Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is believing/faith a work ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
    I think he's been doing some studying since we saw him last.

    Hopefully, we all have.

    2 Timothy 2:15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
    What's been different these past few years for me is not any change in my studying, but in my prayer life. I pray a lot more now.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
      Which ones are you thinking of? The one in AD 1054 is obviously one, and the Reformation another, which is your potential third? 'Just comparing notes is all.
      1) During the period both leading into Nicea and between Nicea and Constantinople with the Cappadocian clarifications.
      2) The Great Schism of 1024
      3) The Reformation

      These three stand as the primary schisms, reconciled (the first) or not (the second and third).

      For me the argument is around Apostolicity.
      And there is NO way there is Apostolicity attached to the Filioque debate. What emerged was the whims of first one Roman Bishop, and then an intermittent succession of Bishops. It had never been an issue until Rome made it an issue of conflict. There had been no Filioque until Rome belatedly added it.

      I have no way of confirming or denying that an alleged Apostolic oral teaching is authentically Apostolic or not (if it's not also in the Scripture), so I have to refer to a source outside of myself.
      And a simple overview of history indicates it’s quite impossible. I’ve read EVERY Patristic writing extant available in English to the general public. The Filioque was a late innovation.

      The Protestant way is to try to mimick the Bereans, mentioned in Acts, and only receive as Apostolic that which was (I'd argue, "somewhat arbitrarily") recorded in the New Testament, but this all by itself was never the way the Church authenticated teachings, in part due to reading Peter's own epistle warning against the wanton private interpretation of Scripture, but mainly because Christians were taught to submit to their bishops in all matters of faith and morals, and this practice is confirmed throughout the early and middle history of the Church.
      Yeah, and then Rome went rogue and demanded the Filioque be included and imposed it upon the East and all others over an oddly vascillating period of time. There is no characteristic of the Filioque addition being Apostolic.

      In fact the practice was so clear, that certain clusters of Christians and their false teachings were trivially dispatched as inauthentic and non-Apostolic, through just noting that they didn't have any bishop pastoring them. They were just sheep outside the fold. At least if there was a bishop involved, it's worth considering that he was teaching authentically Apostolic things, such as the Arian dispute, when the Arian bishops' Apostolic oral tradition was authoritatively ruled incomplete by the magisterium at Nicaea.

      As I've repeated numerous times, we non-bishops are left trying our best to sort out fact from fiction,
      No. History and the Patristics are far from silent, and none of that is fiction.

      while we all wait for the bishops to get their collective act together and reunite, as it was in the beginning. Until then we come to our own conclusions, but I commit right now to submit to them when they do reunite, whether it's to retroactively inauthenticate /falsify 'filioque' as Apostolic, or to confirm its Apostolicity.
      And I do not. Ecumenism is not unity, and that’s all Rome is capable of at this point. It’s what is pervading the current landscape. The Pope has more unity with Islam than with the East, and it’s deteriorating.

      And the issue is that I CAN affirm from years of exegetical and lexical perusal in fasting and prayer according to Patristic example and doctrine that I can confirm the authenticity of the Eastern teaching over the innovations of Rome in this regard, and it’s unequivocal.

      So I too defer to Apostolicity, but to the Apostolic claims and traditions that actually agree with scripture rather than usurping it. So it’s not my doctrinal predispositions that determine my affiliation (as you insisted earlier), but that my doctrinal predispositions are determined by Holy Tradition as is ALSO explicated in the divinely inspired text.

      And the Vatican is one of three city-state entities from which the onslaught of the elitist global agenda is issuing forth. The Vatican is wholly complicit in ALL the history of the secret societies and all else that is building toward One-World everything with Ecumenistic Religion as the third leg of the Communitarian stool.

      The corrupt fractional reserve world banking systems are related to the corruption of Rome, so Apostolicity isn’t even present in the Ecclesiological ranks of the Romanized Church.

      I have 20+ years of irrefutable volumes of research that indicate the Vatican is the seat of nothing but Antichrist with a mask provided by institutionalized corruption with a fascade. So you’re not going to get any traction with me by insisting Rome is anything else, much less Apostolic.

      I've set out why I think that it's Apostolic, because of the Apostolic heritage in and around Rome. I don't have any trouble believing that if two distinct Apostolic oral traditions ever differ, that Rome's tradition should be favored, and is the more complete and authentic one. Others can and do differ, but this is all because the bishops can't get their act together imo. It's above my paygrade!
      If it’s above your paygrade, then it might be better to remain competely silent and resign it all to those whose paygrade it is.

      I cannot and will not agree or concede. I know far too much of the bowels of Papal and Roman corruption. The East remains the last standing bastion of authentic orthodoxy and catholicism. And I am able to connect the Lutheran Confessions to the East and reconcile all the apparent diversions presumed between them. This is why I can either recite the Creed with or without the Filioque, because I know the exegetical and lexical foundations for why there was a distinction.

      There IS an aspect of all of this that is NOT beyond ANY Believer’s alleged “paygrade”. Not the decisions for the Body, but about which “side” to yield to as authority. I can’t and won’t yield to Rome and her antichrist corruptions. The Vatican is anathema.

      And my real question/s for you (the elephant in the room, so to speak) is why are you not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church and partaking of the Sacraments from within? Why are you not “officially” Catholic by their reckoning? Why do you not attend mass and go to a Father Confessor?

      This is what I meant by you not being Catholic. You do not eat the body and drink the blood of our Lord with Catholics. You do not attend Divine Liturgy.

      Why would this be so? It makes no sense.
      Last edited by PneumaPsucheSoma; March 13, 2019, 02:33 PM.
      Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
      “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
        Yes, of course it “can” be; but most often is not.
        The verbal noun, 'believing', is always a verbal noun. There's never a time when the verbal noun, 'believing', is not a verbal noun.

        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
        And it would be designated in grammatical notations if it were. But even being a verbal noun, doesn’t mean it’s not a noun.
        Indeed, a verbal noun's being a verbal noun means that it is a noun.

        I was responding to what you wrote:

        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
        Believe and believing are verbs.
        I was pointing out that there is, in fact, alongside the verb, 'believing', also the noun--a verbal noun--'believing'.

        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
        It means the noun is the thing doing the action, which is exactly what I’ve stated.
        A noun is a word. The word--the verbal noun--'believing', is the name of an action. The word--the verbal noun, 'believing'--does not believe; it is not a believer. No verbal noun--no word--is doing the action of believing; rather, the verbal noun, 'believing', is the name of the action of believing. That's what nouns are: names of things. Not only that, but, that of which the verbal noun, 'believing', is a name--namely, so-and-so's believing--is not the thing doing the action of believing. So-and-so is the thing--the person, to be precise--doing the believing.

        The action named 'believing' is not a believer; only persons are believers--only persons are ones believing. The believer is not the action of believing, and the action of believing is not the believer.

        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
        The issue is whether man is doing a work when there’s a noun OR a verbal noun. Neither is a work.
        Indeed, no noun--and thus, no verbal noun--is a work. A noun may be a name of a work, but it is not, itself, the work of which it is a name.

        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
        It’s either the thing or the thing’s internal activity as a noun (THAT’s the anarthrous construct in Greek THAT HAS NO ENGLISH EQUIVALENT).
        To which Greek word are you referring?

        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
        So the tendency is for English speakers to convert Greek nouns into English verbs
        Which Greek nouns are you saying English speakers "convert" into English verbs?

        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
        , and then use the excuse that they occasionally appear as verbal nouns.
        How can a verbal noun ever fail to appear as what it is--a verbal noun?

        What are you saying people are trying to "excuse"?

        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
        A verbal noun is the noun doing the action
        The verbal noun--the noun--'believing', is not doing the action of believing. Nouns aren't believers; only persons are believers.

        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
        because the interal activity of the noun’s state of being comes forth externally. This is not and cannot be a work. This is merely the noun’s functional activity like a table holding up dishes and food/beverage items because it’s a table. The table is NOT “tabling”.
        The noun 'table' is not a table. No noun holds up dishes and food/beverage items.

        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
        (And your example in Greek
        To what are you referring? I do not recall mentioning Greek.

        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
        would be representative of an infinitive or a participle, which are in their own grammatical category. So even your example is not really applicable.)
        Just as no noun believes, also, no infinitive believes, and no participle believes. For, it is persons, alone, who believe.
        What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
          Faith is a noun.
          False. Rather, the word 'faith' is a noun.
          Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
          Belief is the same noun.
          False. Rather, the word 'belief' is a noun. The nouns 'belief' and 'faith' are two, different names for one and the same thing: believing.
          Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
          Nouns aren’t verbs.
          True.
          Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
          And nouns do the action
          The only "action" (if you want to call it an "action") a noun does is the "action" of standing as a name for some person, place, or thing. It's a substantive.
          Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
          , so faith believes.
          False. Only persons believe. To believe is to be a believer. Faith is not a believer. Belief is not a believer.
          Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
          Man doesn’t believe apart from faith believING.
          False. Faith is believing/belief. Only persons believe.

          Which are you saying:

          1. Man does not believe; ONLY faith believes,

          OR

          2. Man believes, AND, faith believes?
          What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
            The verbal noun, 'believing', is always a verbal noun. There's never a time when the verbal noun, 'believing', is not a verbal noun.

            Indeed, a verbal noun's being a verbal noun means that it is a noun.

            I was responding to what you wrote:

            I was pointing out that there is, in fact, alongside the verb, 'believing', also the noun--a verbal noun--'believing'.

            A noun is a word. The word--the verbal noun--'believing', is the name of an action. The word--the verbal noun, 'believing'--does not believe; it is not a believer. No verbal noun--no word--is doing the action of believing; rather, the verbal noun, 'believing', is the name of the action of believing. That's what nouns are: names of things. Not only that, but, that of which the verbal noun, 'believing', is a name--namely, so-and-so's believing--is not the thing doing the action of believing. So-and-so is the thing--the person, to be precise--doing the believing.

            The action named 'believing' is not a believer; only persons are believers--only persons are ones believing. The believer is not the action of believing, and the action of believing is not the believer.

            Indeed, no noun--and thus, no verbal noun--is a work. A noun may be a name of a work, but it is not, itself, the work of which it is a name.

            To which Greek word are you referring?

            Which Greek nouns are you saying English speakers "convert" into English verbs?

            How can a verbal noun ever fail to appear as what it is--a verbal noun?

            What are you saying people are trying to "excuse"?

            The verbal noun--the noun--'believing', is not doing the action of believing. Nouns aren't believers; only persons are believers.

            The noun 'table' is not a table. No noun holds up dishes and food/beverage items.

            To what are you referring? I do not recall mentioning Greek.

            Just as no noun believes, also, no infinitive believes, and no participle believes. For, it is persons, alone, who believe.
            All of this is just a fallacious misunderstanding of Semiotics (the study of sign and signified, etc.). Persons are nouns. By saying this, it doesn’t mean the map (the word) is the territory (the object).

            There is not argument here. Only fallacy.
            Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
            “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
              False. Rather, the word 'faith' is a noun.

              False. Rather, the word 'belief' is a noun. The nouns 'belief' and 'faith' are two, different names for one and the same thing: believing.

              True.

              The only "action" (if you want to call it an "action") a noun does is the "action" of standing as a name for some person, place, or thing. It's a substantive.

              False. Only persons believe. To believe is to be a believer. Faith is not a believer. Belief is not a believer.

              False. Faith is believing/belief. Only persons believe.

              Which are you saying:

              1. Man does not believe; ONLY faith believes,

              OR

              2. Man believes, AND, faith believes?
              More Semiotics fallacy.
              Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
              “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                All of this is just a fallacious misunderstanding of Semiotics (the study of sign and signified, etc.). Persons are nouns. By saying this, it doesn’t mean the map (the word) is the territory (the object).

                There is not argument here. Only fallacy.
                Persons are nouns?? No. Sorry. Persons are not nouns. The noun 'persons' is a noun, but persons, themselves, are not nouns. Saying that "Persons are nouns" is as idiotic as saying that "Persons are verbs", "Nouns are verbs", "Persons are non-persons", and that "Faith is a work".
                What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                  More Semiotics fallacy.
                  Right there, you just committed the fallacy of pretending to be satisfied that you have answered my post despite your having failed to answer my post.
                  What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                    All of this is just a fallacious misunderstanding of Semiotics (the study of sign and signified, etc.). Persons are nouns. By saying this, it doesn’t mean the map (the word) is the territory (the object).

                    There is not argument here. Only fallacy.
                    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                    Persons are nouns?? No. Sorry. Persons are not nouns. The noun 'persons' is a noun, but persons, themselves, are not nouns. Saying that "Persons are nouns" is as idiotic as saying that "Persons are verbs", "Nouns are verbs", "Persons are non-persons", and that "Faith is a work".


                    I've often wondered what would happen when you two wordsmiths came into contact.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
                      I've often wondered what would happen when you two wordsmiths came into contact.
                      The problem is one of Semiotics, the study and application of sign versus signified in language considerations.

                      The map is not the territory. The word is not the object. The word STANDS FOR the object in language. Language is the map for the territory.

                      So I’m ALWAYS referring to the thing/s the words stand for, not the words themselves. A table is indeed a noun, for the word stands for the object.

                      His is a conflation of the two considerations, and thus a false assessment.

                      At least he’s saying faith is not a work, which is the topic of this thread. So there’s no need for he and I to continue an exchange, especially based on Semiotic conflation.
                      Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                      “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                      Comment


                      • I'm going to break apart your post for easier digestion:
                        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                        And my real question/s for you (the elephant in the room, so to speak) is why are you not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church and partaking of the Sacraments from within?
                        It's complicated. One complication is that I currently pastor a small independent Protestant congregation.
                        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                        Why are you not “officially” Catholic by their reckoning?
                        One must celebrate the sacraments of initiation, baptism (conditional /provisional if unable to document a prior valid baptism), confirmation, and first communion. I haven't done that.
                        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                        Why do you not attend mass and go to a Father Confessor?
                        idk what a 'Father Confessor' is, and I do go to Mass regularly.
                        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                        This is what I meant by you not being Catholic.
                        I'm not Catholic; I never claimed to be. I am theologically Catholic. Just as you are theologically Protestant. Where the 'protest' is against the Church's authentic pastorate, the Bishop.

                        And as I mentioned, there are right now many Christians who await 2019's Easter Vigil, when they will convert bodily to what they already are theologically; Catholic. So it's not as if I'm in some weird and unheard of state right now.
                        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                        You do not eat the body and drink the blood of our Lord with Catholics.
                        That's correct, because I cannot do it licitly. Catholicism teaches that in 1st Corinthians 11:27 KJV, "unworthily" means 'not in full communion with the Church.' I am Catholic "on the way to full communion" (along with all other non-Catholics, according to Catholicism), but I am not there yet.
                        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                        You do not attend Divine Liturgy.
                        If you mean by that Mass, then yes I do, regularly.
                        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                        Why would this be so?
                        Another complication is that I do not want to convert alone, but want my whole family to join me together in converting.
                        Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                        It makes no sense.
                        There's no problem in what I'm doing, according to Catholicism. You may have a problem with it, but that's OK.
                        "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                        @Nee_Nihilo

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                          I'm going to break apart your post for easier digestion:
                          It's complicated. One complication is that I currently pastor a small independent Protestant congregation.
                          One must celebrate the sacraments of initiation, baptism (conditional /provisional if unable to document a prior valid baptism), confirmation, and first communion. I haven't done that.
                          idk what a 'Father Confessor' is, and I do go to Mass regularly.
                          I'm not Catholic; I never claimed to be. I am theologically Catholic. Just as you are theologically Protestant. Where the 'protest' is against the Church's authentic pastorate, the Bishop.

                          And as I mentioned, there are right now many Christians who await 2019's Easter Vigil, when they will convert bodily to what they already are theologically; Catholic. So it's not as if I'm in some weird and unheard of state right now.
                          That's correct, because I cannot do it licitly. Catholicism teaches that in 1st Corinthians 11:27 KJV, "unworthily" means 'not in full communion with the Church.' I am Catholic "on the way to full communion" (along with all other non-Catholics, according to Catholicism), but I am not there yet.
                          If you mean by that Mass, then yes I do, regularly.
                          Another complication is that I do not want to convert alone, but want my whole family to join me together in converting.
                          There's no problem in what I'm doing, according to Catholicism. You may have a problem with it, but that's OK.
                          Thanks for a clear explanation. It helps to know where you’re coming from situationally in all of this.
                          Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                          “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                            The problem is one of Semiotics, the study and application of sign versus signified in language considerations.
                            Yeah, we get that you are fond of, and know how to spell the word, 'semiotics'. But, many children, who may never have even encountered the word 'semiotics', would at least have the rational, good sense to not claim such silly things as you claim, such as your falsehoods that "Persons are nouns" and "A table is indeed a noun". Your problem is obviously not an inability to type the word 'semiotics'; I grant that you do it well, as, apparently, you've gained that skill by much mechanical, parrot-like repetition. Rather, your problem is an inability, or an unwillingness, to think logically. I recommend scrapping whatever "study and application" you imagine you are doing under the banner of your (proper??) noun, "Semiotics", and trying, instead, to learn how to think logically.

                            Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                            The map is not the territory. The word is not the object.
                            Which word is "not the object"? And, of what is it "not the object"?

                            Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                            Persons are nouns. By saying this, it doesn’t mean the map (the word) is the territory (the object).
                            It is astonishing that you are able, in all seriousness, to claim that "Persons are nouns." I'll humor you, though: You're a person, aren't you? If so, then which noun would you say you are? Would you say that you--a person--are the noun, 'person'?

                            Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                            The word STANDS FOR the object in language.
                            And yet, you turn around and claim that a person [an object] IS the noun that STANDS FOR it. Totally asinine to claim that.

                            Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                            Language is the map for the territory.
                            Yet, since you claim that "Persons are nouns" and "A table is indeed a noun", why not be consistent with yourself, and say that "The territory is the map"? Obviously, that would be completely false, and an incredibly stupid thing to claim, just as "Persons are nouns" and "A table is indeed a noun" are completely false, and are incredibly stupid things to claim.

                            Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                            So I’m ALWAYS referring to the thing/s the words stand for, not the words themselves.
                            When you claim that "Persons are nouns", to WHICH persons are you referring by the noun 'persons', and to WHICH nouns are you referring by the noun 'nouns'?

                            Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                            A table is indeed a noun, for the word stands for the object.
                            To which table are you referring when you claim that "A table is indeed a noun"? Your kitchen table? My kitchen table? The periodic table of the elements? And, since you claim that "A table is indeed a noun"--whichever table it happens to be that you're referring to--what noun would you say that, particular table is?

                            Again, on the contrary, a table is, indeed, not a noun. A table is not the word--the noun--'table'. No table is a noun.

                            Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                            His is a conflation of the two considerations, and thus a false assessment.
                            What (if any) two things are you claiming I am "conflating"? What (if any) falsehood(s) are you accusing me of affirming? Or, was that just another one of your vacuous sayings?

                            You, however, conflate some, particular table with some, particular noun (though you have yet to specify which table and which noun). And, you conflate some, particular group of persons with some, particular group of nouns. See, I don't engage in such conflation as you engage in, because, well...that is an irrational thing to do. Even many children could tell the difference between a table (any table) and a noun (any noun). Many children, even, could likely tell the difference between a table and the noun, 'table'. Why is it, then, that you cannot tell the difference between these things?

                            Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                            At least he’s saying faith is not a work, which is the topic of this thread. So there’s no need for he and I to continue an exchange, especially based on Semiotic conflation.
                            You should stop wasting your time parroting the word 'semiotic' and, instead, try to learn basic logic. So far, of course, you've not answered a single objection I've raised against your pompous, asinine falsehoods, and that is because, as you and I both know, you cannot do so.
                            What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by beloved57 View Post
                              The answer is absolutely yes...

                              ...Now believing is either a work of the flesh [unregenerate] or of the Spirit [ regenerated]

                              But now Salvation is not by works, Neither by works of the flesh or works of the Spirit.
                              Originally posted by beloved57 View Post
                              His own Sovereign Will determined those things.
                              Dear Beloved,

                              Don't ever let your monergistic critics stop you from your posting; you do a wonderful job of exposing monergism for what it is. Many of your brotherly 'elect' will not dare to take it where it leads, because they know it will do to them what it has done to you, and they are ruled by fear rather than faith. They want the assurance of 'election'; however, they know that monergism, when complete, does not allow it.

                              The ideas you express show how that God is simply playing and enjoying a chess game with Himself, and the chessmen are all real, live, humans; sadly, you never know if you're a winner or a loser. Happily though, we're all doing the 'Will of God', which hopefully gives us all the same eternal bliss, albeit, it may be in hell.

                              One thing you have helped me to understand, is that He did not give me the ability to make choices independently, rather, I inadvertently live out His will for my life; hence, I am never able to love. Now that I realize that God doesn't really want my love, and that I'll be what He made me to be, I am content being what I am. Maybe that's the 'peace that passes understanding'.

                              Another thing I've learned from you by this thread is that nobody is saved by works, and nobody is damned by works; it all hinges on the sovereign 'Will of God'. It's interesting to me how that God fooled Adam and Eve into feeling shame, even though they weren't the ones who chose to eat from the tree; it was God himself who chose them to eat. It reminds me of people, monergists, who are fooled into feeling secure in their salvation, while claiming that there are others, who just weren't chosen.

                              Another idea I'm gleaning from your post has to do with prayer. I realize that praying is a work and really doesn't change anything; that which is to be will be, and prayer is ineffectual, irrelevant, and unnecessary for sanctification, repentance, salvation, and life in general.

                              I am fascinated that the Creator would create a "very good" creation, 'cause' the 'total depravity' of that creation, and then make atonement for part of it by cursing His own son, all for His own pleasure; it truly does reveal His character! It's enough to make one step back and fall down in trepidation and awe of Him.


                              Be encouraged and keep up the good fight!
                              BBK

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                                Yeah, we get that you are fond of, and know how to spell the word, 'semiotics'. But, many children, who may never have even encountered the word 'semiotics', would at least have the rational, good sense to not claim such silly things as you claim, such as your falsehoods that "Persons are nouns" and "A table is indeed a noun". Your problem is obviously not an inability to type the word 'semiotics'; I grant that you do it well, as, apparently, you've gained that skill by much mechanical, parrot-like repetition. Rather, your problem is an inability, or an unwillingness, to think logically. I recommend scrapping whatever "study and application" you imagine you are doing under the banner of your (proper??) noun, "Semiotics", and trying, instead, to learn how to think logically.



                                Which word is "not the object"? And, of what is it "not the object"?



                                It is astonishing that you are able, in all seriousness, to claim that "Persons are nouns." I'll humor you, though: You're a person, aren't you? If so, then which noun would you say you are? Would you say that you--a person--are the noun, 'person'?



                                And yet, you turn around and claim that a person [an object] IS the noun that STANDS FOR it. Totally asinine to claim that.



                                Yet, since you claim that "Persons are nouns" and "A table is indeed a noun", why not be consistent with yourself, and say that "The territory is the map"? Obviously, that would be completely false, and an incredibly stupid thing to claim, just as "Persons are nouns" and "A table is indeed a noun" are completely false, and are incredibly stupid things to claim.



                                When you claim that "Persons are nouns", to WHICH persons are you referring by the noun 'persons', and to WHICH nouns are you referring by the noun 'nouns'?



                                To which table are you referring when you claim that "A table is indeed a noun"? Your kitchen table? My kitchen table? The periodic table of the elements? And, since you claim that "A table is indeed a noun"--whichever table it happens to be that you're referring to--what noun would you say that, particular table is?

                                Again, on the contrary, a table is, indeed, not a noun. A table is not the word--the noun--'table'. No table is a noun.



                                What (if any) two things are you claiming I am "conflating"? What (if any) falsehood(s) are you accusing me of affirming? Or, was that just another one of your vacuous sayings?

                                You, however, conflate some, particular table with some, particular noun (though you have yet to specify which table and which noun). And, you conflate some, particular group of persons with some, particular group of nouns. See, I don't engage in such conflation as you engage in, because, well...that is an irrational thing to do. Even many children could tell the difference between a table (any table) and a noun (any noun). Many children, even, could likely tell the difference between a table and the noun, 'table'. Why is it, then, that you cannot tell the difference between these things?



                                You should stop wasting your time parroting the word 'semiotic' and, instead, try to learn basic logic. So far, of course, you've not answered a single objection I've raised against your pompous, asinine falsehoods, and that is because, as you and I both know, you cannot do so.
                                Okay, rather than continue to respond and this escalate, I’m just going to suggest that we are mostly talking past each other based upon how I have expressed a number of things that is different from what you would say and how.

                                I’ve seen from other posts that we are likely in agreement, regardless of the disparity of explications here on this topic. So I’m personally going to punch the trip meter and zero it all out between us on this matter. I speak from a specific perspective for a pedogogical reason, and that is at odds with how you receive it and how you personally express these things.

                                My tact was to derail a Hyper-Calvinist making false claims that faith itself is a work while disannuling his own Monergism. That there are works OF faith would seem to be sufficient to counter that argument alone.

                                The rest I’ll just let lie and endure your ire.
                                Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                                “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X