You are quite the philosopher. Of course, you've done some personal research in order to come to your findings, correct? I mean, you said: "Most churches?" You must have spent many years observing all of these churches in order to draw your amazing conclusions?
The Wages of Sin is DEATH
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
You are quite the philosopher. Of course, you've done some personal research in order to come to your findings, correct? I mean, you said: "Most churches?" You must have spent many years observing all of these churches in order to draw your amazing conclusions?
Oops!
Delete
I'm still rooting for ya Meshak. Someday, in the distant future, you're gonna say something that makes a modicum of sense?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yes, or more precisely, the thing believed comes by motion out of the thing heard. This means faith is not a stand-alone something, as most conceptualize.
Right.
Exactly. If it is inadequately or insufficiently delivered, then it is not the Rhema; therefore if it is not the thing thought and spoken about and forth by God, it is another thing heard and believed. That's why there are so many gradients and tangents of belief.
God is a hypostasis. Faith is the hypostasis of things hoped for...
Faith is the flowing of God speaking forth the underlying reality of existence (hypostasis - that which foundationally and objectively underlies reality for existence). It's about the new creation of us having our existence in Christ by faith... born from above.
There are many subtelties as "a" gospel, but that isn't possible. There is no indefinite article in Greek, while English is utterly driven BY the indefinite article. There can't be other gospels, numerically; so there can only be qualitative gospels, but Galatians says they're NOT another. There is only one Gospel, and we are to all speak the same thing. English structural miscomprehension is one huge impediment for that unless/until hearts and minds are conformed to something besides the patterning effects of their English first language.
We have access BY faith INTO the grace wherein we stand. Repentance is granted. That's why the Monergism of the Reformed tradition is more functionally applicable for modern western minds; while Synergism was more functionally applicable for more ancient and eastern minds.
It requires understanding the interface of God's timelessness with the chronological form of time in the fallen earth ages of the cosmos. For God, there is NO time. Time is created, as is space and matter. God is both "no-when" and "every-when", just as He is "no-where" and "every-where". There is no linearity or sequentiality or duration or elapsation for God in any manner related to time. Most views depend on varying fallacies of superimposing time upon God to understand what is theologically referred to as "Ordo Salutis" (order of salvation).
The "here" and "now" for all peoples of all earth ages since creation ALL have a sense of contemporaneous "nowness" to God. This takes some time and effort in the spirit to understand and be conformed to as the renewing of the mind. It can (and should) be discipled and taught; and it is epistemological and ontological, with methodologies emerging as the "doing" from "being"... in Christ.
This is not happening in the modern Church-at-large.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
The overwhelming majority are dealing with sin/s (whether regarding salvation or ongoing Christian life) as the verb/action (sinning) and the resulting act/noun (sin/sis).
Sin is a noun, and it is a something-lessness. Hamartia is from a- and -meros. Meros is "no share/part, and a- is "no/not" as a negation. Hamartia, the noun, is "the missing share or part. It's a noun in the sense of a hole or pit. It's a void of something, not a something.
Everyone has the perception that sin is a verb and is a something as an action. The English mind has a difficult time processing by any other construct because of its structure and effects on epistemological functionality.
Thus the focus is always on actions/acts. The doing and the done. That's not the void or "hole" that is the somethinglessness of sin, the noun. Sin is the source of all actions, and it's a void that is in our nature and our members. And this is why Anthropology Proper is so important; to understand the substance, essence, nature, and outward appearance of man relative to spirit, soul, and body, etc.
Everyone believes something/s and thinks something/s and wills something/s and desires something/s. What matter is whether the source of all being and doing is Christ or one's self. And the heart is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things; so it has to come by the Spirit from without or within.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
This is by far your best and most cogent post ever, Gross One.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
You don't need college, just an understanding of how the Greek language translates into English so as not to employ fallacies for false doctrine.
I think we can all understand sin as a noun and not a verb or individual action, but sin as a whole.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I guarantee you don't, especially the anarthrous noun.
As long as you understand it the world is safe, I guarantee it.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Outline it very explicitly Pajama-man. Tell us what the singular and plural, articular and anarthrous noun sin is and means; and disintinguish it from the verb and the resulting act/s as noun/s.
G'head, two-faced fence-straddling flatterer of feigned love.
Aletheiophile
New member
Goodness. Being biblically-literate doesn't require secular schooling.
So you would say that sin is the state of being and acting from one's self instead of Christ?
How would you handle a verse like this that seems to treat sin as a verb?
1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
Sin is sin, singular. Individual sins are actions and can be verbs. If one is in the act of sinning the action of the sin or crime is a verb. what's it like being a dummy ?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
You're just an old lunatic. Don't the horses need some whispering or something?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yes, essentially the summary.
Both of those ARE the verb form (hamartano). The verb is the bringing forth into action of the condition or state of being within oneself, which is the (articular) noun. The anarthrous noun is another issue altogether, and vital.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Wow. You defined the word with the word itself. This would be like defining horse as horse.
No. That would be hamartema (whether singular or plural), not hamartia; and then hamnartano (the verb). You have no clue whatsoever.
Nope, not even close. Wow, that was SOOOOOOO explicit. You have no clue. And you said nothing of the articular versus anarthrous, which is the real issue (along with the distinction between noun and verb, etc.).
What. An. Idiot. You'd be better off still pretending to know without proving you don't outright by your own posts.
:rotfl: