This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - CONSPICILLUM
1
« on: January 05, 2022, 04:23:46 PM »
I’ll take Nietzsche over many in the landscape of the modern western “church”, and that’s sad (though obviously an exaggeration). Why do you hate Philology? It’s the foundation for everything you’ve ever thought, said, read, or written. I don’t think you understand what Philology is if you have disdain for the discipline.
Nope, no Feser yet. I should read him tonight before it slips to a lesser priority by my forgetfulness.
I was referring to your repeated mention of hamartia being an anarthrous noun, suggesting that this is driving you mad - like another, famous philologist who was driven made (not really, but that's not the point) by his own work. I think philology is fascinating (the attitude you've brought with you, not so much), but weren't you flying the coop? You're free to change your mind if you play nice, but if you're going to say that you're going, then stick to your guns and go.
I was just closing out existing convos that contained questions. I’m out.
2
« on: January 04, 2022, 07:47:13 PM »
And you are blind groping a man made philosophy cum science that satisfies your sense of correctness in the world. We all do the same
Any of us relying on our ability to figure it out is no different that the blind guys and the elephant
That was the entire point of the original 18th(?) / 19th century poem about the 5 guys (Hindustan, not Burgers)
All of us “see through a glass darkly”.
All of us believe (that’s a verb) and act (rats, another verb) according to the knowledge (non arthritic noun) and wisdom that God grants to us. There is nothing wrong with the study of philology but that study is neither the beginning nor ending of wisdom. Our ability to read, study, analyze, research etc is at the end of the day an exercise of our biochemical computation quasi hardware positronic mush brain that operates a software that no one understands, but which miraculously God is able to use and to them mysteriously communicate with our non meatsuit part.
No one here hates philology but then none of us here love gnostic special revelations either
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
The whole point of Philology-based understanding is to make sure none of the knowledge and iunderstanding is gnostic special revelation. It’s everything else that’s semi-gnostic, though that likely won’t process for you. How would you say that dealing exclusively with lexicography is “gnostic special revelation”? That’s the real issue. Everything I’ve said (minus whatever hows and whys you don’t like from me personally) is explicitly the Word as given by infallible and inerrant inspiration. Turning nouns into verbs for theological concepts is problematic even if you can’t or won’t see it (I thought you did. Evidently not.). It takes no gnostic special revelation to spend years comprehending grammar and lexicography while putting aside one’s own interjected opinions that are contrary. What’s gnostic is individual interpretation. Special revelation is one sect of Evangelicalism’s sacred moo-moos over other sects’ sacred moo-moos. Calvinists and Arminians at each others’ throats over fallacious Ordo Salutis arguments and an atonement false dichotomy. There’s your semi-gnosticism. There’s no special revelation in actually knowing what a language and its words actually mean and say. English doesn’t do it as well as the original Biblical languages, and it takes a bit of work to find out why there are difficulties. Most simply don’t want to know and they want to read their NIVs on a middle school level while insisting anything more or else is “gnostic special revelation”. And if you think a cigar is “just” a cigar, then I have some acquaintances (I don’t imbibe personally) who would like to school you on fat tobacco sticks. A cigar is never just a cigar. 
3
« on: January 04, 2022, 06:55:14 PM »
Every one of the blind men and the elephant were blind
Why do you presume Christians are blind when they’re given oida/eido knowledge/sight? I’ve never really seen the parallel to the 3 guys and the elephant. We don’t use our physical senses to know God. That was the fruit in the garden, you know. It was the tree of the knowledge (via physical senses) of good AND evil. They already knew good. I don’t see any scripture or Holy Spirit activity paralleled with the 3 blind dudes. They were just groping a giant mammal. LOL.
4
« on: January 04, 2022, 06:51:32 PM »
On the contrary, that is exactly what C. seems to be arguing, that hamartia must mean what a-meros suggests, namely a "privation." What that "privation" is said to be is unclear to me.
You're not clear on what's being argued.
No one is arguing that hamartia "must mean what ... its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history". This is to suggest that hamartia is being defined differently today than it was in the past and that someone is arguing that hamartia actually ought to mean what it meant in the past. Again, theologically, the language doesn't change. We want to know what hamartia meant to the first-century writer who used it.
I agree with what you're saying up to this point. Hamartia is the word as it's intended to be understood. As I said, the construction of the word has little to do with it.
The argument, rather, is to take ἁμαρτία and its various definitions:
- to be without a share in;
- to miss the mark;
- to err, be mistaken;
- to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
And ask what lies at the foundation: what is it about ἁμαρτία that causes someone to be without a share, or to miss the mark, to err, to be mistaken, etc. What relevance is ἁμαρτία to the hero's tragic flaw? It's not just heroes that have tragic flaws.
Yes, and this is my point. Sin means disobedience to God's word, and so, any "helpful" definitions of hamartia, such as "missing the mark," can only make sense in the context of disobedience to God's word.
My point is that "missing the mark" alone has nothing to do with defining what hamartia means. It only *helps* us to understand some sense of what disobedience is. Perhaps that is all you've been trying to say?
I don't believe we can say hamartia means, as a definition, "missing the mark." We can only say hamartia means disobedience to God's word.
If we thought that hamartia was purely "missing the mark," someone may start to think sin is only about perfection, which is only part of the idea. We fall short of God's glory, but we still have the obligation to obey God's word, whether we're perfect or not. Sin has to do with not obeying God's voice in our conscience, despite the fact we're imperfect. (Discussion of the meaning of "perfection" is another subject altogether!)
Pointing out that the word is negative in construction with respect to μηρός (meros) is part of that investigation. This is hardly controversial. There's no disagreement with the definition of the word because the constituent parts lead us to exactly the definitions above (ἁ-μηρός: without a part, without a share, without a portion...). But those are just definitions. The question concerns the reality this word describes? It's negative, for one. If it's a privation, maybe it's the privation of the part or share of something (like the beatific vision)?
Again, that's defining a word based on its construction, and not on how the word is used. I mean, sin is partly used as a privation, as being somewhat separate from God's glory, and it is spoken of as the lack of perfection, such as "missing the mark." But I don't wish to define words based on their construction, because it can be misleading, or perhaps limit the scope of the word to just one aspect of its meaning. That's why I avoid using the word "privation."
The struggle is realising that ancient Greek isn't modern English, with our neat couple of word definitions. There's more to the idea of hamartia than what the literal definition conveys, and that's what we're getting at.
Well, I'm not proficient in Greek by any means. My brother is who I go to, because not only does he study Greek but he knows a genuine Greek scholar or two. I hesitate to ask him now because he has a serious case of glaucoma.
My brother doesn't blink an eye if he disagrees with me. We've had many disagreements. But I respect his opinions and the way he argues them. He's a text person. He may even agree with you that hamartia is a "privation." 
My understanding is that hamartia is being defined as above and that these definitions then entail privation. We're not immediately defining hamartia as a privation; that is, defining the word.
Okay, I guess...
The word "hamatia" means what it means, as the author intends it to be understood, and how the word was constructed originally is of much less consequence.
This doesn't make sense.
The word, as constructed, means something like "not having a place," such as being deprived of Eden. But the word itself is defined as "disobedience to God's word."
The literal meaning of the word "as constructed" does not give the meaning of the word "as used." It may explain the origin of the word, ie the circumstances by which the word was appropriated. But in reality it has nothing to do with a "place" or "not having a place."
It is roughly the equivalent, I think, of turning a regular noun into a proper noun. Or, it might be like using a common word and turning the word to a primary use in a specific technical definition. Sin may have started out as meaning a generic mistake or accident. But at some point it may have acquired a more technical definition as "disobeying God's word."
I'm not defining 'missing the mark' as 'privation', as if I'm defining hamartia, and then its definition a second time. I'm suggesting that the definition entails a privation upon examination, i.e., to stop at 'missing the mark' doesn't convey the full sense of the word.
Yes, "missing the mark" may convey less than what the word was designed to convey. To define the word as "missing the mark" therefore is an aid to understanding how the word was devised, but does not add to the definition of the word.
It may, however, help us understand how the word came about and thus contribute to the general context in which the word "sin" is used. It has to do with disobeying God, having lost our place in Paradise.
Of course, the word 'hamartia' means what it means. But what is this, "it could be true, but it isn't necessarily true"? It could be true that hamartia entails a privation but not necessarily? Why?
Hamartia indicates disobedience to God's word, and as such, could be the cause of depriving us of God's blessings, just as the original sin caused Adam and Eve to lose their place in Paradise. So yes, privation could be part of the definition, although using that as a definition for hamartia could be misleading.
It is not strictly "missing the mark," or falling short in an archery contest. But referring to it as such does help us understand that disobeying God's word is a matter of falling below God's standard of perfection.
But sin obviously is more than just falling below the standard of perfection. God certainly doesn't expect sinless perfection. He only expects us to obey His word.
Well, a-meros is negative, and that negative entails a privation by the very example you used: to not be a part of something. That has everything to do with how the word was used in antiquity. What if that 'not a part' is 'not a part of God's presence'? Why would someone who sins not be a part of God's presence? We again have a privation.
I'm not sure the word was even used as such in antiquity. Again, that is just the construction of the word. I could use a word constructed to indicate one thing and then design and use the word with a completely different more technical meaning.
For all I know, sin was used in antiquity for any flub up, whether falling down, or accidentally killing someone. It may have had little to do with God at all. But the point is, it came to have a technical definition not corresponding exactly to this idea of mistakes and accidents.
It came to mean, definitively, disobedience to God's word. We just don't know how the word developed, but we do know how the word is used biblically. It's obtained a technical definition that the Bible uses consistently for failing to adhere to God's voice in our conscience.
That's probably what has made discussion of Sin as a "contagion" difficult. It doesn't operate strictly likely physical contagions. Therefore, I refer to it as a "spiritual contagion." It is not passed on through physical DNA. Rather, it is passed down through the generations by *spiritual means.* It's above my pay grade to explain how that happens. And I suspect most scientists would have a problem with it as well?
So why not just call it a 'spiritual inheritance'?
I do call it that. Contagion helps me to understand that we're not just dirty villains--we're also victims.
I appreciate the gracious spirit you've exhibited in this disagreement/misunderstanding. Thanks for entertaining a different perspective. That's what it's all about.
Before I fly the coop here, I have a simple question (for you AND others, I suppose). Why do you consider entertaining different perspectives to be “what it’s all about”? Why would gathering a diversity of distinct subjective opinions be any kind of priority? It seriously makes no sense to me, so this is a legit information question (lest you think it’s sarcasm). Why would anyone in any field want to entertain endless differing perspective on their field of study or expertise or other endeavor? It’s baffling to me. Though I’ve thoroughly studied other religions, I don’t want to hear any of their proponents speak on the topic. Why would I want to know someone’s opinion instead of facts and truth? That’s my write-in to the newspaper column for the week.
5
« on: January 04, 2022, 06:45:03 PM »
The very simple point missed is that hamartia is a noun. English speakers are clueless about anarthrous nouns because English doesn’t have them while ALL Greek nouns are anarthous (to which may be added the definite article). This means English speakers mentally and conceptually convert nouns into verbs by default. Faith becomes believING. Sin becomes sinnING. Repentance becomes repentING.
Things do. Nouns verb. All action comes from a “thing”. Without “things” (nouns) there would be no acting or resulting acts. Sin (the state of being and condition, which is a lack as privation) is what produces sinning and sins. That which is missing in us is why we can’t bring forth the righteousness of God into action. We can’t even validly try. It’s impossible. The source of all action within us has something missing. Our share in constant communion (spiritual life - zoe) is gone.
Our place in our first estate is gone. Our part in the cosmos as it was originally created is not present within us. We have fallen from those things. They’re missing. Resurrection life in Christ is what provides what is missing, though the full share, part, and place will only finally be restored after this physical life. We have the earnest of the inheritance until redemption of the purchased possession.
SinnING is not hamartia. Hamartia is that state of being and condition from which actING comes that is sinnING. Any resulting post-action act is hamartema. The argument among the masses is always because they presume hamartano and hamartema are hamartia.
Transgression of the law and rebellion against God are actING. They’re not the noun that is sin. They come FROM that noun, which is the source. That which is not of faith is sin. That’s a source statement in scripture about the nouns, not the verbs.
The arguments against this multi-faceted truth about hamartia are sin. Whatever ponderance that has led up to the denial of sin as a privation is… sin. Every false doctrinal concept is… sin.
Romans 10:17 is a prime example of anarthrous nouns not being understood. “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” Hearing is a NOUN. It’s the thing heard; the message, the report. And it’s ARTICULAR (just as faith is in this passage), meaning there’s only THE message/report that brings THE faith. The article is particularizing the vast meaning of each noun’s default semantic range. THIS faith comes out of/from (ek) THIS message, which comes by means of [the] Rhema (anarthrous, not articular) of God.
If there’s another qualitative rhema (other words from another source) and another message, then it will be another faith (confident persuasion). That’s why these guys argue so vehemently for error. They believe a message that is from linguistic error and it becomes a false device (noema - concept of the mind) of Satan. They’ll double down on whatever report/message they think they’ve heard with a zeal of God but not according to knowledge (epiginosko, not merely ginosko).
This affects everything theological. Turning nouns into verbs and having no clue what words mean is the modern realized recipe for schism and rampant error of individual interpretation and divergent doctrine. I’ve become fairly convinced that the English lack of anarthrous nouns will send more people to hell in unbelief and trusting their own works than any other primary source of faithlessnes. English privates faith because anarthrous nouns are missing. It’s maddening, and I watch it unfold with virtually everyone as they refuse to listen to truth because they think they’ve already reasoned it for themselves internally. Triple sigh.
Mann, Nietzsche was a philologist too and look what happened to him. It's no wonder!
Did you read Feser yet?
I’ll take Nietzsche over many in the landscape of the modern western “church”, and that’s sad (though obviously an exaggeration). Why do you hate Philology? It’s the foundation for everything you’ve ever thought, said, read, or written. I don’t think you understand what Philology is if you have disdain for the discipline. Nope, no Feser yet. I should read him tonight before it slips to a lesser priority by my forgetfulness.
6
« on: January 04, 2022, 06:39:31 PM »
Well, my close friend, Martha just delivered a baby girl who will no doubt live to sin, but until the time she is able to formulate that decision she is without sin and does not carry a stigma of guilt under the forbidding gaze of a dark and angry God who has already destined her to condemnation.
She is a creature of hope and if destined for death in infancy, that hope will continue, to the chagrin of a dark orthodoxy.
Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.
No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.
The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.
There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.
I love the sentiment here. The only thing I *might* disagree with is the idea that sin isn't imputed to the sinner when there is no consciousness of sin. There has to be a law with humanity simply because we all have a conscience. The introduction of a more explicit "law" is not required to have a conscience.
I think Paul was speaking of the fact people were not held accountable to the Law of Moses before it was even given. But they were still held accountable for their sin.
Obviously, if their being "accountable" means simply that they have the "disease," and they are mindless children, then they are held accountable only for being born in a "condition," and not responsible for committing any but the slightest of sins, if any at all.
I say that because the passage indicates people still die well before Israel obtained the Law of Moses. And we know all people die before they reach any supposed "age of accountability." They die from a "disease," and not from personal responsibility.
They still needed to be rescued by the atonement of Christ. Whether they are separated from paradise or not after death, due to their sin, is a matter of your view on predestination, I suppose.
If a child is the fruit of parents, or ancestors, who have settled on a spirit of rebellion, then the child likely would be an apple that falls close to the tree. The child would be born with the inclination to follow suit.
But having done no wrong, the child may enter into a place, upon death, outside of paradise, with perhaps zero "stripes." It's purely speculative to me, and had to give my two cents. I'm open on the issue of Predestination, although I call myself a "Calvinist." And I do have a reason for this.
So when does a child experience or express or interface with "conscience"
This answer would require a long lexical diatribe that you guys find distasteful and arrogant, or whatever (I’m not really sure). The one thing I’d say is that you’re looking for a child to accomplish a verb rather than understanding that everything is a noun. Thanks for your discourse. Don’t let Caesar gig you for too much, and watch out for those Dispies. 
7
« on: January 04, 2022, 06:36:12 PM »
When sarcasm is mixed with differences in doctrine, it most often comes out too harshly in a written format. I don’t always handle that balance well.
I think I agree with you. This is not really the place for me. I have plenty to labor over in my own responsibilities elsewhere. I just thought I’d jump back into a bit of forum interaction for a season to see how it would go. I don’t think it’s going to go much of anywhere for me or with others.
I’ll have to say I’m a little surprised this came so soon and over this particular expression, but it is what it is. You guys enjoy your time here. I need to be some place more orthodox.
No, well, treating theological discourse as if it were maths, and your interlocutors as if they're part of the theologically illiterate masses isn't the best strategy (even if it were true). The academy is great but there's something to be said for knowing how to relate to others. Regardless, your frustration was palpable.
We just aren't impressed by big words that ruin the prose.
Yeah, I’m probably not going to be able to get out of teaching mode and deal with such diversity of doctrines. I’ve figured that out. Sorry for that.
8
« on: January 04, 2022, 06:29:42 PM »
Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.
No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.
The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.
There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.
Do you think Vigilius Haufniensis had a comfortable conspicullum from which he watched over the inhabitants of Copenhagen? I wonder.
It seems to me that IMINXTC is saying the following:
- Children are not guilty of sin until they have sinned
- Sin is not hereditary, unlike the fallen world (maybe our good friend Vigiulius would like to talk about qualitative leaps?)
- A God who holds babies to account for the sin they have not committed is unjust
Clearly, IMINXTC is not Augustinian in his view of original sin. Neither am I. But, is IMINXTC corrupting Christian doctrine so that he can 'virtue signal'? Really?. It almost doesn't deserve a response. He clearly is not (on either count), and the suggestion is uncalled for. It's not conducive to conversation. It is hardly academic. Do you get the sense that I'm implying something along the lines of jackassery?
If you want to stick around you're going to have to be nice, and deal with the fact that not everyone here devoutly studies Patristics. They haven't dedicated their lives to expressing what poor Maximus didn't quite get to saying before he decided that talking was like, so passé. There is going to be plenty of disagreement, and we're happy to entertain those who wish to discuss. Those who wish to teach, and then get all Mark Driscoll about it, aren't welcome.
We're happy to have you if you're happy to have us, but you'll have to be nice and cut the attitude. Any more comments like the above and you'll be invited to enlighten the needy elsewhere. In fact, I have a JW forum or two I could direct you towards if you really want to battle corruption.
When sarcasm is mixed with differences in doctrine, it most often comes out too harshly in a written format. I don’t always handle that balance well.
I think I agree with you. This is not really the place for me. I have plenty to labor over in my own responsibilities elsewhere. I just thought I’d jump back into a bit of forum interaction for a season to see how it would go. I don’t think it’s going to go much of anywhere for me or with others.
I’ll have to say I’m a little surprised this came so soon and over this particular expression, but it is what it is. You guys enjoy your time here. I need to be some place more orthodox.
Brother, for what it's worth, I appreciate and have been reading your comments. The *only* problem I have is that you make little effort to be kind with those who may not be as smart as you. If you drive away all those who are inquiring or need to learn, simply because they're not as smart as you, what have you accomplished? James would speak to that when he said don't put the poor man at your feet.
But if you truly do belong at a higher echelon, then by all means go there. It may be where you're dying to be. I know that although I've presided over children's Bible Studies, I much prefer grownups.
And if I don't think we're going anywhere, I do get bored. So yes, don't go out angry--just follow your best inclinations.
Just realize that IQ is not equal to spirituality. I presume you already know this, but I want you to know I do wish to have some educated comments. Other forums don't always have this.
I strongly disagree with your sense that all who do not follow your favored orthodox formulations are not orthodox. If those who came up with the orthodox formulas were treated the same way, none of them would've ever been able to come up with an acceptable formula.
And quite frankly, those who did work hard on coming up with a consistent language were often controversial, as I understand it. So visiting the language in a fresh way, without trying to overturn the orthodox formula, is to be invited, in my view--not ridiculed and bashed as "unorthodox."
Saying this does not mean I wish you to leave! Your choice. I think all forums that are moderated will proscribe rude behavior. I was on a semi-Christian, semi-Jewish unmoderated forum for 10 years--I can handle the heat. But this is a specifically *Christian* forum that is moderated.
Well… I don’t think you’re honestly seeking or inquiring. The appearance to me is that you’re just externalizing all your own meanderings of thought and expression. That’s simply not how theology is “done” and it leads quickly and unerringly to prelest (a term it would be edifying for anyone to know if you’d care to look it up). As for my presence here, I simply prefer a more orthodox setting and venue. I didn’t know BF would be this varied in doctrinal diversity. I’m recognizing my limitations. I don’t have a good sense of when my biting sarcasm combines with my high-context writing to become personal and offensive or inappropriate. I’m in a personal circle where I don’t have to worry about it and I’m understood and respected by those around me. On a forum, everyone’s just an conglomeration of everyone else’s perceptions. I don’t ever mean things as personally as they’re expressed. But that’s the nature of written communication and it’s exaggerated by many factors coming and going. I don’t see anything for me to be here for. Everyone already has their own views and that’s how this forum (and many others) function. I prefer a teaching setting because that’s what I do. Entertaining all personal interpretations is just not my gig. I thought I might find a return to forum activity a good thing. It’s simply not for me; or at least not now. In the end, I’m not very compatible with a Christian outlook that is devoid of understanding the English language’s limitations and having a basic comprehension of Greek anarthrous nouns and why that’s so crucial. Sorry this was so windy, but having unblocked you to read your farewell post I though it decent to respond. Enjoy the PNW. I’m headed for Florida later this year. No more winters for me.
9
« on: January 04, 2022, 06:10:47 PM »
Faith cometh by hearing (the noun) and hearing by the Rhema of God. If it’s another rhema and another message, then it isn’t THE faith (once delivered to the saints).
Wrong belief is another faith from another gospel, and there is not another.
There may be a few more people enduring everlasting hellfire than most are willing to concede.
The problem isn’t a lack of faith, it’s faith in the wrong rhema.
That which is not of faith is sin. Most people bring forth most of their action from the source of sin, not faith. It’s an epidemic within the church.
That's all very academic but what is the existential reality for the individual (or person, perhaps, if you also think people are tasked with becoming individuals)? Are you suggesting that God speaks to all people such that they might enter into a relationship with Him, holding to the tenets of orthodoxy? Or reject Him in favour of their own rhema? Of the demonic? Or that it's messier? Does hamartia preclude a life of faith where the Rhema of God has not yet been heard?
Reminds me of that song:
As regards (alleged) faith… what about the “existential reality” of Muslims? Or Hindus? Or Buddhists? Or Bahai? Or Mormons? Or JWs? Or Arians? Or Unitarians? Or Sabellians? Or Pneumatomachians? Or Nestorians, Apollinarians, or Eutychians? Or Monophysites? Or Pantheists? Or just the plain old primitives? Are they all candidates for salvation because of their “faith”? They “believe” something that includes God, with or without a Son. Many “believe” in the Son improperly. Do they all receive salvation for “a” faith of some kind? At what point is the message and the thing believed NOT salvific versus salvific in any or all of the above? Or with other gradients of false doctine or complete ignorance and vague, illegitimate concepts? What’s the threshold or perimeter of salvific faith? Is the presence of some kind of belief in some incomplete or insufficient message the nebulous arbitrage point for redemption? Are there many ways? Many truths? Aren’t these comparable and disparate forms of your questions? Just exactly what can one believe and not believe and still ultimately be saved? Can one believe that those adamantly endorsing sexual immorality and perversion are believers? What about those who are advocates for abortion? Can someone have an entirely anti-Christian morality and ethicity in place in their lives and still be saved? Repentance is metanoia. It’s a noun. It’s not merely the verb that comes from it in action. Metanoia is the changed condition and state of being of the mind beind brought amidst God’s for moral reflection and agreement with His standards for inward character and outward conduct. That’s the lexical definition, which many reject for trivial phrases like “making a 180º turn-around and going the other way”, etc. (That’s the verb, BTW. It’s repentING, not repentANCE. The latter is the “thing” granted by God. No one can repent without having been given repentANCE from God. The noun has the verb within it.) If someone hears the message and frustrates grace to hold onto their false doctrines, it’s a demonstration of impenitence. To what degree is that a salvation issue. Well… since we’re both already saved and not yet saved (no one has received the end of their faith, which is the saving of their souls), I’d suggest it’s really important to have a heart for truth rather than one’s own internal production of ideology and philosophy in lieu of actual theological truth. The JWs aren’t going to be avoiding the lake of fire. Why? Because of their wrong belief from a wrong source, and their stubbornness and rebellion to hear anything beyond what they think they know. They don’t have to murder, rape, steal, and other heinous acts. They’ll be facing judgment without hope because of what they both have and haven’t believed. It’s the quality of faith and its object that matters, not just that some kind or degree of faith is present. Everyone believes lots of things. Few (none?)are devoid of belief. It’s the object OF belief that matters. It’s the message that is crucial. Mercy rejoices against judgment, so ultimately all of this is above my pay grade. But it does matter what one believes and if one is authentically penitent or not. The invalid external can be manufactured to mimic the valid internal. Works and the outward appearance won’t necessarily tell the story here. When someone resists Christological truth or other primary things, it’s cause for concern not reason to gloss it all over for “fellowship”. I won’t pretend that the Christian faith does anything but anathematize non-Messianic Jews or cultists, etc. Anathema is anathema. The problem today is no central spiritual authority to determine such things. It’s everyone’s individual subjective opinions against all others. Lexicography and grammar of the original languages are the Philological foundations for knowing and proclaiming the truth, even if you perceive I’ve done it in an undesirable manner. It doesn’t change that sin is a privation and that Cappadocian and Chalcedonian core doctrines aren’t just a guideline for today’s Modernists to submit approval for and pass judgment upon. If someone isn’t Trinitarian, it’s not a small matter. If someone doesn’t understand it, that’s different than reformulating it and becoming the source for alleged acceptable terminology. The truth stands if no one believes it. Philology’s demise as the primary discipline for knowing truth is an unfortunate casualty of the rise of Empiricism and dozens of others -isms. The real question ought to be “How can God still save anyone when everyone’s epistemological foundations are so corrupted in every way and they can’t/don’t/won’t admit it because they refuse to give up their own godhood status from indoctrination far preceeding any religious kind from doctrinal divergence?” For a professing Believer, it’s far more important to rid oneself of wrong thought and belief than it is to gain knowledge (gnosis) of theology. Building on an old foundation (including hows and whys, not merely whats) means Christ is not the only foundation. Correct belief is far more crucial than just believing whatever. How can that not be true? It can’t be an Ecumenistic free-for-all. Oprah’s god doesn’t save. Vishnu, alone or in company, doesn’t save. Neither does the “Father” God of a created son. Tell me when absolute objective truth doesn’t matter?
10
« on: January 04, 2022, 02:02:40 PM »
Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.
No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.
The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.
There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.
Do you think Vigilius Haufniensis had a comfortable conspicullum from which he watched over the inhabitants of Copenhagen? I wonder.
It seems to me that IMINXTC is saying the following:
- Children are not guilty of sin until they have sinned
- Sin is not hereditary, unlike the fallen world (maybe our good friend Vigiulius would like to talk about qualitative leaps?)
- A God who holds babies to account for the sin they have not committed is unjust
Clearly, IMINXTC is not Augustinian in his view of original sin. Neither am I. But, is IMINXTC corrupting Christian doctrine so that he can 'virtue signal'? Really?. It almost doesn't deserve a response. He clearly is not (on either count), and the suggestion is uncalled for. It's not conducive to conversation. It is hardly academic. Do you get the sense that I'm implying something along the lines of jackassery?
If you want to stick around you're going to have to be nice, and deal with the fact that not everyone here devoutly studies Patristics. They haven't dedicated their lives to expressing what poor Maximus didn't quite get to saying before he decided that talking was like, so passé. There is going to be plenty of disagreement, and we're happy to entertain those who wish to discuss. Those who wish to teach, and then get all Mark Driscoll about it, aren't welcome.
We're happy to have you if you're happy to have us, but you'll have to be nice and cut the attitude. Any more comments like the above and you'll be invited to enlighten the needy elsewhere. In fact, I have a JW forum or two I could direct you towards if you really want to battle corruption.
I had a few straggling responses to return. I’ll idle myself now. Have a Happy 2020-TOO. (A little clot shot joke.)
11
« on: January 04, 2022, 01:55:04 PM »
Arians, Unitarians, and anti-Messianic Jews cannot agree how great God is because Jesus Christ is homoousios divinity, as is the Holy Spirit. Agreeing how Great the Father alone is doesn’t cut it for redemption and atonement as salvation. I disagree,
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Mic.6:8
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Lk.1:5-6
In fact, most of these would need to at least tremble to come up to the level of demons who both believe and tremble. It’s not salvific for them, but believing and trembling demons are far superior to those named above who deny the Son (and/or the Holy Spirit). Just a few things. Believers in the one true God share a holy reverence of him. Also, "believing" demons are in no way superior to humans. And finally, people who "deny the Son" are people who don't do what Jesus told them to do.
Those 2 examples are from the Old Covenant(s). Contrary to popular misunderstanding, the Mosaic Law COULD be kept. There was provision within the Law for not keeping the Law and making sacrifice to atone. That was still keeping the Law even while failing to observe it. The Gospel is about us being translated into Christ and having put on Christ because of His finished work on the cross and His resurrection. Works of the Law and works of the flesh aren’t going to save anyone, then or now. Since that which is not of faith is sin, merely engaging in action without it coming from the proper source is irrelevant and futile. Faith and the works therefrom are all that matter. If the source is not faith, the works are dead. Faith requires a specific object. That thing believed is faith (the noun). Faith is not believING. Faith is also not actING. Doing is no litmus test for the source OF the doing. Most are doing many things, and it’s mostly of sin and not of faith. Even the allegedly “good” things.
12
« on: January 04, 2022, 12:52:29 PM »
Perhaps off topic, but just a result of my reflections and contemplation this morning.
Although blessed(?) with some degree of intellectual acumen, at times like this discussion -- and perhaps even more so as I have contemplated the last year in retrospect and the coming (current) year in prospect, I find myself weeping at my own self-aggrandizement and self-importance.
I am reminded that I come to the Father only because The Man on the middle cross; He said I could come.
As only Alistair Begg could communicate it...
Yes, it often seems like I’m arrogant because I speak so plainly and directly, so I get your implications. The real problem in this regard is that our culture has produced hearts and minds that depend upon their false concepts for identity, value, and worth; so everything that comes against their ideology is taken extremely personally. I’m not important at all except the finite local reach of that to which I’m called. But I do have a hard time switching out of teaching mode into discussion mode, especially if the discussion includes a lot of non-orthodox topics. Ecumenism is an epidemic. There’s far more pride in that than I suffer from being too zealous at times
13
« on: January 04, 2022, 12:39:47 PM »
Arians, Unitarians, and anti-Messianic Jews cannot agree how great God is because Jesus Christ is homoousios divinity, as is the Holy Spirit. Agreeing how Great the Father alone is doesn’t cut it for redemption and atonement as salvation.
In fact, most of these would need to at least tremble to come up to the level of demons who both believe and tremble. It’s not salvific for them, but believing and trembling demons are far superior to those named above who deny the Son (and/or the Holy Spirit).
Is a demon who acknowledges the reality of God, but doesn't live a life of faith, superior to the human who worships God out of faith, according to his or her understanding, even if incomplete, and lives a life of that faith accordingly? I'm not so sure about that.
Faith cometh by hearing (the noun) and hearing by the Rhema of God. If it’s another rhema and another message, then it isn’t THE faith (once delivered to the saints). Wrong belief is another faith from another gospel, and there is not another. There may be a few more people enduring everlasting hellfire than most are willing to concede. The problem isn’t a lack of faith, it’s faith in the wrong rhema. That which is not of faith is sin. Most people bring forth most of their action from the source of sin, not faith. It’s an epidemic within the church.
14
« on: January 04, 2022, 12:32:59 PM »
See you on the corner of Gloryland Way and River of Life Blvd, bro.
Just don't get LeftBehindTM
Feel free to reach out anytime. Enjoyed the reparte.
Shalom.
I promise not to get left behind in judgment with the dizzy Dispies. I’ll Fly Away to Just Over in the Gloryland and In the Sweet By and By. I guess I don’t have to delete my account, so I can still drop in occasionally if I’m not perceived as a douchebag at those times. I suppose I’m grumpier in my old age. Or maybe I see the “tolerance” of the Left and don’t want to be too Ecumenistic (which probably makes me incompatible with forums).
15
« on: January 04, 2022, 12:20:35 PM »
Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.
No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.
The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.
There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.
Do you think Vigilius Haufniensis had a comfortable conspicullum from which he watched over the inhabitants of Copenhagen? I wonder.
It seems to me that IMINXTC is saying the following:
- Children are not guilty of sin until they have sinned
- Sin is not hereditary, unlike the fallen world (maybe our good friend Vigiulius would like to talk about qualitative leaps?)
- A God who holds babies to account for the sin they have not committed is unjust
Clearly, IMINXTC is not Augustinian in his view of original sin. Neither am I. But, is IMINXTC corrupting Christian doctrine so that he can 'virtue signal'? Really?. It almost doesn't deserve a response. He clearly is not (on either count), and the suggestion is uncalled for. It's not conducive to conversation. It is hardly academic. Do you get the sense that I'm implying something along the lines of jackassery?
If you want to stick around you're going to have to be nice, and deal with the fact that not everyone here devoutly studies Patristics. They haven't dedicated their lives to expressing what poor Maximus didn't quite get to saying before he decided that talking was like, so passé. There is going to be plenty of disagreement, and we're happy to entertain those who wish to discuss. Those who wish to teach, and then get all Mark Driscoll about it, aren't welcome.
We're happy to have you if you're happy to have us, but you'll have to be nice and cut the attitude. Any more comments like the above and you'll be invited to enlighten the needy elsewhere. In fact, I have a JW forum or two I could direct you towards if you really want to battle corruption.
When sarcasm is mixed with differences in doctrine, it most often comes out too harshly in a written format. I don’t always handle that balance well. I think I agree with you. This is not really the place for me. I have plenty to labor over in my own responsibilities elsewhere. I just thought I’d jump back into a bit of forum interaction for a season to see how it would go. I don’t think it’s going to go much of anywhere for me or with others. I’ll have to say I’m a little surprised this came so soon and over this particular expression, but it is what it is. You guys enjoy your time here. I need to be some place more orthodox.
|
New member Young pastor
by Jollyrogers
Yesterday at 11:15:32 AM
|
Which Scriptures, books or Bible Study Would I need to Know God's Will?
by RabbiKnife
Yesterday at 08:30:23 AM
|
Hello!
by Sojourner
November 22, 2024, 10:20:06 PM
|
Your most treasured books
by RabbiKnife
November 22, 2024, 02:08:36 PM
|
New here today..
by Via
November 22, 2024, 12:20:37 PM
|
Watcha doing?
by Cloudwalker
November 22, 2024, 11:19:29 AM
|
US Presidental Election
by Fenris
November 21, 2024, 01:39:40 PM
|
When was the last time you were surprised?
by Oscar_Kipling
November 13, 2024, 02:37:11 PM
|
I Knew Him-Simeon
by Cloudwalker
November 13, 2024, 10:56:53 AM
|
I Knew Him-The Wiseman
by Cloudwalker
November 07, 2024, 01:08:38 PM
|
The Beast Revelation
by tango
November 06, 2024, 09:31:27 AM
|
By the numbers
by RabbiKnife
November 03, 2024, 03:52:38 PM
|
Hello
by RabbiKnife
October 31, 2024, 06:10:56 PM
|
Israel, Hamas, etc
by Athanasius
October 22, 2024, 03:08:14 AM
|
I Knew Him-The Shepherd
by Cloudwalker
October 16, 2024, 02:28:00 PM
|
Prayer for my wife
by ProDeo
October 15, 2024, 02:57:10 PM
|
Antisemitism
by Fenris
October 15, 2024, 02:44:25 PM
|
Church Abuse/ Rebuke
by tango
October 10, 2024, 10:49:09 AM
|
I Knew Him-The Innkeeper
by Cloudwalker
October 07, 2024, 11:24:36 AM
|
Has anyone heard from Parson lately?
by Athanasius
October 01, 2024, 04:26:50 AM
|
|
|
Show Posts
