→ d86506: 所以呢 神学很棒就属灵吗？ 11/18 20:00 → d86506: 我管反不反神学吗？不要抓到稻草人就狂打，只觉得好笑。 11/18 20:03 *[1;31m→ *[33md86506*[m*[33m: 是弟兄姊妹你也可以用你的言语攻击。你神学懂再多 ， *[1;31m→ *[33md86506*[m*[33m: 间的信息再认识，都小过一个初信的基督徒 。 看见这种【不懂装大师】的，真的很吐血！ D86啊！ 「我们把所有的启示、解释，合在一起，分析清楚，来断定一个真理，这就是神学。正规 的神学，就是要看见圣经里的真理。这个可以叫作教义的神学。我们这样去读，就能对圣 经的真理有清楚的认识。」 讲这段话的人，对神学做出了一个积极正面的评价，并且主张我们可以去读【教义的神学 】。不知道，您认为讲这段话的人【属灵】吗？ 别担心，我跟你的人格不一样。在您用对待我的【同样标准】回答完後，我会提供讲这段 话的人的相应资料。 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 180.217.129.63 (台湾) ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/Christianity/M.1574080858.A.E06.html 怎麽，你讲的话，不敢负责哦！属灵人=不敢为自己的话负责+双重标准？ 不好意思，这种态度不是地方召会的家风！ ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.129.63 台湾), 11/18/2019 20:44:32 有种？回答啊！ 我可以告诉你，这是个预备【活埋你的大坑】。别怪我，要怪？怪你自己不学无术，不动大脑，在加上品格有问题！ 建议回去好好读读【性格30点】——不会【又】不知道这本书吧？！ ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.129.63 台湾), 11/18/2019 20:45:56 又开始【转移话题】了！现在跟你谈神学属不属灵？——这是你批判我点。【扯】别的干嘛。 人格哦！ 算了，不罗嗦了！ 上面那段话摘录自：倪柝声，倪柝声文集第三辑第八册——读经之路、人的破碎与灵的出来（台湾福音书房： 台北 1992年12月台湾初版），180页。 所以，根据这位香港废青的标准，中国基督教的属灵人——倪柝声是不属灵的，而且比她还小！ 阿门！ 哈哈！ ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.129.63 台湾), 11/18/2019 20:50:18 哈！【双重标准】。 不过，事实摆在这里：我比你了解倪=我比你了解地方召会=我对香港声明的理解肯定比你正确。 好奇问：您初中毕业了没？！怎麽看起来，您的逻辑#！￥！￥￥#%#……￥%% ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.129.63 台湾), 11/18/2019 20:53:09 哈！你真的很【天真】诶！ 随便举个例子吧！ 【素质三一】-【经论三一】听过吧？！ 逻辑不好，搞不出来的。不然CRI怎麽会承认【我们错了！】CRI是美国基督教最重要的护教机构，就是搞神学的。像您这种逻辑不好的，搞不了神学。所以，CRI的逻辑肯定很好。那麽，如果CRI都承认我们比他们正统，难到那不就证明我们的逻辑比CRI厉害？！ 这麽简单的逻辑都不懂哦？！ ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.129.63 台湾), 11/18/2019 20:56:03 交给您吧！初生之犊～～～我要回去干活了。:) ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.129.63 台湾), 11/18/2019 20:56:49 最後告诉你一个秘密：地方召会是有【系统神学】的！那套系统神学叫做【新约总论】！ 不知道？！去沙田园区吧！ ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.129.63 台湾), 11/18/2019 20:58:40 补充：我很有自知之明，承认自己大肉一块，不属灵。 在同时TF是TJC认证的『属灵人』，大大的属灵，属灵的大大，属灵到让人不得不承认他属灵。 希望这样的公开声明，能让TF『飞』起来！:P ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.132.62 台湾), 11/19/2019 18:21:55 我认为，我还蛮懂神学的。:) 哈啊！ 不过，事实证明，我确实『比你』懂神学。。。。。呀！耶！ 确实！：） ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.132.62 台湾), 11/19/2019 20:28:12 ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.132.62 台湾), 11/19/2019 20:28:42 中午吃八方云集。一份韩锅贴，1-粒；一份红油炒手，8粒；一碗玉米浓汤。好好吃哦！ ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.132.62 台湾), 11/20/2019 12:15:41 阿门！所以，你的话证明我们的层次是完全不一样的！ ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.132.62 台湾), 11/20/2019 12:58:03 嘴炮没完啊！ ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.132.62 台湾), 11/20/2019 13:07:53 还在嘴哦！ ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.132.62 台湾), 11/20/2019 13:10:11 看懂下段讲什麽吗？ 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！这就是『胡说八道』和『嘴炮』的不同！ ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.132.62 台湾), 11/20/2019 13:11:38 『反智』+『反神学』。。。。哈哈～ ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.132.62 台湾), 11/20/2019 13:20:09 哦！ ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.132.62 台湾), 11/20/2019 13:37:50 啊！ ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.132.62 台湾), 11/20/2019 14:01:50 哇哇哇！你没政治立场哦！别踩红线。 ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.132.62 台湾), 11/20/2019 17:43:48 异端就是脑子不清楚，把神学搞错了。跟与神的关系再好，也是三镇出局。 ※ 编辑: df31 (180.217.138.137 台湾), 11/21/2019 12:40:04