認【我們錯了!】CRI是美國基督教最重要的護教機構,就是搞神學的。像您這種邏輯不好的,搞不了神學。所以,CRI的邏輯肯定很好。那麼,如果CRI都承認我們比他們正統,難到那不就證明我們的邏輯比CRI厲害?!
這麼簡單的邏輯都不懂哦?!
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.129.63 臺灣), 11/18/2019 20:56:03
→
11/18 20:54,
4年前
, 9F
11/18 20:54, 9F
交給您吧!初生之犢~~~我要回去幹活了。:)
→
11/18 20:54,
4年前
, 10F
11/18 20:54, 10F
→
11/18 20:55,
4年前
, 11F
11/18 20:55, 11F
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.129.63 臺灣), 11/18/2019 20:56:49
最後告訴你一個秘密:地方召會是有【系統神學】的!那套系統神學叫做【新約總論】!
不知道?!去沙田園區吧!
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.129.63 臺灣), 11/18/2019 20:58:40
推
11/18 20:59,
4年前
, 12F
11/18 20:59, 12F
→
11/18 21:46,
4年前
, 13F
11/18 21:46, 13F
→
11/19 12:58,
4年前
, 14F
11/19 12:58, 14F
→
11/19 13:18,
4年前
, 15F
11/19 13:18, 15F
→
11/19 13:18,
4年前
, 16F
11/19 13:18, 16F
→
11/19 13:20,
4年前
, 17F
11/19 13:20, 17F
→
11/19 13:21,
4年前
, 18F
11/19 13:21, 18F
→
11/19 13:24,
4年前
, 19F
11/19 13:24, 19F
→
11/19 13:24,
4年前
, 20F
11/19 13:24, 20F
→
11/19 13:27,
4年前
, 21F
11/19 13:27, 21F
→
11/19 13:30,
4年前
, 22F
11/19 13:30, 22F
補充:我很有自知之明,承認自己大肉一塊,不屬靈。
在同時TF是TJC認證的『屬靈人』,大大的屬靈,屬靈的大大,屬靈到讓人不得不承認他屬靈。
希望這樣的公開聲明,能讓TF『飛』起來!:P
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/19/2019 18:21:55
→
11/19 20:09,
4年前
, 23F
11/19 20:09, 23F
→
11/19 20:09,
4年前
, 24F
11/19 20:09, 24F
我認為,我還蠻懂神學的。:) 哈啊!
不過,事實證明,我確實『比你』懂神學。。。。。呀!耶!
→
11/19 20:17,
4年前
, 25F
11/19 20:17, 25F
確實!:)
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/19/2019 20:28:12
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/19/2019 20:28:42
→
11/20 09:37,
4年前
, 26F
11/20 09:37, 26F
→
11/20 11:21,
4年前
, 27F
11/20 11:21, 27F
推
11/20 11:42,
4年前
, 28F
11/20 11:42, 28F
中午吃八方雲集。一份韓鍋貼,1-粒;一份紅油炒手,8粒;一碗玉米濃湯。好好吃哦!
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 12:15:41
推
11/20 12:41,
4年前
, 29F
11/20 12:41, 29F
→
11/20 12:42,
4年前
, 30F
11/20 12:42, 30F
阿門!所以,你的話證明我們的層次是完全不一樣的!
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 12:58:03
推
11/20 13:03,
4年前
, 31F
11/20 13:03, 31F
嘴炮沒完啊!
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 13:07:53
推
11/20 13:09,
4年前
, 32F
11/20 13:09, 32F
還在嘴哦!
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 13:10:11
看懂下段講什麼嗎?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4016.htm
Article 7. Whether this is true: "Man was made God"?
Objection 1. It would seem that this is true: "Man was made God." For it is
written (Romans 1:2-3): "Which He had promised before by His prophets in the
holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Who was made to Him of the seed of David
according to the flesh." Now Christ, as man, is of the seed of David
according to the flesh. Therefore man was made the Son of God.
Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Trin. i, 13) that "such was this
assumption, which made God man, and man God." But by reason of this
assumption this is true: "God was made man." Therefore, in like manner, this
is true: "Man was made God."
Objection 3. Further, Gregory Nazianzen says (Ep. ad Chelid. ci): "God was
humanized and man was deified, or whatever else one may like to call it." Now
God is said to be humanized by being made man. Therefore with equal reason
man is said to be deified by being made God; and thus it is true that "Man
was made God."
Objection 4. Further, when it is said that "God was made man," the subject of
the making or uniting is not God, but human nature, which the word "man"
signifies. Now that seems to be the subject of the making, to which the
making is attributed. Hence "Man was made God" is truer than "God was made
man."
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 2): "We do not say that
man was deified, but that God was humanized." Now to be made God is the same
as to be deified. Hence this is false: "Man was made God."
I answer that, This proposition, Man was made God, may be understood in three
ways. First, so that the participle "made" absolutely determines either the
subject or the predicate; and in this sense it is false, since neither the
Man of Whom it is predicated was made, nor is God made, as will be said
(Articles 8 and 9). And in the same sense this is false: "God was made man."
But it is not of this sense that we are now speaking. Secondly, it may be so
understood that the word "made" determines the composition, with this
meaning: "Man was made God, i.e. it was brought about that Man is God." And
in this sense both are true, viz. that "Man was made God" and that "God was
made Man." But this is not the proper sense of these phrases; unless, indeed,
we are to understand that "man" has not a personal but a simple supposition.
For although "this man" was not made God, because this suppositum, viz. the
Person of the Son of God, was eternally God, yet man, speaking commonly, was
not always God. Thirdly, properly understood, this participle "made" attaches
making to man with relation to God, as the term of the making. And in this
sense, granted that the Person or hypostasis in Christ are the same as the
suppositum of God and Man, as was shown (III:2:3), this proposition is false,
because, when it is said, "Man was made God," "man" has a personal
suppositum: because, to be God is not verified of the Man in His human
nature, but in His suppositum. Now the suppositum of human nature, of Whom
"to be God" is verified, is the same as the hypostasis or Person of the Son
of God, Who was always God. Hence it cannot be said that this Man began to be
God, or is made God, or that He was made God.
But if there were a different hypostasis of God and man, so that "to be God"
was predicated of the man, and, conversely, by reason of a certain
conjunction of supposita, or of personal dignity, or of affection or
indwelling, as the Nestorians said, then with equal reason might it be said
that Man was made God, i.e. joined to God, and that God was made Man, i.e.
joined to man.
Reply to Objection 1. In these words of the Apostle the relative "Who" which
refers to the Person of the Son of God ought not to be considered as
affecting the predicate, as if someone already existing of the "seed of David
according to the flesh" was made the Son of God—and it is in this sense that
the objection takes it. But it ought to be taken as affecting the subject,
with this meaning—that the "Son of God was made to Him ('namely to the honor
of the Father,' as a gloss expounds it), being of the seed of David according
to the flesh," as if to say "the Son of God having flesh of the seed of David
to the honor of God."
Reply to Objection 2. This saying of Augustine is to be taken in the sense
that by the assumption that took place in Incarnation it was brought about
that Man is God and God is Man; and in this sense both sayings are true as
stated above.
The same is to be said in reply to the third, since to be deified is the same
as to be made God.
Reply to Objection 4. A term placed in the subject is taken materially, i.e.
for the suppositum; placed in the predicate it is taken formally, i.e. for
the nature signified. Hence when it is said that "Man was made God," the
being made is not attributed to the human nature but to the suppositum of the
human nature, Which is God from eternity, and hence it does not befit Him to
be made God. But when it is said that "God was made Man," the making is taken
to be terminated in the human nature. Hence, properly speaking, this is true:
"God was made Man," and this is false: "Man was made God"; even as if
Socrates, who was already a man, were made white, and were pointed out, this
would be true: "This man was made white today," and this would be false;
"This white thing was made man today." Nevertheless, if on the part of the
subject there is added some word signifying human nature in the abstract, it
might be taken in this way for the subject of the making, e.g. if it were
said that "human nature was made the Son of God's."
『肯定』看不懂!這就是『胡說八道』和『嘴炮』的不同!
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 13:11:38
推
11/20 13:14,
4年前
, 33F
11/20 13:14, 33F
→
11/20 13:16,
4年前
, 34F
11/20 13:16, 34F
『反智』+『反神學』。。。。哈哈~
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 13:20:09
推
11/20 13:22,
4年前
, 35F
11/20 13:22, 35F
哦!
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 13:37:50
推
11/20 14:01,
4年前
, 36F
11/20 14:01, 36F
啊!
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 14:01:50
推
11/20 15:50,
4年前
, 37F
11/20 15:50, 37F
→
11/20 15:50,
4年前
, 38F
11/20 15:50, 38F
推
11/20 15:53,
4年前
, 39F
11/20 15:53, 39F
→
11/20 15:53,
4年前
, 40F
11/20 15:53, 40F
→
11/20 15:53,
4年前
, 41F
11/20 15:53, 41F
推
11/20 15:56,
4年前
, 42F
11/20 15:56, 42F
→
11/20 15:56,
4年前
, 43F
11/20 15:56, 43F
→
11/20 15:57,
4年前
, 44F
11/20 15:57, 44F
→
11/20 15:58,
4年前
, 45F
11/20 15:58, 45F
→
11/20 15:58,
4年前
, 46F
11/20 15:58, 46F
→
11/20 15:59,
4年前
, 47F
11/20 15:59, 47F
推
11/20 16:00,
4年前
, 48F
11/20 16:00, 48F
→
11/20 16:02,
4年前
, 49F
11/20 16:02, 49F
→
11/20 16:02,
4年前
, 50F
11/20 16:02, 50F
→
11/20 16:02,
4年前
, 51F
11/20 16:02, 51F
推
11/20 16:06,
4年前
, 52F
11/20 16:06, 52F
→
11/20 16:29,
4年前
, 53F
11/20 16:29, 53F
推
11/20 16:32,
4年前
, 54F
11/20 16:32, 54F
→
11/20 16:32,
4年前
, 55F
11/20 16:32, 55F
→
11/20 16:33,
4年前
, 56F
11/20 16:33, 56F
哇哇哇!你沒政治立場哦!別踩紅線。
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.132.62 臺灣), 11/20/2019 17:43:48
→
11/20 23:24,
4年前
, 57F
11/20 23:24, 57F
異端就是腦子不清楚,把神學搞錯了。跟與神的關係再好,也是三鎮出局。
推
11/21 04:14,
4年前
, 58F
11/21 04:14, 58F
→
11/21 04:16,
4年前
, 59F
11/21 04:16, 59F
※ 編輯: df31 (180.217.138.137 臺灣), 11/21/2019 12:40:04
討論串 (同標題文章)